Sunday, September 30, 2007

Looking Forward to New Wars

Who else? Amurka's military!

I'm smelling a
DRAFT, kids!

"Meeting Today’s Military Demands, With an Eye on Tomorrow’s

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — When Adm. Mike Mullen is sworn in Monday as the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he will become the principal military adviser to the president and defense secretary, with the responsibility of organizing, training and equipping the United States’ armed forces.

That is what it says in the statute, anyway. What it means is that he must solve two critical problems.

His urgent task is how to meet the consuming day-to-day demands of the fight in Iraq. But Admiral Mullen knows that someday that war will be over — and it will be too late to decide then what kind of military America will need to defend against threats that may emerge afterward.

That is why it is no less a priority for the new chairman, and his civilian bosses, to plan how the military pivots out of Iraq to face the next enemy, whoever and wherever that is.

[ a) we know where they are: Iran, and b) why do we need to find enemies?]

The debate is just beginning, and it is already dividing the national security elites into tribes.

The future battlefield is presenting itself as three challenges, according to Andrew F. Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Irregular warfare — whether guerrilla or counterinsurgency missions — will remain a threat, said Mr. Krepinevich, who was an opposition analyst during the Pentagon’s quadrennial review of strategy and budgets.

But the military cannot ignore traditional threats posed by nations that are not enemies but may, over time, challenge American interests through coercion, if not aggression. China tops that list.

The third category is the “catastrophic challenge” of terrorists getting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

There is no way to predict which may rise first. That is the focus of the emerging debate — and the prize is how trillions of dollars are divided among four services.

[Yup, the wars are PRIZES!!!

Just like a leg that gets blown of a troop!]

The ground forces, strained and bloodied by the war in Iraq, argue that the new strategic environment will be one of “persistent conflict,” in a phrase of Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff.

Even if there are no more Iraqs, America will be confronted with lots of Afghanistans. This assessment predicts multiple confrontations, some brief and some not. Even short of conflict, troops would be needed to train and support friendly militaries.

This would mean that the Army, too small to sustain current deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, must continue its expensive growth by adding thousands of troops, and must replace vehicles ground down by desert sands.

Admiral Mullen has kept his own counsel on the immediate question of the right number of troops for Iraq. But it is accepted wisdom around the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs were skeptical of the recent troop increase in Iraq because it could limit their ability to manage other global threats; their endorsement of the “surge” came with a promise to expand the armed forces.

Within the Navy and Air Force, the analysis of future threats would push the nation toward forces that are deployed around the world — but in ways that are less visible and less controversial than large land bases on foreign soil.

Their assumption is that there would be absolutely no public support for another land war as the nation will shift toward isolationism after Iraq. And even friendly governments, stung by domestic protests over the American-led invasion of Iraq and the flawed occupation by a coalition, will be less than willing to have large numbers of G.I.s on their soil.

The Navy and Air Force must take advantage of the high seas and the open skies — out of sight and over the horizon but near potential crisis zones to deter adversaries, reassure allies and remain poised to strike.

The most significant possible crisis situations today are conflict with China across the Taiwan Straits, the nuclear threat from North Korea and, potentially, Iran. Military action would require air and naval power to strike at long distances, submarines to guarantee access through choke points, and Special Operations teams to carry out precision missions on the ground — but not lots of boots on the ground.

[Just told you who we will be going after next!!!

Looking forward to more MASS-MURDERING SLAUGHTER in YOUR NAME, Amurkns?

Fuck you and your war dead!!!!

Those taking part in the emerging debate generally agree that the greatest challenges face the Army, which, they say, must continue to become more rapidly deployable under a program that is creating modular, self-sustaining brigades. The Army must restore balance to its training, which sacrificed skills at the high end of armed conflict, curtailing exercises with tanks to focus on the insurgency fight in Iraq.

The planners also agree that the nation’s other ground force, the Marine Corps, must get back to its historic mission — acting as a quick-response force, with units positioned around the globe aboard ships — and get away from the long-term deployments that have become the norm in Iraq.

The Air Force will need to maintain its technology for the most challenging forms of warfare against a “peer competitor” — code for China or Russia — or an emerging smaller adversary with sophisticated weaponry, like Iran.

[Aaaaah, the BIG MATCH!]

“The air dominance advantage we have today over other adversaries has allowed us as a nation to operate in a world where we do not have to fear for our ground forces and our interests being attacked from the air,” said Maj. Gen. Paul J. Selva, the Air Force’s director of strategic planning. “I would suggest we want to take that same relative advantage into the future and continue to deny adversaries any freedom of action in the air domain.”

[Is that a direct quote from the PNAC agenda or what?]

But the planners also say that the Air Force must move beyond its love of pilots with white scarves, and focus on less glamorous missions that require air-refueling to extend the global reach of its fighters and bombers and the pilotless vehicles that can spot enemies in hard-to-reach places.

The senior military arbiter in the debate will be Admiral Mullen. Sifting through his public statements, it is clear that his eventual decision on military capacity is not an either-or situation.

When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sent his senior military assistant to ask Admiral Mullen to name his greatest concern, the answer was “the Army.” But Admiral Mullen also ordered the brightest Navy minds to draw up the first overall American maritime strategy since the early 1980s. The maritime strategy remains classified until its unveiling next month, but in recent speeches Admiral Mullen outlined his vision.

“If we don’t push our maritime services out in the expeditionary fashion that we normally are involved in, that is very dangerous,” he said.

And the admiral says that planning for a future war demands that all agencies of the United States government be involved.

[So it will be WAR FOREVER, huh?


All because of a LIE!!!!!!??

Just gonna INVADE whoever we feel like, 'eh?


And CUI BONO, readers?

Neo-Cons, NaZionists, the War Merchants -- and THAT'S ALL!!!!

Have you EATEN ENOUGH WAR DEAD yet, Amurka?

Well, we are going to have PLATE LOADS MORE, so EAT UP!!!!!!!]

Hints of an important initiative can be seen in Admiral Mullen’s approach to how big a fleet the nation should buy. On his watch, the Navy counts more than 270 ships, and the service set a goal of increasing to more than 300. But Admiral Mullen envisions putting to sea “a thousand-ship Navy” — a number he could arrive at by building relations with friendly nations whose vessels would sail as partners."

[A 3,000 ship Navy? Talk about DELUSIONS of GRANDUER!!!!


Fucking NOT ME!!!!!!!