| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Amos: A Future of Perpetual War |
| 2013-06-01 |
| Speaking at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., May 29, Amos said he is convinced that the U.S. military during the next two decades will be just as busy as it has been during the past 12 years of war. When asked to forecast the Marine Corps’ future missions, Amos said, “I see much of what we’re going through right now. I don’t see any of it waning away. I don’t see major theater wars. I see thorny, difficult, challenging, human intensive — not necessarily technology intensive — conflicts.” Amos cited the crisis in Syria, the activities of Lebanon’s Islamist group Hezbollah, developments in Iran, Iraq, Mali and North Korea as potentially requiring U.S. armed intervention over the coming years. Extremist groups continue to threaten the United States, Amos added. “We may think we are done with them. But they are not necessarily done with us.” The nation might be inclined to cut military spending, but “You can’t ignore the world I just described,” Amos said. “You can’t turn your back on it.” Amos’ vision of the future echoes the views of other military leaders who believe the post-Afghanistan era will be one of perpetual war. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, has said the military expects to be on a permanent war footing. Defense officials do not see the end of the Afghanistan war as the beginning of a peaceful era. The military chiefs’ worldviews, while not diametrically opposed to the one Obama laid out May 23, illustrate the challenge the administration faces as it tries to reshape national security priorities and comply with congressionally mandated budget cuts. Framing the debate over the future missions of the U.S. military is a defense budget crunch that will squeeze all branches of the armed services. Amos acknowledged that mandatory budget cuts, known as sequestration, are “real,” and not likely to go away. Nonetheless, he said, it is important for the military to maintain its global presence. The Marine Corps, for instance, will downsize from 202,000 to 182,000. It plans to redeploy forces that are currently in Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region. How that will be accomplished with less money remains to be seen. Analysts have criticized Pentagon officials for being unrealistic about what they can afford to do in the future. Amos said budget cuts “will have real impact,” but at the same time, “there are engagement responsibilities our nation needs to acknowledge,” he said. “I am not in denial on sequestration [but] we do have global responsibilities." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #6 I am convinced that there is a "global war of annihilation" ongoing between Islam, and everything that isn't Islam - and that war will go on until its ultimate conclusion: until one side is annihilated. Unfortunately, only one side of that existential battle is fighting like they mean it. Even as backward as the Islamic side is, as the only side fighting for keeps, it is starting to look like they may end up being the last side standing. I choose the word/concept "annihilation" carefully - because I think we are talking about a binary choice - and one with total extermination for the losing side. The ignorant will chortle "there are 1.6 billion Muslims (or whatever the number), and we couldn't possibly kill them all ..." to which I reply "Sure you can; one at a time, in small groups, in large masses, with bullets, with disease, with clubs, with knives, with carpet bombing, with napalm, with nuclear strikes, etc. It will take a while, but we have the rest of our eternity to proceed with this grisly task, and the sooner we get started, the sooner that the pestilence of Islam will be wiped from the earth. As they say 'A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step'". Battles of annihilation are not situations in which to take half-measures. We need to fight like we mean it. And - the first/best way to fight is to first inspire Shias and Sunnis to go after each others' throats - human wave attacks into machine guns are ideal - and (thankfully) those two barbarian beliefs are happy to slaughter each other wholesale, at the drop of a hat. Supply arms and ammunition to both sides - and let them mow each other down. When one side is wiped out in a given theater of conflict, we should provide transport to move the victors to a new theater of conflict. My fondest dream would be to run a global recruiting program for Islamic terrorist, to whit: Join our jihad now. Sign up, and we will send you to Afghanistan (or the wastes of Somalia, or similar). You will fly first class. You will be picked up and moved to the training site in air-conditioned limos, with a favorite meal of your choice en route. We will issue you with a gold-plated AK-47 or RPG - your choice. At the training site, you will be housed in a grand, circular encampment, in an air-conditioned, first-class tent city. And - when the training center is full, there will be a grand prayer service at dawn, at you will have the honor of watching - far overhead - a flight of B52 Stratofortresses making their final approach for a nuclear bombing run to deliver this entire "graduating" class of jihadi wannabees to their eternal paradise. Then - rinse and repeat. Ad infinitum. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2013-06-01 21:47 |
| #5 Only the dead have seen the end of war -attributed to Plato, but unconfirmed Peace is that glorious time every body stands around and reloads. -attributed to T. Jefferson, but unconfirmed P2K, I am in the middle of watching The Indian Wars. Quite a deal. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-06-01 17:14 |
| #4 In fact, Mohammed predicts (and advocates) war with the unbelievers until all are converted. That is why an Islamic country can never be at peace with a Christian one: there can only be hudnas (truces for a specific length of time). |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2013-06-01 16:32 |
| #3 The war with Islam is 1400 years old, off and on, so another 20 is a safe bet. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2013-06-01 16:25 |
| #2 For those who only have memory, but no history, the military was actively employed pretty much continuously on the frontier from the inception of the republic till the late 1880s. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-06-01 09:48 |
| #1 What's Andy say? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2013-06-01 04:27 |