STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Have you visited eBayTM lately? The Worlds Marketplace where you can buy and sell practically anything keeps getting better. From consumer electronics to movies, find it all on eBay. What are you waiting for? Try eBay today. http://www.bcentral.com/listbot/ebay ---------------------------------------------------------------------- New York Times Op-Ed, July 16, 2001 The New Pentagon War Strategy http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/opinion/16MON2.html?todaysheadlines Join a Discussion on Today's Editorials It is heartening to learn that the Pentagon is ready to set aside its outdated plan to fight two major wars simultaneously. The purpose of such broad strategies is to determine the size, shape and weaponry of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The two-war requirement, in place since 1993, was straining the Pentagon budget and distorting the three services. It took insufficient account of the weakening of the conventional military threat from Iraq in recent years and ignored the most common military operations Washington has actually had to face, like Balkan peacekeeping. The new strategy, as reported by Thom Shanker in The Times on Friday, expects American forces to be prepared to win one major conflict "decisively," while deterring aggression elsewhere, conducting small holding actions and peacekeeping operations, and defending the American homeland against terrorism and missile attack. But at this point the new plan is little more than a vague blueprint. Crucial details will be filled in later this summer as the Pentagon completes its in-depth review of likely military contingencies and reshapes its future budget requests to meet them. Two of the most important issues are the appropriate overall size of America's armed forces and the most likely battlefield conditions they will face. The answers will determine the kind of weaponry and training that will be needed. The Pentagon must then figure out how to pay for the forces and weapons needed without resorting to politically unrealistic and fiscally unaffordable budget increases. With the demise of the two-war strategy, the current level of military strength — 10 Army divisions, 12 active-duty air wings and 12 naval carrier groups — can and should be reduced. The money saved can help pay for some of the expensive new weapons programs the administration is expected to approve in coming years. There must also be a careful delineation of the role military forces will play in responding to biological and chemical attacks inside the United States. The Pentagon has many useful assets to contribute in such emergencies. It has professional expertise, appropriate trained personnel, vaccines, gas masks and tents for emergency housing. But it is essential that authority over civilian populations remain with local elected officials. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has stressed the need to modernize America's military and its missions. That will require making room for new needs by cutting back on obsolete plans and programs, many of them dear to influential members of Congress and senior military officers. In working out the details of the new strategy, Mr. Rumsfeld must be tough-minded about reining in costs and eliminating forces and weapons that have outlived their military relevance. ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
