Could the US military handle another war? Iran? North Korea?

[krsna]

 

 

Media connect Myers' report about strain on US military with lag in recruitment.

 

By Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com

 

 

Media reports in the US and around the world have taken note of a new classified report from the top US military adviser, which indicates that the US military's current commitments overseas may prevent it from adequately fighting future conflicts.

 

BBC writes that Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "has warned that ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could limit the ability of the US to fight another war."

 

In a yearly risk assessment report required by Congress, Myers said any future armed conflicts "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage." Myers said the US would still prevail in any future conflict, but "may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision."

 

The timelines (to winning a new war) may have to be extended and we may have to use additional resources, but that doesn't matter because we're going to be successful in the end.

 

 

MSNBC called the assessment "sobering."

 

Some major US newspapers connected the report to lagging recruitment numbers as further evidence of strain on the military.

 

"Underscoring the stress facing the armed services," writes The Washington Post, "the Army reported separately [Monday] that its recruiting efforts are continuing to slip, as recruiters nationwide obtained less than 60 percent of the April goal of 6,600 new recruits into the active-duty force." The Post calls Myers' assessment "a rare open acknowledgment that the stresses on the force and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have an impact on other military operations."

 

A Los Angeles Times editorial suggests that Myers' admission is a refreshing change, which "indicates that common sense continues to have its place."

 

The blunt honesty of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, is a bracing change from repeated claims by Pentagon civilians and President Bush that everything is fine.

 

After pointing out that "recruiting lags substantially," the Times ends with a reminder about the importance of soldiers vs. high-tech weaponry in the current conflict in Iraq.

For all the emphasis in recent years on unmanned aircraft and high-tech weapons, the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq should remind US administrations of the bottom line for armies: feet on the ground. Precision-guided missiles are all but useless against improvised explosive devices at the side of the road and are of no use at all in building democratic institutions.

 

A report from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program called "The World Today," says that "what the General told the Congress seemed at odds with what he'd told the President ... only last week ...."

 

The report cited Bush's quote from last Thursday night's press conference.

 

The person I asked that to, the person I asked that to at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I said 'do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq', and the answer is 'no', he doesn't feel we're limited. Feels like we got plenty of capacity.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy, acknowledged the report, but played down its impact.

 

We are at war, and that level of operations does have some impact on troops. But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively.

While most news sources stress Myers' findings that the Iraq war has hampered the military's ability to respond quickly to other potential foes, an article by the American Forces Information Services posted on the Defense Department's website, emphasizes that the US military can still "handle any task."

 

The story begins this way: "The US military can accomplish all the tasks laid out for it in the National Military Strategy, according to [Myers]."

 

[theist]

The US military should be tripled in size. But we shouldn't forget the war front at home. We should attack the fast food corp's like McDonald's and all the factory farms etc. if they really want to stop wars. And the gang bangers over running our urban centers along with the mind trash peddlers in unHolywood.

 

But forget stopping war for now it just needs to be better directed. Like towards North Korea and the Mullahs (as opposed to the people) in charge of Iran. Then there is Sudan and Mugabe in Zimbadwe.

 

I'll stop with my short list. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

should mind its own business. Attacking civilians in the name of 'war on terror' is simply cruel. it can only result in more 9/11s and more bin ladens. It is not good for anyone concerned.

[Kulapavana]

"Could the US military handle another war?"

 

LOL! another one? they obviously cant handle the one they started in Iraq...

 

THEY CANT EVEN KEEP THE SIX MILE STRETCH OF A ROAD SECURE!!! (between the Bagdad airport and the "green" /as in $/ zone)

 

a 6 mile taxi ride on that road (one way) costs $35,000.-

 

people in US swallow garbage explanations from the govt, like it was candy. but the truth is simple: US military can't secure a 6 mile stretch of the road in Iraq, let alone the entire country.

 

How many billions more would it cost to make it secure? he he... when you execute a few criminals and negligent morons people will take notice and BECOME ACCOUNTABLE. if you want more BS excuses, you keep the crooks and traitors in power.

 

 

US had absolutely no reason to start that war. Just like they have no reason to start any more wars like it. But demons will be demons, and those who are fools will serve their evil schemes. This is the age of Kali folks, when demons rule the earth... read about it in the Bhagavatam.

[Guest guest]

We can handle what we want, we are the u s of a, fer christs sake. We havent even used any of our real weapons yet, and we dont need a draft to deploy these. I live 5 miles (way out in the boonies) from the greatest amassment of WMD ever thought of, nerve gas, even mustard gas and thermolite cannisters. I live 15 miles from an amassment of enough nuclkear firepower to annihilate NKorea, Iran, even China and Russia for that matter, in 15 minutes. In fact, the US of A could wipe out that thing we call the moon almost immediately as well.

 

And we dont care either, because jesus approves of whatever we do. This is our MANIFEST DESTINY, the natural resources of the world belong to us, or nobody. India and China can use the resources for their growing capital economy only by our permission.

 

So dont think we are ever tapped out or over extended. If we need $10,000,000,000,000 to invade Iran and N Korea simultaneously, we have it as well. If Europe wants to remove our economic influence by their worthsless paper they call the EURO, we can wipe them out as well, because we are the U S of A, and dont you forget it, injun.

 

mudmon

[Kulapavana]

mahakji, you crack me up... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

unfortunately, what you wrote reflects the sorry state of mind of your average Joe Sixpack here in US /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Guest guest]

Just 12.5%!!!!!!! That doesn't sound to me as though we're stretched too thin. The Navy and Air Force are almost non-existent over there today, leaving them free to maneuver if necessary.

 

Besides, it is the Air Force and Navy which are the first used in any emergency or projection of power. The regular Army and Marines are long term assets. General Myers is an Army general - of course he's concerned about the long-term effects of this conflict on the Army.

 

This article is just more "Hate-America" drivel. There are no conventional land Armies anywhere to confront our troops. We had a Coalition going into Iraq for the purpose of demonstrating this was a united free world effort against tyranny and worldwide terrorism. There really was no war. The Iraqis ran away.

 

Read between the lines and see the liberal detractors using our free speech freedoms to spread doubt and confusion to aid the cause of worldwide terrorism.

 

Anyways, the next real war will be with China in the next decade or two. Until then, this . with Iran, N Korea and assorted goofballs is going to be cleaned up in our sleep.

 

 

 

[krsna]

This summer, the Pentagon will execute the largest maritime exercise ever, surging seven of our 12 carrier battle groups to the South China Sea. This provocative move has already escalated China's long-term military strategy. The question is whether it will provoke a war this summer.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

 

Sailing Toward a Storm in China

U.S. maneuvers could spark a war.

 

By Chalmers Johnson, Chalmers Johnson's latest book is "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" (Metropolitan, 2004).

 

 

Quietly and with minimal coverage in the U.S. press, the Navy announced that from mid-July through August it would hold exercises dubbed Operation Summer Pulse '04 in waters off the China coast near Taiwan.

 

This will be the first time in U.S. naval history that seven of our 12 carrier strike groups deploy in one place at the same time. It will look like the peacetime equivalent of the Normandy landings and may well end in a disaster.

 

At a minimum, a single carrier strike group includes the aircraft carrier itself (usually with nine or 10 squadrons and a total of about 85 aircraft), a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a combination ammunition, oiler and supply ship.

 

Normally, the United States uses only one or at the most two carrier strike groups to show the flag in a trouble spot. In a combat situation it might deploy three or four, as it did for both wars with Iraq. Seven in one place is unheard of.

 

Operation Summer Pulse '04 was almost surely dreamed up at the Pearl Harbor headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and its commander, Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, and endorsed by neocons in the Pentagon. It is doubtful that Congress was consulted. This only goes to show that our foreign policy is increasingly made by the Pentagon.

 

According to Chinese reports, Taiwanese ships will join the seven carriers being assembled in this modern rerun of 19th century gunboat diplomacy. The ostensible reason given by the Navy for this exercise is to demonstrate the ability to concentrate massive forces in an emergency, but the focus on China in a U.S. election year sounds like a last hurrah of the neocons.

 

Needless to say, the Chinese are not amused. They say that their naval and air forces, plus their land-based rockets, are capable of taking on one or two carrier strike groups but that combat with seven would overwhelm them. So even before a carrier reaches the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has announced it will embark on a crash project that will enable it to meet and defeat seven U.S. carrier strike groups within a decade. There's every chance the Chinese will succeed if they are not overtaken by war first.

 

China is easily the fastest-growing big economy in the world, with a growth rate of 9.1% last year. On June 28, the BBC reported that China had passed the U.S. as the world's biggest recipient of foreign direct investment. China attracted $53 billion worth of new factories in 2003, whereas the U.S. took in only $40 billion; India, $4 billion; and Russia, a measly $1 billion.

 

If left alone by U.S. militarists, China will almost surely, over time, become a democracy on the same pattern as that of South Korea and Taiwan (both of which had U.S.-sponsored military dictatorships until the late 1980s). But a strong mainland makes the anti-China lobby in the United States very nervous. It won't give up its decades-old animosity toward Beijing and jumps at any opportunity to stir up trouble — "defending Taiwan" is just a convenient cover story.

 

These ideologues appear to be trying to precipitate a confrontation with China while they still have the chance. Today, they happen to have rabidly anti-Chinese governments in Taipei and Tokyo as allies, but these governments don't have the popular support of their own citizens.

 

If American militarists are successful in sparking a war, the results are all too predictable: We will halt China's march away from communism and militarize its leadership, bankrupt ourselves, split Japan over whether to renew aggression against China and lose the war. We also will earn the lasting enmity of the most populous nation on Earth.

[Kulapavana]

how many % of US military is needed to secure that 6 mile stretch of highway?

[Guest guest]

until they are good and ready to wage war on their terms. They have to build up their economy, armies and weapons systems in space first. That will take one decade minimum, probably two. For a real good fictional account of the coming war, check out Jeff Head's The Dragon's Fury series of novels. He lives down the road from me, and started the series a few years back. The events he describes have already taken place in the first book, that he predicted with uncanny accuracy years before.

[Guest guest]

Well if You can SEE what is right in front of your eyes...., then I say we would all be much better off if we just went out with the Whole "They Live" Scenario.......

 

I can't seem to find hardly anyone who has Sight, CAN YOU SEE THEM..??? They're Everywhere NO JOKE

 

anyways

 

DEMONS I HAVE COME HERE TO CHEW BUBBLE GUM AND KICK ASS... AND I'M ALL OUTTA BUBBLE GUM....

 

BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

George? Dick? Donnie?...