Pentagon to Abandon Two-war Strategy in Military Review: ReportThe Pentagon is likely abandon the concept of winning two wars simultaneously as a result of its just-completed review of U.S. military strategy, a report said Sunday.The two-war strategy, which has guided and organized the U.S. military since the end of Cold War, calls on the U.S. to have enough troops and gear to whip two foes the size of Iraq or the North Korea in quick succession, the Los Angeles Times reported. But critics have long complained that the concept was a shortsighted notion that kept America's generals busy thinking about how to refight the last war. Yet as the new Pentagon management team assembled by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld completes a sweeping strategic analysis, a new approach is expected to be recommended to replace the old one. A change would have a huge effect on the U.S. military' roles and budgets. The two-war doctrine supports the need for heavy ground forces, but the new doctrine could lead to a reduced role for large aircraft carriers, or even trim the fighter force that is so dear to the Air Force leadership. The two-war strategy was formulated during a time of uncertainty when the Soviet Union disappeared and the Pentagon pondered what kind of enemy it would face next. Military planners decided the most serious and realistic risk was that, once they got caught in a war with Iraq, another country such as North Korea might be emboldened to open a second front, the report said. As a result, the Pentagon decided it still needs to maintain a certain force structure for each of these possible fights. It worked out to roughly four or five Army divisions, four or five Marine brigades, 10 fighter air wings, 50 long-range bombers and five aircraft carrier battle groups. Yet over time, it has come under increasing attack by a group of military planners, experts and government officials. The critics contend that the two-war concept focuses spending on a kind of war that is now far less likely. They said that the U.S. should learn lessons from Persian Gulf War and the Kosovo conflict of 1999, in which the U.S. failed to assemble its heavy ground forces as its 70-ton heavy battle tanks were hard to be airlifted to the battleground. Moreover, many experts predict that U.S. adversaries in future conflicts will try to prevent U.S. forces from gaining access to the battle theater by using cheap and powerful missiles, mines and "weapons of mass destruction" -- germ and chemical bombs. Although the two-war doctrine still has some defenders, the consensus within the Pentagon and the broader defense community seems to agree that it will be abandoned, probably within the next month or so, the Times reported. So far, President Bush has not stated a preference on the two- war doctrine, although he has indicated a general desire to reform the military. Rumsfeld, too, has only spoken in the broadest terms about the need for a new direction. But several members of Rumsfeld's management team, including Assistant Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and the nominated undersecretary of Defense and Pentagon comptroller Dov S. Zakheim, are advocates of aggressive reform, and have made it clear they want to ditch the old paradigm. If this change is made, then the U.S. now needs fewer heavy tanks, artillery units and short-range fighter squadrons. It needs more equipment that can provide speed, stealth and long-range punch: long-distance bombers, precision munitions, pilotless planes and ships that are harder to detect and hit, the report added. |
| People's Daily Online --- http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/ |