…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.
via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.
Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.
The strategy is two prong.
The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we have to “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.
The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” of rule-sets, which brought about an end to the Crusades. It was an Orientation of accommodation.
These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.
As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is what happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the nation-states most affected by the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was a civil war, but the outcome has been mostly to the advantage of the Islamist.
So, if there needs to be a debate in America, I suggest we debate the thought that we are “turning” the US military power in the South Pacific. I don’t think it is happening, we are simply creating a line in the sand.
My thought is that there hasn’t been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The real strategy has been that the USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other front that crosses Jerusalem.
Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.
To bring the war in the Middle East, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment, to a conclusion, we need to keep our strategy simple folks.
In November 1943 American forces successfully invaded the Gilbert Islands, which the Japanese had wrested from British control shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor almost two years earlier. Thus the United States initiated the great westward drive across the Central Pacific that would eventually bring Allied forces to the very doorstep of the Japanese homeland. This drive would constitute the northern or upper part of a two-pronged movement against the heart of Japanese military and economic power in the Pacific. The lower prong would be represented by General Douglas MacArthur’s steady progress up the Solomon Islands, up the northern coast of New Guinea, and into the Philippine Islands. But it was to the Central Pacific route, westward from Hawaii through the myriad islands and atolls of Micronesia, that the American strategic planners had assigned the “main effort” in the war against Japan. Along this path U.S. naval, ground, and air forces under command of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz were to begin a series of amphibious assaults of size and scope unparalleled in the history of oceanic warfare.
“Along this path U.S. naval, ground, and air forces under command of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz were to begin a series of amphibious assaults of size and scope unparalleled in the history of oceanic warfare.”
Not sure this is true. What Nimitz was assaulting was a well fortified and dug-in force that came from somewhere, equal in the size and scope.
The difference was in the magnitude of violence it took in the assault, which according to your comments, wasn’t paralleled in the original displacement.