| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Five Reasons The U.S. Army Will Lose Its Next War In Europe -- Maybe In 2017 |
| 2016-09-20 |
| [Forbes] U.S. Army planners believe they may have to fight a "near-peer" adversary within five years. Near-peer in this case means a rapidly modernizing Russian military seeking to regain lost ground along Russia's border with Europe. There's plenty of evidence that Russia's military is on the move in the Baltic region, near Ukraine, and elsewhere. Some observers have wrongly inferred that America's Army has "only" five years to prepare for such a conflict. In fact, it has five years or less. It is common for aggressors to challenge new U.S. presidents early in their tenure. If such a war were to occur, it would be mainly an Army show. The fight would be over control of large expanses of land with few geographical impediments to rapid advance. The U.S. Army would likely do most of the ground combat for NATO, because America contributes over two-thirds of the alliance's resources. Losing such a war would drastically reshape the geopolitical balance in Europe, and reduce U.S. influence there to its lowest ebb since before World War Two. And yet losing is what the U.S. Army is currently postured to do. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #8 #3 #1 Elections have consequences. Posted by Nguard Yep, and the poor old infantryman and tanker will pay the price. Posted by: Tennessee prolly would've voted for the evil Rep party anyway |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-09-20 21:41 |
| #7 I suspect they'll have a civil war with their Muslim populations before Russia gets involved. In fact Russia may be welcomed by that point for all we know. Either way NATO should have been reevaluated long ago. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-09-20 14:42 |
| #6 Kuwait was a ground war. Europe won't be. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-09-20 10:34 |
| #5 The U.S. Army would likely do most of the ground combat for NATO, because America contributes over two-thirds of the alliance's resources. There is your answer. Somewhere around the early 80s, Western Europe reach GDP and population parity. We've funded 30 years of military welfare. Why are we even there. If they don't have the will to defend themselves, why should Americans once again be called upon to die? Can't lose a war if you are not there. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-09-20 07:56 |
| #4 I guess Putin had to wait until after Obama was re-elected. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2016-09-20 05:44 |
| #3 #1 Elections have consequences. Posted by Nguard Yep, and the poor old infantryman and tanker will pay the price. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-09-20 00:42 |
| #2 And yet losing is what the U.S. Army is currently postured to do. And yet where has the (alleged) "opposition" party stood up and *demanded* that our military be adequately funded? |
| Posted by: Crusader 2016-09-20 00:40 |
| #1 Elections have consequences. |
| Posted by: Nguard 2016-09-20 00:38 |