posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:09 PM
Having always been drawn to military history, especially grand strategy, I have to say that I am slightly disappointed with this plan. Of course being
able to fight two major wars simultaneously would require a very strong military, and I see no problems with the idea of building such a force, on the
off chance that two major wars did break out...but I would be appalled at any hint of the US getting involved in two major conflicts if there was a
way out. So as long as they do not purposefully seek two major wars, and are only preparing to be ready just in case two wars MUST be fought
simultaneously, I can understand.
A part of me believes that fighting two major wars, especially against superpowers, is impossible. Well it is possible, but winning both or either of
those conflicts seems impossible under such conditions. Two major wars at the same time is even worse than fighting a single war on two fronts, which
more often than not ends disastrously, as history has shown us. Germany lost two world wars because of this very thing.
Granted, the US fought on multiple fronts during WWII and was victorious, but it was a difficult undertaking that required an unprecedented
cooperation on the home front, which may not be possible in this day and age as the population is much more divided in their sentiments. One didn't
see very many anti-war activists during WWII, and the nation got behind the war effort mainly because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, followed by
Germany's declaration of war on the United States. So widespread support from home, which is imperative to winning a single war, would need to be
even greater to sustain and then win a conflict on multiple fronts, or multiple conflicts simultaneously. The circumstances would be very important.
Unless the US was blatantly attacked, I do not think support will be widespread.
Another thing to remember about America's multiple front war in WWII is the fact that the main action on each front was fought by different branches
of the military. The Pacific war was for the most part a naval conflict, and the actions on the ground were sustained by only a fraction of the
numbers that were used in the European Theater. The fact that the US did not need such a large naval presence in the Atlantic definitely freed up
resources for action on two fronts. But if two major ground conflicts needed to be fought on multiple fronts, then that means that there would be a
smaller amount of troops on each front, especially considering a single branch of the military must be further divided to field sufficient
The island-hopping campaigns on the Pacific did not require a large amount of ground troops, compared with the European Theater is what I'm saying,
and since the US navy could be concentrated in the Pacific, since the Atlantic naval threat from the Germans was mostly U-boats, things worked out
okay, even though the US was fighting mainly two nations...There were more than two fronts for the US during that war, but the African and Italian
campaigns were not undertaken simultaneously with the invasion of France. I too believe in focusing on a single major strategic objective, then moving
on to the next. The US HAD to fight in the Pacific, and they slowly eased their way in to a war in Africa, branching out from there after Rommel's
army was obliterated, allowing for a push into Italy. So I would consider the war a 3 front war, with the fronts being France, Italy, and the Pacific.
But I do not consider the Italian campaign and the Normandy campaign as distinct actions, as these forces would eventually link up, concentrating
their power in a sense.
WWII has shown us that a multiple front war is winnable, IF a nation has the necessary backing of a industrial civilization and support at home, and
can field a large army and navy. Germany fought basically on 4 fronts, although not all simultaneously, and not all fielding large armies...These were
north, south, east, and west. But for the most part they are thought of as fighting a 2 front war. And it is generally accepted that this was a major
reason for their defeat. There were many, many other reasons, but they would have had a better chance with concentrating on a single front at a time.
That nation had the support on the home front, but they were not able to produce enough resources, including troops, to quell the inevitable invasion
of their country from two fronts. Part of this was due to allied air superiority, which could be difficult for the US to establish against a modern
superpower, since anti-air technology has advanced so much, along with the fact that other nations possess 4th and 5th generation jets that can
compete with the US in many instances.
So I think one of the lessons to be learned is that a two front war is risky. If the US would be fighting a modern nation that is large and has a
large military, I think that a two front war would be disastrous. Yet the US strategy includes fighting two major wars, each with possible multiple
fronts? It is just not feasible to me, even with the US military's technological edge over many nations. Especially if we had to fight a nation like
China who can field a million man army. More than I'm sure, and China is advanced by this point in their military technology.
I think it is much more feasible to fight a holding war in one area, while simultaneously fighting a full scale war in another. A military as advanced
as that of the US could easily establish a hellish defensive line, and any attacking enemy would be hard-pressed to break through it. But that goes
for the US invading an area controlled by a modern, large military as well. So this is much easier than attempting to fight two wars, attempting to
take the offensive in both. But again, ANY war involving multiple fronts or multiple nations should only be undertaken as a last resort. I do not
think the US should ever get involved in anything over a single war unless it is unavoidable. I think the US grand strategy should allow for such a
possibility, but should not undertake the task of purposefully starting such a war.
And if the US feels that a war is inevitable, they should pull all military resources out of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, unless the war is
taking place around that region. I shudder to think of a modern war between two superpowers. Warfare itself has changed drastically since WWII, or the
last "global war," and a WWIII will involve new tactical doctrines, although the strategies themselves will likely include remnants of strategies
from previous conflicts, going back centuries.