There’ve been a lot of rumors swirling around Washington that the 50-year-old national defense strategy (being able to fight two big wars at the same time) is about to get canned in favor of a new one.
Really? What happens if the senior-most military leaders decide that preparing for asymmetrical conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan is more important than fighting a second peer competitor? What are the implications of that for the Navy?
That was a question posed by Navy guru Ron O’Rourke the other day during a panel discussion of Naval aviation in Washington.
“That would amount to a change in the current force sizing construct. The question that flows from that is: What value carriers and Naval aviation have in that strategy?”
Unfortunately, O’Rourke didn’t answer his own question.
But take a look at what Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill on July 9. He was talking about fighter jets and said:
“…the number of those fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two simultaneous peer competitors, that we don’t see that as the likely. We see that as the extreme.”
Tell us what you think.