← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 4174 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2002-12-24
2002-12-24 17:20 | User Profile
Rumsfeld Says, if Necessary, U.S. Can Fight 2 Wars at Once
By DAVID STOUT ASHINGTON, Dec. 23 ââ¬â The United States is "perfectly capable" of taking military action against Iraq and North Korea at the same time, should that ever be necessary, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today.
Mr. Rumsfeld made his comments at a Pentagon news briefing, where much of the discussion focused on Iraq's apparent downing of an unmanned American spy plane today and North Korea's statements over the weekend signaling that it might be reviving its nuclear reactor program.
Asked whether he thought the North Koreans might feel emboldened because of the United States' focus on Iraq and the campaign against terrorism, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "If they do, it would be a mistake."
"We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other. And let there be no doubt about it."
But Mr. Rumsfeld sought to dispel speculation about a possible conflict with North Korea. Asked whether there was "a military option on the table" for preventing North Korea from manufacturing nuclear weapons, he declined to respond directly, saying that the Defense Department prepares for "a whole host of contingencies."
"We tend not to get into details as to what those contingencies might be," he said.
Over the weekend, a senior administration official said that tougher measures against North Korea, like a blockade or economic penalties, were not currently under consideration. But the official warned, despite Mr. Bush's recent assurances that he had no intention of invading North Korea, that Washington might weigh `nondiplomaticô actions if the North moved much closer to building new weapons.
The loss of the Predator spy plane over the southern "no-flight zone" of Iraq and North Korea's renewed activity with its reactor program raised concerns in Washington about two of the three members of the "axis of evil" as President Bush has labeled Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, played down the importance of the downing of the spy plane, apparently by Iraqi aircraft.
"They got off a lucky shot," General Myers said. "It's the same thing they've been doing the last couple of years."
Iraq has claimed that it shot down United States surveillance drones at least twice before, last May and in October 2001, and it routinely fires at aircraft from the international coalition that have patrolled the skies over the country for years.
But the incident today was the first since the passage of the United Nations disarmament resolution in early November. "They attempt to shoot down all our aircraft that fly over southern and northern Iraq in support of the U.N. Security Council resolutions," General Myers noted.
In that sense, the Iraqi action did not represent an escalation of belligerence from the regime of Saddam Hussein, the general said.
But the incident, coming only a few days after the United States rejected Baghdad's declaration that it is in full compliance with United Nations orders to scuttle its weapons of mass destruction, seemed bound to increase tensions.
Asked about Baghdad's assertions that it is complying fully with the United Nations, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "Well, they obviously aren't."
President Bush has said repeatedly that if Iraq does not disarm peacefully, it will be disarmed by force. Mr. Rumsfeld, said today, "As the president has said, the use of force is the last choice."
The Bush administration's alarms over North Korea were heightened over the weekend, when the North Korean government said it had removed monitoring equipment installed more than eight years ago by international inspectors to make sure it did not use plutonium stockpiles to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea also said it was removing monitors from a nuclear reactor.
Those actions have worried experts who follow the development of nuclear weaponry around the world and who believe that North Korea may be able to develop a nuclear arsenal within a year.
Bravo Sierra!
"Rummys" mouth is writing check that other folks bodies will have to pay for. Comments such as this are not helpful and are downright dangerous.
Neo-con hubris at its worst.
2002-12-24 19:43 | User Profile
I need the input of a military mind here- to see if I'm wrong.
I think, from what I've observed in terms of weapons, men, tactics, etc. that the ROK Army could stop the PRK army cold by itself. Not a total rout, but enough to reverse any invasion.
Am I wrong?
The North has T-62 and T-54 tanks in their original form. The South has its own advanced tank, and highly upgraded M-48s, -47s, etc. :huh:
2002-12-25 03:54 | User Profile
Mr. Rumsfield, can the US fight on three fronts--Iraq, N. Korea, and Tawain?
The Chinese have been rattling their sabers over Tawain lately. The manpower and weaponry of the Armed forces have been cut into half since the Gulf War. Who is this idiot kidding?
2002-12-25 11:54 | User Profile
Greetings, Baron, and Merry Christmas to you.
Im incline to agree with you based on previous information Ive seen. Most of the equipment that the Iman Gun has is obsolete. They have done some upgrades, but as these are old designs they are limited on just what they can do. I believe that the North Koreans probably could get as far south as the 37th parallel before increasing resistance of the R.O.K.s and attacks on their lines of communication would bring them to a halt. I certainly dont believe they can be stopped on the DMZ and I have doubts that Seoul could be held. There are something like ten million people living there and one can imagine the mess that would occur having those people trying to move south while the R.O.K. Army tries to bring forth their reserves. Even if they were able to do so I would think they wouldnt want to get too near the DMZ because of the huge number of artillery pieces and rocket launchers the N. Koreans have massed and dugin there. Of course maybe Rumsfeld is thinking about using tactical nukes to deal with that problem. I get the impression at times that nothing would make him happier than to drop the big one on somebody.
Of course, there are some wild cards here like Red China and how they would react to this. I think that they might help supply the North Koreans in a discreet manner, "free trade" notwithstanding because of the comtempt they hold the U.S. in. Then we have this business with nuclear weapons and who decides to use them first.
SKemper,
Greetings and Merry Christmas to you as well.
Unless the information I have is incorrect it appears for the time being that Red China doesn`t have enough amphibious vessels to move more than one division at this time. Nonetheless, I agree with you that they do want to screw with us in some manner. They will rely on the greed of the "businessmen" who have located so much U.S. industry over there to help them get away with it. These same "businessmen" and the folks who just love buying cheap Chinese products will in time pay for the vessels and aircraft they need.
"Rumy" already has half of the U.S. Army committed to the Gulf fiasco and the other units are tied up in "peace keeping" missions in the Balkans. A problem in Korea would probably cause the 25 Inf. Division, based in Hawaii, to go there, leaving little left.
Mother Hubbards cupboard is getting mighty bare and that is something most Americans arent aware of or maybe concerned about, in view of all the tubthumping "rah-rah patriotism" coming from the ignorant neo-con choir.
Rumsfeld and his gang of Zionist Neo-cons need to shut the hell up which they won`t because they are crazy as hell.
2002-12-25 20:05 | User Profile
I have been away from the Far East for too many years to give an accurate appraisal of the abilities of the ROK's. In Vietnam ROK's reportedly lost almost 5000 men. Yet men I knew and trusted told me they lost less than half that. Korea was paid by the US government for the number of their dead - an insurance policy of sorts.
These men I knew claimed more than half the bodies sent to Korea as their dead were in fact Vietnamese. ROK's were notorious for excessive brutality and greed. The higher-ups collected the money contributed by the US.
As bad as they were, I am sure the North Koreans were and are much worse. By all data I remember seeing South Korea should be able to defend itself without American help. A North Korean atomic weapon may change my assessment. South Koreans do not like us, and many wish we would leave. The Japanese do not want to see a united Korea.
I remember George Marshall's remark after World War II. Everybody was urging Marshall to give the Russians "hell". Marshall replied that the US only had less than 2 divisions in the continental USA and could not give "hell" to anybody. I agree with sterling Sertorious that we have virtually exhausted our ground forces and would be hard pressed to fight a two front war without nuclear weapons.
2002-12-26 14:01 | User Profile
The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com
U.S. ability to fight two wars doubted Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published December 25, 2002 For the first time since the U.S. military adopted a post-Soviet strategy of being ready to fight two wars simultaneously, there are real prospects that American troops may be asked to carry out that mission.
But some military analysts say the armed forces today are too small to fight two major wars at once.
The situation is this: The Bush administration says Iraq is lying about its weapons of mass destruction, as the United States moves forces to the Persian Gulf for an invasion to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In the Pacific, North Korea is exploiting the crisis with Saddam to test President Bush's resolve. Pyongyang has resumed its nuclear-weapons program, which Washington believes poses a threat to world security.
With tensions rising, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asserted on Monday that U.S. forces can simultaneously fight North Korea and Iraq. A Pentagon policy statement, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, states that the military today is funded and structured to fight and occupy one enemy nation, while defeating another foe.
"We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
But there are doubters, inside and outside the military.
"In all due respect to Rumsfeld, that was a very patriotic thing to say," said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, a military analyst. "But we do not have the means, the manpower or the strategy to actually do that. We simply lack sufficient ground forces, sufficient airlift, sufficient sea lift to do those things."
Retired Rear Adm. Jeremy Taylor, a former attack pilot and carrier commander, said he believes the Bush administration, in reality, knows it cannot fight two major conventional wars simultaneously. That is why, he said, the White House recently issued a strategy statement threatening to use nuclear weapons to prevent attacks from enemies that use weapons of mass destruction.
"We have a [two-war] strategy that is totally out of whack with the size of the force we have," Adm. Taylor said. "For the secretary to say we can handle two regional conflicts is ludicrous to the point where the rascals of the world, our adversaries, don't believe us. We have lost our ability to deter war."
Today's 1.4-million-member active-duty force is about half the size of the U.S. military during the 1980s, when the country was still engaged in the Cold War. Yet the United States has taken on additional assignments while maintaining old alliances through the deployment of 200,000 troops in Germany and Asia.
The U.S. military plays a major role in peacekeeping in the Balkans, is actively preparing for war in the Persian Gulf, has 8,000 troops fighting a low-grade war against al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and has positioned units to attack terrorists in the Gulf and Africa.
The United States had just begun shrinking the Cold War force of 2.1 million in 1990 when Saddam's army invaded Kuwait and the Pentagon responded with Operation Desert Storm. Commanders asked for and received 550,000 troops to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Today, the active force is a little more than half that size. A U.S. Army that once constituted nearly 800,000 soldiers now stands at 480,000.
"When all of a sudden push comes to shove, part of the reason we have been able to do what we've been able to do is overwhelming ground power. That was the reason Desert Storm went so spectacularly well," Col. Allard said. "Today, you simply lack the forces to go around."
The United States is in the midst of a major military buildup in the Persian Gulf for what could well be an invasion this winter to oust Saddam from power.
If North Korea attacks South Korea while the United States has troops invading Iraq, the Pentagon would be faced with a whirlwind of decisions. Some domestic units are designated for war in both the Pacific and Gulf theaters. Gen. Tommy Franks, who would direct an invasion of Iraq, might have to relinquish some of his requested 250,000 troops to block the North Korean advance.
This could prolong the war against Iraq and increase U.S. casualties âââ¬" something uniformed military officials warned about last year when Mr. Rumsfeld's aides toyed with the idea of cutting the active force even deeper.
The argument of Mr. Rumsfeld's aides, in part, was that advancements in "smart" munitions during the past decade have reduced the requirement for land units.
Pyongyang has picked this time to announce the resumption of its nuclear program as the United States is involved in a crisis in the Gulf to test Mr. Bush.
One scenario is that Mr. Bush is forced to order air strikes on North Korea's nuclear facilities to prevent the quick assembly and use of nuclear weapons. North Korea, whose communist regime has brought famine to the country, may respond by invading South Korea.
The White House says no military action is imminent against Pyong-yang. The administration is talking with Japan, China, Russia and South Korea about a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
North Korea has more than 1 million troops stationed near or on the border with South Korea. The warning time for an attack is measured in hours, not days.
The United States has a "trip wire" force of 37,000 troops in South Korea and another 60,000 sailors, Marines and airmen in the region. They, and the well-trained South Korean army, would need reinforcements almost immediately to protect Seoul from a massive artillery barrage and occupation.
"In fact, the force in place is little more than an emergency 'stopper' that is supposed to hold until reinforcements arrive," said a Navy officer. "But the forces in Japan, Okinawa and the United States are already too shallow and will be further reduced for Iraq. I see no way they could take the offensive and win even if they could hold." Copyright &##169; 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
** "In all due respect to Rumsfeld, that was a very patriotic thing to say," said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, a military analyst. "But we do not have the means, the manpower or the strategy to actually do that. We simply lack sufficient ground forces, sufficient airlift, sufficient sea lift to do those things." **
With all due respect to you, Colonel, that wasnt a patriotic thing to do at all. That was an incredibly stupid thing for him to say, and that includes using nukes, which it appears increasingly likely that that is what they intend to do. There is nothing patriotic about running ones mouth, particularly when someone else may have to pay for such an idiotic statement. I bet this remark was looked at closely by the North Koreans. Rumsfeld better hope that they decide to stand down, for if they decide that it is only a matter of time before the U.S. goes after them and decides to attack first, we will have one hell of a bloody mess- blood that will be all over Rumsfeld`s hands because of his big mouth.
As if he really gave a damn.
2002-12-27 00:27 | User Profile
There's no reason to speculate on the dynamics of any supposed " War " . Not in this thread, maybe another. Love and Truth are the only two absolutes which obfuscate the Reality from our Leaders. Notice I said " our Leaders". The Media in The United States is another subject which I would grow old discussing this evening. TO the subject at hand >>
We no longer live in a world where armies, or even tanks and jet fighters can make a difference in battle. Nuclear weapons included. When Rumsfeld said that The US can win a war against both Iraq and North Korea, he is correct. He is not only correct, he was actually not telling the press the further truth, which is that the NWO can and will shut down power grids. No electricity. And " Star Wars " was a term given to the press to let it lay fallow. and be underminded. If they truly have the ability to shiled against any form of material missile, do you think the US would make it world news ??? no....... They are at levels where they can cause whole populations to have heart attacks simultaneously through electro-magentics. They have invisible rays which can burn through flesh like butter and not be seen. They can spill down posions and death upon entire populations. With only a few conspirators. Only the Holy Spirit keeps Mankind on this Earth. And that's an even more powerful Being.
2002-12-27 01:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Dec 27 2002, 00:27 ** . They are at levels where they can cause whole populations to have heart attacks simultaneously through electro-magentics. They have invisible rays which can burn through flesh like butter and not be seen. They can spill down posions and death upon entire populations. With only a few conspirators. Only the Holy Spirit keeps Mankind on this Earth. And that's an even more powerful Being. **
Did they develop those mechanisms to cause mass heart failure in entire populations at secret Arctic or Antarctic bases? Or was it in the bases deep under the crust of the hollow earth?
While there is little doubt that there is work being done on such things, certain rants make it sound as if much is controlled by the guys who have one of their lost ships on display at Hangar 18.
2002-12-27 04:51 | User Profile
Isn't Rummey 79 years old?
Sounds like an obvious case of Alzhiemers disease. Someone needs to call the rest home and tell them that we have found the dottering old fool that wandered away and has been missing for the last two years.