By Chris Lawrence
The United States should give up the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously, according to a Pentagon review that will be presented this week, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
The review will be publicly outlined by President Barack Obama, the White House announced. The president will join Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Martin Dempsey on Thursday at the Pentagon to discuss the military posture vision.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the strategic review presents priorities to guide the military into the future, but "they are proposals, not all of them set in stone."
The review sets forth potentially big changes in U.S. strategy, including, the official said, removing up to 4,000 troops from Europe and downsizing the overall ground forces even further. The 2012 budget request already called for cuts of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines in the next four years, and those numbers could increase.
The military would not maintain its ability to wage two large conflicts at the same time, such as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official said.
But the United States would still be able to deploy troops and equipment to "deter a second adversary" while engaged in a major ground conflict. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said the military needs to be able to respond rapidly to a crisis, even with a smaller budget constrained force.
The official said the report is not expected to call for massive cuts to weapons programs.
The review took eight months, the official said, and builds upon themes from the Quadrennial Defense Review conducted in 2010. That QDR called for greater cooperation between services, particularly the Air Force and Navy.
The official said the Pentagon will put forward a proposal to continue to allow the U.S. military "to conduct long-range strikes and protect its interests and allies around the world."
The review was conducted in light of potential limits on federal spending and the need to reduce the Pentagon's budget.
Currently, the Pentagon is committed to nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts over the next decade and could be on the hook for another half trillion dollars if Congress does not find a way around automatic cuts that enacted after the failure to reach an agreement on the federal budget.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
The US has been a war based economy since WW2 and needs conflicts to balance its budget. What are you going to do with 1000,s of unemploued soldiers and then the companies that supply them with weapons and firepower. Now Iraq is finished, and Afghanastan is no big deal any more, look for places to stick your nose into next, iran, Korea, or for complete stupidity, China. who, by the way, unlike the USA, have NEVER attacked an overseas country.
USA needs war, it's good business.
your smart
@mark redeploy locally?? Fix roads and bridges?? Aren't there enough contractors and construction companies out of work, just skimming by without flooding the industry with more competition?
Tske out Israel lobby, and us never have to fight more than a war. Why keep spending so much money to protect a tiny country, which itself is occupier. Let Israel deal with it's own problem. Let us save our home. God bless USA!
Yes, you have a good point. The Zionist project has turned into an evil monster. If the Israelis will not stop stealing Palestinians land then we should cut the billions we give them each year.
The Iraq war was totally made up in the small mind of a dilusional president when they should have just gone after Bin Laden and then brought everyone home. Leaving the military in Afghanistan just leaves a target for the Taliban. A target that would be much harder to hit if no allied miltary were in Afghanistan.
You can't abandon a country that you have committed yourself to in terms of establishing security and a stable government. Walking away from our committments is a recipe for shrinking from our role on the world stage. We will cease to be the great natiuon that we have been and will become a historical, social, and economic afterthought. A nation that does not possess the capacity to defend itself in a sustained ground war will inevitably be challenged in that very arena. You cannot successfully slash the military budget to the bone and maintain a policy of "I hope nobody calls our bluff". It has never worked in the past and it won't work now.
How else can he affort to give out $600/ month in food stamps so the recipients can by their drugs. How else can he afford to give 50,000,000 people more unemployment so they can stay home to do their drugs. This is all part of his and the democrats plan to make America weaker and more irrelevent. So far he has been sucessful. Don't give him 4 more years
Jed and Jennifer Finley / Wow, my eyes got all watery lkoiong at these pics. She is precious, and her name is beautiful. It will be such a joy, like I know it is with Evan, to learn about this little person God has entrusted to you and to hear His purpose for her and raise her up to be a success in His kingdom! Kids are a joy! Suzanne, I can't believe I've never met you and hope one day we can. I know you are all an awesome family, and we congratulate you in such a happy time! And hey, when the fog lifts, we need your address! (I threw away the envelope from your Christmas card silly gal ) Love you guys!
This article is anti-climactic in its assessment. The reality is that we haven't been capable of fighting to moderate engagements (our longtime Cold War strategy) since the days of Desert Storm. While we may be the most technologically advance fighting force in the world, our actually numbers of men, planes, equipment, etc has shrunk to the lowest levels since pre-WWII. Sure, we hold a qualitative edge over our opponents (for now), but the reality is that we'd be hard pressed to win a conventional conflict against either of the other two major powers (ie Russia and China). Please don't make the mistake of confusing our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as significant conflicts, as they're not. By definition, but are low-intensity, counter-insurgency campaigns (contrast with WWI, WWII, Korea, etc). Unfortunately, our leaders are too short sighted to realized that the more the cut the less prepared we really are. This isn't a "Republican" or "Democratic" perspective, it comes from someone who is a long time member of the Armed Forces, and understands the nuances of "quality vs quantity" better than some beat reporter (or member of Congress).....
If Fox viewers would turn it off for a bit and think they would realize if we were not in a war in Iraq for no reason the military would have enough money. In addition the tax cuts that have been made for the rich and that many corporations are not paying any taxes means some hard choices have to be made. We need a strong military and a big way to achieve that is to stop wasting money. How many complainers are also posting at the same time we should attach Iran?
make up your mind spending cuts or not. The repos want cuts will not raise taxes on the rich but bitch if we cut military spending. They would have us in wars all over the globe if left unchecked. Listen to the candidates they all avocate war. Should poor Americ ans and children do without? Social programs that help the mentailly handicap, the elderly are all fair game so why is the military any different. All these congressmen that are complaining how many have been in the military or sent any of their family. If we have a problem then lets send them!
Iran is not the problem.
This is the United States of America, it is high time we began behaving like Americans again. Our greatness is predicated on our ability to defend ourselves and our allies. Anyone who believes that this country can continue to stand as a beacon of hope to others and a bastion of political and economic power is kidding themselves. The goal of our society is to balance the needs of one group against another. Sacrificing military might will provide a scant few dollars for those in "need", but will likely cost us dearly in terms of soverignty and global competitiveness later. If liberals want money for the poor cut military spending some, but also be willing to reform entitlements. One cannot be sacrificed at the expense of the other.
Exactly. If we are going to start coup de etats and change leaders of other countries, we will never run out of enemies. If we say we do not support terrorism then we must stop supporting Israel and other terror states.
Wow... cool. The idea of America "only" fighting one war... it must be perplexing to those who profit from war. Now, do you think we could pull off fighting ZERO wars?
Naw, this is America we are talking about.
If one could only get our adversaries to agree not to attack when our military is no longer capable of adequately prosecuting a ground war, all would be well. That philosophy, however, has a very poor track record. Every time we have slashed our military budget, we have regreted the decision. I suspect this round of cuts will be no different.
There are still 2 worrisome entities – radical, anti-Israel Islam, and Communism.
Stupidity, dogma, selfishness, narrow-mindedness, jingoism and arrogance are six other "worrisome entities"
you are actually a good webtsamer. The web site loading pace is amazing. It sort of feels that you're doing any distinctive trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterwork. you've done a fantastic activity in this topic!
I think the most worrisome thing is continuing the path of destruction this country is on
1. Spending more money than you have.
2. Believing you are number one, regardless of the fact that every measurable metric says otherwise.
3. Believing your own propaganda regarding external threats.
4. Embracing militarism, passing draconian laws to protect against the "bad guys", merging State and Corporate power – whilst pretending to be the champions of freedom, democracy and the constitution.
5. Confusing consumer choice with "freedom"
Don't forget Israel. Their agents put pressure on Congress to get their way.
One of the biggest threats to world peace is Israel and its supporters.
We've just proven we need the capacity to fight two separate ground wars and now we want to abandon this capability? While I believe there is room for cuts in the military budget, national defense (not just in the sense of preventing invasion) is actually provided for by the Constitution; no entitlement programs (Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, etc.) are included. Cutting the military down to a shell-force will truly render it a "paper tiger" as Usama Bin Laden called us after we pulled out of Somolia in 1993. This appearance of weakness gave him the confidence to launch the high profile terror attacks of the '90s, culminating with 9-11. We must have a strong military in order to maintain our standing in the world. If we hollow the force, we will hasten our fall. Get the house in order, but not by destroying our ability to project military power globally.
Sure we can. We'll just send you the bill.
right on!
Naive is quite selfish,uncaring about home rendered fatherless,sonless etc.you should don army fatigue and let us see how long you are going to last in the battle field
Mutabaruka, wonderfully put.
Once we went into the middle east, we opened a power vacuum that will eventually set the stage for some very radical groups to take over and call home. As we leave these areas, they will become breeding grounds for different dangerous ideologies that will bleed over into our territory eventually. We removed king bees that kept the nest in line and now a hornets nest is stirred up. the middle east will become a traveling wirlwind of destruction that everyone will eventually pay for. Bottom line give all cuts sometime to see how world events shape up.
Sherrie Rapaglia / Baby Maren is a wonderful, piourecs gift from God. We are so excited that she is here and can't wait to see her next week! She is so blessed to have wonderful parents and a big brother who will help take care of her. She is so incredibly beautiful and I can't wait to hold her and kiss her.Suzanne, you are so awesome! (And Joe's not bad either.) Ha!Love you all,Mama Rap
"Obama ending two-war strategy" Then all that is left is for Obama to do away with our ability to fight ONE war at a time, and he can truely claim HIS mission is accomplished.
The need for budget cuts absolutely requires this move. Still, no sensible person could feel good about it. It kinda throws the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. Capacity to fight two ground wars is a necessity any country that wish to influence the world. Most two-front wars are not intentional; usually a country is in one war and then is attacked on a second front where it never wanted to fight. History shows that the incapacity to do so is why great powers lose wars. We shouldn't ever fight two ground wars voluntarily, as we just did. Both tactically and strategically, it is bad news. But offering our flank to prospective enemies is just as bad. Starting a two-front war in Asia was arrogant, but assuming that a two-front war could only be of our own making is equally arrogant. And equally foolish.
It's a gravely dangerous thing to do, but we have to do it anyway.
We have no money left. Discretionary spending, which includes defense, needs to be cut deeply – whether we cut entitlement spending or not. Although hopefully we will cut that too, since that is where most of our debt comes from.
Bottom line, we have to cut spending everywhere. Everyone's untouchable program has to be slashed. These cuts are the inevitable result of fifty years of American profligacy.