-Caveat Lector-
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021225-16818336.htm
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
U.S. ability to fight two wars doubted
Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published December 25, 2002
For the first time since the U.S. military adopted a post-Soviet strategy of
being ready to
fight two wars simultaneously, there are real prospects that American troops may be
asked
to carry out that mission.
But some military analysts say the armed forces today are too small to fight two
major
wars at once.
The situation is this: The Bush administration says Iraq is lying about its
weapons of
mass destruction, as the United States moves forces to the Persian Gulf for an
invasion to
topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In the Pacific, North Korea is exploiting the
crisis with
Saddam to test President Bush's resolve. Pyongyang has resumed its nuclear-weapons
program, which Washington believes poses a threat to world security.
With tensions rising, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asserted on Monday that
U.S. forces can simultaneously fight North Korea and Iraq. A Pentagon policy statement,
known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, states that the military today is funded and
structured to fight and occupy one enemy nation, while defeating another foe.
"We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of
the
other," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
But there are doubters, inside and outside the military.
"In all due respect to Rumsfeld, that was a very patriotic thing to say," said
retired Army
Col. Ken Allard, a military analyst. "But we do not have the means, the manpower or the
strategy to actually do that. We simply lack sufficient ground forces, sufficient
airlift,
sufficient sea lift to do those things."
Retired Rear Adm. Jeremy Taylor, a former attack pilot and carrier commander,
said he
believes the Bush administration, in reality, knows it cannot fight two major
conventional
wars simultaneously. That is why, he said, the White House recently issued a strategy
statement threatening to use nuclear weapons to prevent attacks from enemies that use
weapons of mass destruction.
"We have a [two-war] strategy that is totally out of whack with the size of the
force we
have," Adm. Taylor said. "For the secretary to say we can handle two regional
conflicts is
ludicrous to the point where the rascals of the world, our adversaries, don't believe
us. We
have lost our ability to deter war."
Today's 1.4-million-member active-duty force is about half the size of the U.S.
military
during the 1980s, when the country was still engaged in the Cold War. Yet the United
States has taken on additional assignments while maintaining old alliances through the
deployment of 200,000 troops in Germany and Asia.
The U.S. military plays a major role in peacekeeping in the Balkans, is actively
preparing
for war in the Persian Gulf, has 8,000 troops fighting a low-grade war against al Qaeda
terrorists in Afghanistan and has positioned units to attack terrorists in the Gulf
and Africa.
The United States had just begun shrinking the Cold War force of 2.1 million in
1990
when Saddam's army invaded Kuwait and the Pentagon responded with Operation Desert
Storm. Commanders asked for and received 550,000 troops to expel Iraqi forces from
Kuwait.
Today, the active force is a little more than half that size. A U.S. Army that
once
constituted nearly 800,000 soldiers now stands at 480,000.
"When all of a sudden push comes to shove, part of the reason we have been able
to do
what we've been able to do is overwhelming ground power. That was the reason Desert
Storm went so spectacularly well," Col. Allard said. "Today, you simply lack the
forces to go
around."
The United States is in the midst of a major military buildup in the Persian Gulf
for what
could well be an invasion this winter to oust Saddam from power.
If North Korea attacks South Korea while the United States has troops invading
Iraq, the
Pentagon would be faced with a whirlwind of decisions. Some domestic units are
designated for war in both the Pacific and Gulf theaters. Gen. Tommy Franks, who would
direct an invasion of Iraq, might have to relinquish some of his requested 250,000
troops to
block the North Korean advance.
This could prolong the war against Iraq and increase U.S. casualties � something
uniformed military officials warned about last year when Mr. Rumsfeld's aides toyed
with
the idea of cutting the active force even deeper.
The argument of Mr. Rumsfeld's aides, in part, was that advancements in "smart"
munitions during the past decade have reduced the requirement for land units.
Pyongyang has picked this time to announce the resumption of its nuclear program
as
the United States is involved in a crisis in the Gulf to test Mr. Bush.
One scenario is that Mr. Bush is forced to order air strikes on North Korea's
nuclear
facilities to prevent the quick assembly and use of nuclear weapons. North Korea, whose
communist regime has brought famine to the country, may respond by invading South
Korea.
The White House says no military action is imminent against Pyong-yang. The
administration is talking with Japan, China, Russia and South Korea about a diplomatic
solution to the crisis.
North Korea has more than 1 million troops stationed near or on the border with
South
Korea. The warning time for an attack is measured in hours, not days.
The United States has a "trip wire" force of 37,000 troops in South Korea and
another
60,000 sailors, Marines and airmen in the region. They, and the well-trained South
Korean
army, would need reinforcements almost immediately to protect Seoul from a massive
artillery barrage and occupation.
"In fact, the force in place is little more than an emergency 'stopper' that is
supposed to
hold until reinforcements arrive," said a Navy officer. "But the forces in Japan,
Okinawa and
the United States are already too shallow and will be further reduced for Iraq. I see
no way
they could take the offensive and win even if they could hold."
Copyright ?#169; 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Return to the article
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
