ARTICLE: Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts, By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, March 19, 2007; Page A01
The strategic dangers cited here are real, but also oversold. The Big Army, whenever we get involved abroad, routinely decries the loss of readiness for Big War, which everyone knows is now air-heavy and ground light--as in, we'll bomb the crap out of people.
Still, you have to expect ground forces to wage this battle, which is all about the bucks necessary to buck up their services at the logical expense of Air Force and Navy.
Of course, none of this happens or is required if we do Iraq's war AND postwar like we did the Balkans, so this is a completely self-inflicted strategic wound--provided by the Bush administration in their eschewing of allies and their inability to win new friends while rapidly--and carelessly--expanding our lists of enemies.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
In one press conference, Donald Rumsfeld was asked if all the ground forces committed to Iraq meant that the US could not fight another war somewhere else. Rumsfeld replied that the United States could fight 20 wars at the same time but that 19 of them would be nuclear wars.
If the wacko left wing of the Democratic Party gets its wish and forces us to pull out and lose this war in Iraq, expect that any responses to the emboldened Islamist attacks for the next generation are going to be extremely air heavy.
When we don't have intelligence good enough to match the precision of our weapons, we will use weapons large enough to encompass the vagueness of our information.
While measured ground based response will not be an option due to domestic political considerations, some response will be required, also due to domestic political considerations. Any political party that will not respond to attacks will be replaced by one that will.
Posted by Mark in Texas | March 21, 2007 9:47 PM
Ann Scott Tyson was banned from AO Raleigh (Fallujah) by RCT-8 in 2005 for writing a load of crap after her visit. I escorted her for much of her visit and I know for a fact she made stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't trust her.
Semper Fi
Posted by Shaun FitzPatrick | March 21, 2007 10:37 PM
How should/could the Bush administration get "allies" in the Iraq war when many of them were "in the tank" for Saddam Hussien (ie, Food for Oil scandal)? Their complicity both before and after the Iraq invasion (fear of being found out for the unpricipled scoundrels they are) led to the lack of support which the administration requested prior/during/after the invasion. Hanging this all on the "clumsy" Bush administration seems to be unfair.
Posted by Bruce Brink | March 22, 2007 8:10 AM
Somebody please explain the terror of the Iranians when they believe that the US is on the verge of invading?
Posted by Danny J Norman | March 26, 2007 11:26 PM