Since March the Pentagon has been studying how it should spend its future budgets. Rumsfeld and many military people say it should be spent on speed: getting to combat areas fast (before the enemy is ready for us) and destroying his capabilities fast. They have dubbed this concept “10-30-30”. Ten days to “seize the initiative” from the enemy. Thirty days to defeat the enemy. And be able to move to another combat theater in thirty days.
Other military people say that speed is important in a conventional war but few will challenge us in this way. It is more likely that we will be tested in guerilla wars ala Vietnam and Iraq. And for these wars you need troops who can defeat guerillas, restore law and order and rebuild a country. They argue that the ‘speed’ approach simply improves our already strong capabilities but does nothing for our poor capabilities in fighting a non-conventional war.
We don’t have enough money to do both. What do you think is more likely? War with China, North Korea, Iran,….? Or war with a bunch of fanatics who do not play by the rules of war? It’s not an easy question to answer.
1 comment:
Al - It's not an easy question and the only surety is that they will get it wrong whichever way they jump. They tried the 10-30-30 approach in Iraq because it was 'do-able' and look what happened.
Perhaps they'd do better to stop considering wars in foreign parts and commit more to the defence of the home country, allowing others to sort out their own problems.
Post a Comment