A national defense analyst says the U.S. military has lost its ability to fight a prolonged conventional war because of President Obama.
“Thirty years ago, we had 350,000,” Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says of the U.S. armed forces. “Now we’re down to 60 to 65,000 and most of those are not fighters.”
The Pentagon announced last year that the U.S. military would shrink to numbers the mirror pre-World War II levels.
According to The Daily Beast, the Pentagon has learned it’s not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia if a conflict erupts in Europe.
“The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow,” the news website reported in an August 14 story, “and they do not look good for the American side.”
The story explained the U.S. military conducted a table-top exercise and an actual field exercise with NATO partners earlier this summer, and both exercises concluded the U.S. could not maintain a sustained fight against Russia.
Maginnis, a senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, says a war in Eastern Europe would involve different challenges.
“We’re talking, in Eastern Europe, about conventional operations, which is a different proposition, different types of weaponry and different types of tactics,” he tells OneNewsNow.
For many decades the United States’ military doctrine has been to fight a “two-front war” and have the capability to sustain both war fronts. That vision was officially scrapped in 2012, with the plan blamed on cuts to the Pentagon budget.
Last year, The New York Times reported on the coming cuts:
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
The United States outpaces other countries in military spending but military spending in China and Russia, and even India and Australia, are increasing while the U.S. is decreasing, The Military Times reported earlier this year.
There is also the manpower problem, Maginnis says, as well as another problem: Obama is a feckless commander-in-chief.
“There’s nothing that President Obama’s going to really do,” Maginnis predicts, “other than a rather tepid response by a series of exercises that comes with some equipment, not real heavy lethal equipment.”