Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
On Venezuela and the Risks of an Overstretched Military -- Alexander Vindman
https://www.avindman.com/p/on-venezuela-and-the-risks-of-anTrump is overstretching our military.
A thoughtful look at the current situation by someone who knows.
Our capabilities across domains are carefully arrayed against specific threats. We build war plans and contingencies years in advance and allocate resources accordingly. At the present moment, American forces are structured to fight one major theater war while maintaining strategic capabilities in another. For example, the United States can theoretically meet the military challenge of a country like Russia or China while simultaneously deterring other adversaries. The United States can maintain this posture while also managing a small number of contingency operations in other parts of the world. These contingencies can include the emergency evacuation of American citizens in response to a crisis abroad, or the delivery of humanitarian aid following a natural disaster.
When we aren’t actively fighting, we are training, conducting readiness exercises, and overhauling platforms in the Air Force and Navy. War plans are continually updated, tested, and ready for implementation.The focus of American military strategy in the current moment should be on preparing for the next war, most likely involving great-power competition in the Indo-Pacific or European theaters. We can walk and chew gum at the same time: our military can manage limited strike missions and contingencies while preparing for major wars. What we cannot do, however, is sustain domestic policing missions or launch open-ended campaigns against narcotraffickers without undermining readiness.
The border policing mission has already changed the posturing of active Marine and Army units. Today, we see the deployment of troops in U.S. cities like Washington DC and Los Angeles and threats to expand this policing role to a half-dozen more. Parallel to these domestic operations, the United States has assembled a flotilla for counternarcotics operations that doubles as preparation for possible strikes on Venezuela. This is not sustainable. If the goal were simply a show of force to deter illegal immigration and drug trafficking, the effect on readiness would be minimal. But the Trump administration is signaling something far more expansive. These missions amount to a lawless, inefficient misuse of U.S. military power, all of which undermining the Department of Defense’s core responsibility to defend the nation.
We’ve seen this mistake before. During the Bush 43 presidency, the United States embarked on a war of choice against an imaginary threat in Iraq, distracting us from the existential challenges posed by a resurgent Russia and emerging China. Those adversaries exploited our strategic diversion to accelerate their rise. The Trump administration risks repeating this folly by entangling the military in missions it was never designed for, once again enabling opportunism by our most dangerous enemies.
. . .
When we aren’t actively fighting, we are training, conducting readiness exercises, and overhauling platforms in the Air Force and Navy. War plans are continually updated, tested, and ready for implementation.The focus of American military strategy in the current moment should be on preparing for the next war, most likely involving great-power competition in the Indo-Pacific or European theaters. We can walk and chew gum at the same time: our military can manage limited strike missions and contingencies while preparing for major wars. What we cannot do, however, is sustain domestic policing missions or launch open-ended campaigns against narcotraffickers without undermining readiness.
The border policing mission has already changed the posturing of active Marine and Army units. Today, we see the deployment of troops in U.S. cities like Washington DC and Los Angeles and threats to expand this policing role to a half-dozen more. Parallel to these domestic operations, the United States has assembled a flotilla for counternarcotics operations that doubles as preparation for possible strikes on Venezuela. This is not sustainable. If the goal were simply a show of force to deter illegal immigration and drug trafficking, the effect on readiness would be minimal. But the Trump administration is signaling something far more expansive. These missions amount to a lawless, inefficient misuse of U.S. military power, all of which undermining the Department of Defense’s core responsibility to defend the nation.
We’ve seen this mistake before. During the Bush 43 presidency, the United States embarked on a war of choice against an imaginary threat in Iraq, distracting us from the existential challenges posed by a resurgent Russia and emerging China. Those adversaries exploited our strategic diversion to accelerate their rise. The Trump administration risks repeating this folly by entangling the military in missions it was never designed for, once again enabling opportunism by our most dangerous enemies.
. . .