[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Richard

Among other questions are the extent to which planning for conflicts should focus primarily on counterinsurgency wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what focus remains on well-equipped conventional adversaries like China and Iran, with which Navy vessels have clashed at sea.
Another formulation envisioned the United States defending its territory, deterring hostility in four critical areas of the world and then defeating two adversaries in major combat operations, but not at exactly the same time.

Originally Posted by Pete

the US Military thought we could down size to a mid-range Army able to fight two small, fairly regional wars at once. So it downsized.

Richard,
I am in agreement that we need to radically revisit the Quadrennial Defense Review, and incorporate much of what has been “lessons learned” in the last 20 years. But, being the skeptic that I am, I wonder how much of Military doctrine is based on strategy (old war, two war, counterinsurgency, etc.), and how much is service based interest in obtaining the maximum from the DoD budget. IMVHO, most of the “big ticket” items in the budget are obsolete in presentation, concept and practice.
The concept of a multi-faceted WWII ++ is to ensure the growth of each of the individual services internal doctrine and relevance.

Originally Posted by Richard

“It is already is obvious, a senior Pentagon official said, that the Defense Department will “need to rebalance our strategy and our forces” in a way that reflects lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq. Exactly how that happens will be debated for months to come and will then play out in decisions involving hundreds of billions of dollars , involving the size of the Army, as well as such things as the number of aircraft carriers and new long-range bombers.”

The Aircraft Carrier was made obsolete with the advent of TacNuke. Drop one in the neighborhood, and bye-bye CVA. Unmanned computer aided air assets have made the fighter / bomber near obsolete. They can go faster, pull more “G’s”, deliver more precision, and not put pilots in harms-way. Ditto for Tanks / Artillery. When you can launch precision munitions from dispersed locations, the weapon of choice should be the MQ-1 Predator, not the M1 Abrams.Of course, you cannot become an Admiral without a fleet, an AF General without an airwing, nor a Corp commander, without a corp.
Your thoughts?

Pete,
For good or ill, I don’t believe the US Military willingly thought it could “downsize”, and did so only grudgingly, with some very heavy pressure from the “Peace Dividend” of the William Jefferson Clinton Administration, and further guidance of SecDef Donald Henry Rumsfeld.
I do not believe they have a forward looking strategy or plan other than self promotion and maintaining the status quo. It was that way after WWI, and WWII., and that was with “patriots” running the show on both the civilian and military side.
SnT