Although I dont like Freedmans writing, but this article isWorth reading, analysing, make your own views...there is something worth understanding; For the past 13 years, the United States has been engaged in extensive, multidivisional warfare in two major theaters -- and several minor ones -- in the Islamic world. The United States is large and powerful enough to endure such extended conflicts, but given that neither conflict ended satisfactorily, the desire to raise the threshold for military involvement makes logical sense. U.S. President Barack Obamas speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point sought to raise the bar for military action. However, it was not clear in the speech what Obama meant in practical terms when he said: Heres my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we dont, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. Given events in Ukraine and Iraq, the presidents definition of a nail in relation to the U.S. military hammer becomes important. Military operations that cannot succeed, or can succeed only with such exorbitant effort that they exhaust the combatant, are irrational. Therefore, the first measure of any current strategy in either Ukraine or Iraq is its sheer plausibility.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:29:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015