Some folks want to go from the current "able to fight on two fronts" to a sort of quick strike force.
we have always (50 years) had a quick strike force...it is the 82nd Airborne Division and XVIII Airborne Corps. that has changed a bit...Special Operations Command also has a quick strike role now.
the following comments are my humble opinion which i value very highly.
our forces are fighting on two fronts right now...in afghanistan we are attacking...in America we are defending. both fronts are consuming huge military resources. the terrorist attacks have forced us to use a large % of our military in a strictly defensive homeland defense role. that has not been such a troop intensive issue in the recent past.
couple the 35% cuts in our military strength over the past 8 years with the % of our reserve, national guard and active units specifically ordered to homeland defense positions and you will find we have less than 50% of what we did have. more importantly, we have less than 50% of the forces needed to accomplish our stated national military missions.
the original two front concept never included America as a front. the concept has become irrelevant. we cannot open a second overseas front right now if we had to. i suppose you could say the folks calling for a doctrinal change are geniuses...it seems absolutely necessary to be rewriting the book right now. we do not have the forces to accomplish our stated military goals. either we increase our military strength or lower our goals. i have a preference.
One problem with the current setup is we can't put tanks down with the quick forces, forcing us to rely on air power to keep them from being overwhelmed. Should we change the military?
tanks continue to have a necessary role as part of a modern combined arms team. the USAF and SF are good, but troops still have to go in. we are beginning to see that now and they will need tanks. in many other areas of the world, the armor threat remains credible and significant. the north koreans have 7 million active and reserve military and huge numbers of tanks.
until we decide to respond to larger military threats with nukes, we need tanks. remember, tanks were essential to our victory in kuwait.
the peace dividend was based on the demise of the USSR military. that was a figment of someone's imagination. the threat never went away. many have argued for years that due to reduced control of the weapons, the threat increased. the berlin wall may have been destroyed, but the soviet tanks, artillery, navy, air force and nukes were not.
some peace dividend proponents have argued that, the previously anticipated, massive armored battles through the fulda gap and across the northern european plains will never happen and they may be right. but the weapons remained and humans are bloody so our massive reduction in force was dumb.
many good writers have explained recently that the OBLs and saddams are attacking us because they perceive weakness. relatively speaking they are right. what they cannot measure is our resolve, determination and will to be free.
you are right. our weapons have improved. they are "smarter". i expect such improvements to continue. we also need smart leaders. America is being tested right now. wars are won by the strong not the weak. thank God we finally have leaders who understand that.
it is easy to focus on guns, tanks, soldiers, bombers and battles and body counts. but make no mistake about it...much of our strength is rooted in our system of moral values. it is essential that our military and civilian leaders keep that system intact. American soldiers will not follow an immoral leader to lunch much less to war. we must fight all attempts to lower our moral standards just as we fight those who attack us with weapons.
if we slide our moral scale down, America will fall off the face of the earth much like the roman empire.
unclewest |
