|
|
 أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد
|
بعد قليل
خمسة دقايق من الان يقيم الرئيس الامريكى أوباما مؤتمرا صحفيا فى البنتاغون
يعلن فيه عدم مقدرة بل وتغيير استراتيجية الدفاع والتى كانت قادرة على الدخول فى حرب فى جبهتين مختلفتين فى آى مكان فى العالم
وذلك لعدم المقدرة المالية للحفاظ على تلك الاستراتيجية
......
يبدو ان الموتمر قد بدا أثناء كتابتى لهذا البوست
يمكن مشاهدة المؤتمر فى القنوات الرئيسية
ال سى إن إن مثال
....
سأعود بعد المؤتمر
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد (Re: Deng)
|
| Quote: WASHINGTON, DC - The United States should give up the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously, according to a Pentagon review |
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=a%20pe...hV571m-L9yRg&cad=rja
ونتيجة للعجز الضخم فى ميزانية الدولة العامة والتى بدورها ستؤثر فى ميزانية الدفاع
ستنتهج سياسة الدفاع على الاعتماد على جيش اقل فى العدد لكن بإمكانيات متطورة عالية
كما أضاف وزير الدفاع لاحقا فى المؤتمر ان جيش اصغر مرن الحركة مجهزة تجهيز عالى خير من جيش كبير بإمكانيات ضعيفة
.........
كما اوضح ان تلك السياسة لن تؤثر على مقدرة الولايات المتحدة لحماية الدولة ومصالحها حول العالم فى الشرق الاوسط و آسيا
واكد اوباما ان الاستراتيجية الجديدة ستكون قادرة بمجابهة وحسم الارهاب حول العالم
......
فخلاصة الامر ونسبة لاسباب عجز مالى كبير ستكون الولايات المتحدة قادرة للقيام والخوض فى حرب رئيسية واحدة إضافة على المقدرة فى نفس الوقت بالقيام بمهام اقل من مستوى حرب كاملة كالمشاركة فى عمليات مع قوات مشتركة مع دول اخرى حليفة والمشاركة لمكافحة العمليات الارهابية
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد (Re: محمد النيل)
|
Obama announces new, leaner military approach
By Greg Jaffe, Updated: Thursday, January 5, 12:26 PM
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new military strategy that shifts the Pentagon’s focus towards Asia and says the country’s dire budget problems necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.
The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.
“We’re turning the page on a decade of war,” Obama said in a rare visit to the Pentagon to unveil the strategy. “. . .We’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We’ll continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future.”
A major thrust of the new approach is its insistence on more modest goals for the military, which has spent years fighting difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at ousting brutal, anti-U.S. rulers and rebuilding fractured societies .
The eight-page Pentagon report outlining the strategy explicitly rejects the notion that the U.S. military should be structured to fight such wars on a regular basis. In many ways, the new approach can be seen as a rejection of the Bush administration’s ambitious foreign policy goals.
“Whenever possible,” the strategy document says, the Pentagon “will develop innovative, low cost and small footprint approaches to achieve our objectives.”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that a revamped U.S. military “will be smaller and leaner, but its great strength will be that it is more agile, flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative and technologically advanced.”
The document does not include details of what the Defense Department should cut as it seeks to meet the administration’s goal of trimming defense spending by about $480 billion over the next decade. If Congress cannot come to an agreement on how to cut the federal deficit, the Pentagon budget could be forced to shrink by as much as $1 trillion.
Officials emphasized that even with the required cuts the U.S. will continue to retain a very large military force.
“Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership,” Obama said. “In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”
In contrast to past Pentagon reviews, the new strategy offers up some very clear guidance to the military services about which missions will be eliminated and which areas of the sprawling defense establishment should be scaled back.
The approach recognizes that U.S. military and intelligence agencies must continue the battle against al-Qaeda and other global terror groups. But instead of using conventional Army and Marine Corps forces in long counter-insurgency wars, the Obama administration wants to focus more heavily on “tailored capabilities appropriate for counter-terrorism and irregular warfare.”
The language in the document essentially calls for a continued heavy reliance on armed drones, elite counter-terrorism troops and small teams of Special Forces soldiers that work with troops from other countries to strengthen their ability to fight on their own. The U.S. would rely heavily on Special Forces troops and other short-duration military training exercises to help new governments in the Middle East develop their militaries.
“As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints—we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces,” Obama said.
The strategy does not formally reject the idea that U.S. military forces will be called on in the future to bring order to fractured societies in the developing world. But it suggests that any stability operations similar to those conducted over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan will be of short duration, and have far more limited goals.
“With reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations,” the document states. It calls on the U.S. to make more of an effort to share the burden of such wars with allies, as the military did with European partners in the operation that toppled Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.
Obama insisted that any cuts to the military will not come at the expense of an expanding U.S. presence in Asia, which he dubbed a “critical region.” To pay for those increases, the strategy suggests the need for significant cuts to the size of the U.S. military ground force in Europe, which has been a mainstay of the Army for decades.
The strategy calls for continued investments in new technology such as armed drones, cyberspace systems to protect computer networks and aircraft that will allow U.S. forces to deploy quickly anywhere in the world.
And it does not completely abandon the long-standing need for the military to deal with more than one conflict at a time. “We can and will always be able to do more than one thing,” said Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "More importantly, wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. . . This is not the strategy of a military in decline.”
Top Obama administration officials revealed few details about exactly which weapons programs will be cut and how many ground forces will be pared from the military.
Over the course of the last decade, the Army has grown to about 570,000 troops, up from 482,000 prior to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current plans call for the Army to shrink to about 520,000 troops, though senior Army leaders said they expect that the number will be cut further. The defense strategy states pretty clearly that U.S. Army forces in Europe will bear the brunt of those cuts, compared to troops based in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Dempsey and other Army officials have pressed in recent months to ensure that any cuts to the ground forces be reversed if the U.S. launches another large-scale stability operation in the developing world.
The strategy also cites the need for the Pentagon to trim its personnel costs by reducing the amount of money the department spends on health care. Cutting those costs has been a major goal of the Pentagon for most of the last decade. But the effort has consistently run into a buzz saw on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have resisted even small reductions to military pay and benefits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-...AFWcmcP_story_1.html
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد (Re: Deng)
|
محمد النيل...سلامات
عنوانك شكله غريب. باين منه كان امريكا -اقرت- بانها ما قدره (الان) على المواصلة فى الحربين (المدورات من 10 سنوات).
الشيء التانى اللى فهمته بعد قراءة البوست انك فاهم ان امريكا عازه تحد امكانياتها للدخول فى حربين فى وقت واحد. الكلام ده (حتى لو صحيح) ما اظن من الحكمة اعلانه على الملا فى وقت ذى ده.
اوباما اتكلم اليوم عن تغيير استراتيجية عمل الجيش. عاوزين (ذى ما قال) جيش (خفيف عند الفزع) و متطور تكنلوجيا. يعتمد على طيرات جديدة سريعة ممكن تتحرك سريع فى كل اراف العالم.
الجيش الامريكى غير كتير من الجيوش الاخرى (ذى جيشنا) مهمته حماية المصالح الامريكية. عشان كده ما اظن يكون فى نية فى اضاعفه الان او فى اى وقت تانى
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد (Re: محمد النيل)
|
سمارتي
سلامات وكل سنة وأنتي طيبة.
أنا كنت متابع تصريحات الرئيس أوباما وتصريحات وزير الدفاع بانيتا. ولقد أكدو الأثنين معا أن هذا التغير لن يكون له أي تأثير في مقدرات القوات المسلحة الأمريكية في خوض حربين أو الالتزام الأمريكي العسكري حول العالم في آن واحد.
وأنا ما عارف أخونا محمد النيل ده عاوز يصل لشنو بالضبط.
الشئ الأخر المتعارف عليه. عندما تخرج أمريكا من أي حرب تلجأ الى مراجعة شاملة للقوات المسلحة. وهذه المراجعة تشمل عدد القوات، عتاد القوات وتدريب القوات. وهذه المراجعة تتم بواسطة خبراء عسكرين وغير عسكرين.
يا محمد النيل.
القوات المسلحة الأمريكية قادرة على خوض أكثر من حربين في نفس الوقت.
ده خلاصة كلامي لك.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: أمريكا: إقرار بعدم المقدرة بمواصلة الدخول فى حربين فى آن واحد (Re: Deng)
|
This week, there was speculation that the military cutbacks mean the U.S. would abandon its ability to fight two wars simultaneously. That's been a Pentagon mainstay for two decades. An early draft of the strategy said the military could win one war and spoil an adversary's efforts in a second war. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed that today.
GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY: Now, there's been much made, I'm sure will be made, about whether this strategy moves away from a force structure explicitly designed to fight and win two wars simultaneously. Fundamentally, our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies wherever and whenever they occur. This won't change.
BOWMAN: Panetta was even more pointed.
PANETTA: We will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.
http://m.npr.org/story/144751625?storyId=144751625&from=mobile
سلامات يا دينق. كلامك صحيح. و بائن ان كتار فهموه ذي فهم أخونا محمد النيل، عشان كده البنتقون كان واضح اليوم ( لاحظ اخر جملة. )
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
محمد النيل
Deng
smart_ana2001
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست