U.S. Military Mandate: Sustain 2 1/2 Wars at Once... huh?
Brock A. Shaver
December 25, 2006
Since the Second World War, U.S. military doctrine has dictated that the Pentagon maintain a capability to conduct two-and-a-half wars simultaneously.
The White House sent in approximately 150,000 troops into Iraq. Those numbers should have been higher, experts say. Now, with numbers down significantly, the Americans are having difficulty keeping even that number in play. Calls for a new infusion of troops is called for. Where they're coming from is another story.
What happened? With over two million personnel in uniform, the military is having a hard time conducting one war, let alone two-and-a-half.
Commentators point out that during the Vietnam War, the U.S. maintained its global Cold War commitment and conducted that war at the same time. And the whole budget was much cheaper than today's.
What went wrong? Is it too much infrastructure? A professional army with the pangs of homesickness of mature troops and National Guardsmen, instead of cycling through young draftees from the lower classes? What is sucking up all the resources? Is the technology cost effective, let alone effective?
When will this issue become a national one? The goal of a professional army was to remedy the morale problems of the conscripted army of Vietnam. What is happening to the morale of modern soldiers in Iraq? The Gulf War was an invisible war. Yet there were serious rumors of its effects on the troops in such a short campaign.
Though Iraq is becoming more public, the media is still very soft on the military. It centers on Bush and politics, careful not to repeat the scandalous treatment meted out to Vietnam veterans. The aura of effective professionalism still surrounds it, despite Abu Graib and the increasing bad behavior coming to light of a soldiery caught in a no-man's land, knowing the government has lost faith in the mission.
A serious review of American military capabilities is called for when the troops come home. Though it can conquer with the remote-control technology of a video game, it increasingly looks like U.S. firepower is best used for blitzkrieg, before it gets dumbed-down to the level of an I.E.D. It is having a hard time sustaining one war against the Molotov cocktail.
The White House sent in approximately 150,000 troops into Iraq. Those numbers should have been higher, experts say. Now, with numbers down significantly, the Americans are having difficulty keeping even that number in play. Calls for a new infusion of troops is called for. Where they're coming from is another story.
What happened? With over two million personnel in uniform, the military is having a hard time conducting one war, let alone two-and-a-half.
Commentators point out that during the Vietnam War, the U.S. maintained its global Cold War commitment and conducted that war at the same time. And the whole budget was much cheaper than today's.
What went wrong? Is it too much infrastructure? A professional army with the pangs of homesickness of mature troops and National Guardsmen, instead of cycling through young draftees from the lower classes? What is sucking up all the resources? Is the technology cost effective, let alone effective?
When will this issue become a national one? The goal of a professional army was to remedy the morale problems of the conscripted army of Vietnam. What is happening to the morale of modern soldiers in Iraq? The Gulf War was an invisible war. Yet there were serious rumors of its effects on the troops in such a short campaign.
Though Iraq is becoming more public, the media is still very soft on the military. It centers on Bush and politics, careful not to repeat the scandalous treatment meted out to Vietnam veterans. The aura of effective professionalism still surrounds it, despite Abu Graib and the increasing bad behavior coming to light of a soldiery caught in a no-man's land, knowing the government has lost faith in the mission.
A serious review of American military capabilities is called for when the troops come home. Though it can conquer with the remote-control technology of a video game, it increasingly looks like U.S. firepower is best used for blitzkrieg, before it gets dumbed-down to the level of an I.E.D. It is having a hard time sustaining one war against the Molotov cocktail.
Print
Email
