--- Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well that's fine, but I think you're fixating on a > digression on my part, > and not something I intended to go into detail to > defend. I presented a > couple of possible, likely conflicts, but my point > is that at this > juncture, the military would be hard pressed to > tackle 2 major crises > simultaneously. > > Damon.
It depends on the crises. If the two crises were Iraq and a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, we _could_ tackle those 2 crises simultaneously. The whole 2 war standard was completely artificial anyways - it was basically (IMO) designed to allow the Pentagon to get away with not redesigning the Cold War force after 1991. So if you mean - we aren't able to handle two major land wars now, sure, that's true. But if there's no plausible situation in which we'd _need_ to handle two major land wars (which I think is the case) then I don't see why it's that important. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
