Two days earlier, under the call of U.S. Defense Secretary Hughes, hundreds of U.S. military general officers spread across the globe temporarily gathered to hold a full-time online "conference".
The day after the meeting, U.S. Air Force Gen. Thomas Bissier applied for retirement. Subsequently, Brian Fenton, a four-star general of the U.S. Army and commander of the Special Operations Command, announced his resignation.
These two generals both bear important responsibilities. The organization led by Thomas Bissier is responsible for managing the only intercontinental ballistic missile and strategic bomber force in the United States, while the department led by Brian Fenton is responsible for organizing, training and directing the U.S. military's special operations forces around the world.
What happened to the U.S. Army to force two senior generals to resign?
In fact, before this rare U.S. military meeting, more than 10 senior U.S. military generals, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Naval Operations Secretary, and Director of Defense Intelligence, had been fired.
Behind this lies the gap between the current ideal and reality of the U.S. military and the irreconcilable contradiction resulting therefrom.
Data shows that the US military has nearly a thousand military bases around the world. Relying on these military presences, the United States is also trying every means to build the military image of the US military.
Several branches of the U.S. military have dedicated offices in Los Angeles to coordinate filming matters, etc. These offices cooperate with Hollywood. Looking through those Hollywood blockbusters, whether they are terrorists or aliens, the US military is there wherever they need them.
These images are all aimed at diluting various scandals involving the US military overseas, and are also trying to build the so-called "values" of the US military-the US military has always been "at the forefront of safeguarding world interests."
In the new U.S. Defense Strategy draft, the U.S. military will have a different focus on global security than before, and the core thinking of the new strategy is to prioritize domestic and western hemisphere security.
Although this change is forced by changes in actual strength, it does not seem to be so easily accepted by all US military generals. So much so that Hegseth made it clear at the meeting:
If you don't agree with my point of view, you can leave. Those who are not satisfied with what I said can announce their immediate resignation.
This was said shortly after the resignation of two senior U.S. military generals mentioned above.
In fact, it is not the so-called values of "protecting the world" that have been impacted, but such strategic adjustment involves the real distribution of benefits.
The United States won World War II with seven four-star generals, while the United States now has forty-four four-star generals.
How did these people benefit? It is not the military merits earned from overseas wars one after another. Now, with one word from you, Hegese, is about to cut off the financial path of these subsequent generals.
There is no foreign war, how one star becomes two stars, how two stars become three stars.
In his resignation letter, Brian Fenton thanked his colleagues and his ministry for their support, and for Hertzess, without mentioning anything else.This may be the attitude — I sweat and blood for American interests on the battlefield, and you Hertzess, a defense secretary who has risen from the chairman, what qualifications do you have to draw your fingers.
After all, the United States is now unable to maintain so many overseas military bases, and wants to move the "interests" of overseas generals.
But these people within the US military don't buy it.
Under the new strategy led by Hegel, the U.S. military focuses more on a very specific expression of the doorstep, which is to strengthen dynamic control of the Caribbean waters and constantly strengthen its military presence in the Caribbean region.
The United States has always regarded Latin America as its own backyard. At the meeting attended by hundreds of generals, the United States proposed to consider attacking Venezuela.
A few days after the conference, Hergezs announced that under his command, the U.S. military had sunk a ship in international waters near Venezuela, killing four people.In fact, since September, the U.S. has launched attacks on at least four ships in the Caribbean, three of which took place near Venezuela and one near the Dominican Republic.
It can be said that Latin American countries, such as Venezuela, have become the “training objects” of the new U.S. military strategy.
In recent years, the U.S. military has sent eight ships and more than 4,500 soldiers to the Caribbean, claiming that it is to “fight drug traffickers,” but its strength comparisons are “drunk and not drunk.”
Among the ships dispatched, two are amphibious dock transport ships, which are responsible for delivering nearshore troops. Nearly half of the more than 4,500 soldiers are members of the Marine Corps. They belong to the 22nd Maritime Expeditionary Unit of the U.S. Marine Corps. This unit often conducts landing drills in Puerto Rico and is best at landing on the beach.
Caracas, Venezuela's capital, is only a dozen kilometers away from the nearest coastline. That is to say, once the defense line is broken through, the enemy may reach Venezuela's capital in one hour.
In addition, there are three Aliberg-class missile destroyers and one Ticondogara-class missile cruiser, the main naval vessel of the U.S. Navy, which carries "Tax" cruise missiles that can strike targets in Venezuela at any time.
At the same time, the U.S. military has announced that a Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine has been deployed near the Caribbean.
With ships nearby and nuclear submarines far away, the U.S. military has built a deterrent circle against Venezuela.
Such behavior is completely unacceptable to Latin American countries.
On Oct. 3, Venezuela submitted a protest to the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council this month, accusing the U.S. aircraft of illegally invading about 75 kilometers off the Venezuelan coast.
On the same day, 10 members of the American Bolivarian Alliance issued a statement condemning the "aggression" of U.S. aircraft in the Caribbean Sea near Venezuela, saying it was "in violation of the sovereignty of its member states" in "the intimidating logic of imposing imperialist characteristics".
Until now, the U.S. Navy has remained stationed in waters near Venezuela and the U.S. has even threatened that the U.S. could launch a secret war against a country as long as the U.S. president calls it an enemy.
To some extent, this is more like a kind of bully intimidation-before, the US military could maintain a presence around the world. Now, the United States not only needs to shrink, but even after it shrinks, it also needs a joint action of "making malicious words + making some small moves at the end".
The U.S. military may indeed need to spend limited resources on “visible performances.”
Under the great logic of the US military strategic contraction, the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States has also undergone important changes.
This change has been opposed by many people within the US military. Many people believe that the new National Defense Strategy ignores global competition with China.
But for Hegese, the United States is no longer able to bear more military costs in the Asia-Pacific region. In order not to completely lose his influence, Hagesese came up with a solution.
As early as this May, he mentioned that U.S. allies must take on more defence responsibilities.Of course, the U.S. has been hanging in their mouths, but then, Hergezs mentioned that more "practical cooperation" should be made in the Asia-Pacific region.
This can be understood from the U.S. military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region.
September 15 - September 19, is the day of the third US-Japanese-Korean "freedom blade" exercise, the first and second time, the United States sent aircraft carriers to participate. but this time, open source information shows that the U.S. military aircraft carrier "Washington" in Japan "laying" at the port of Hye, there is no trajectory.
At the same time, the USS Nimitz, which was carrying out missions in the Middle East, did not come to participate in the exercise.
It can be seen that in other war zones and command department jurisdictions around the world, U.S. aircraft carriers and ships are mostly in “calm missions” such as routine cruises, visits, and port stops.
This adjustment of the U.S. military is undoubtedly a new practice following its decline in military factuality and military strategic adjustment.
But at the same time, just as the U.S. aircraft carrier lay behind, the United States held a joint military exercise called the "Determined Dragon", during which the U.S. military "temporaryly" deployed the "Tibeon" land-based missile system to Japan.
Although the "Difeng" is a threat in terms of parameters, this weapon is not advanced. It is essentially a land-based modification of the U.S. Navy's shipboard MK-41 vertical launch system.
Weapons are not what is a good weapon, behind this is the US military's so-called "practical cooperation" concept.
The U.S. military, by giving Japan and the Philippines these countries some such as the "Tifon" system " bottle bottle tanks", hopes that they can grab the energy of the target country.
Traditionally, the United States has relied on large aircraft carrier battle groups and long-range bombers to implement strategic deterrence in the Asia-Pacific region. However, as the military strength of emerging countries improves, they have the ability to keep the U.S. naval fleet and joint forces at a certain distance and use the confrontation area as a barrier, which in turn will deter the United States and its allies.
And the US's approach, in addition to pulling allies, has also "fought guerrilla war".
This can be difficult for the U.S. military. Chinese people have rich guerrilla warfare experience, and the Son Son's Soldier Law mentions that the people who walk thousands of miles and work hard, do in the land of no one, too.
Wherever the U.S. military has suffered from such “defeat”, everywhere is “Van Fritt ammunition”, everywhere is “absolute firepower suppression”.
Under this philosophy, the U.S. military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region emphasizes “more geographically decentralized and more flexible in combat.”
On the one hand, taking advantage of the geographical advantages of allies such as Japan, the Philippines, and Australia, the United States can deploy land-based anti-ship missiles in a decentralized manner at the forefront of the first and second island chains in the Western Pacific to avoid the risk of being attacked by concentrated bases.
On the other hand, the United States will use small, scattered maritime detachments to fight "maritime guerrilla warfare" and harass the actions of target countries on key air and sea lines of communication, in an attempt to delay the target countries 'pace and provide more time for the US military to intervene in conflicts.
From this we can see that the United States has narrowed its core forces to a further distance, preventing centralized strikes, while in the vicinity, the U.S. military will use small-scale forces and use the power of other countries to harass and demonstrate so-called regional influence at the lowest cost.
Finally, Tanner would like to share a few opinions:
First, the U.S. military dispute came to the table, and even the resignation boom, in essence is the deep contradiction generated by the U.S. pursuit of long-term military hegemony and the pursuit of short-term political interests. The U.S. military-industrial interest groups have long been accustomed to war money, the U.S. has long been accustomed to relying on military ships across the globe, Hegersh at this time talking about strategic contraction, naturally someone is difficult to accept. but the U.S. finance has long been high in debt, don't forget, the U.S. government since October 1 because of no money closed.
Second, when the U.S. military shrinks, it definitely hopes to choose several targets to "establish its prestige." This approach has been tried and tested by the U.S. military. But now, more and more countries don't eat this set. Venezuelan President Maduro said that 94% of Venezuelan respondents oppose any form of threat or aggression from the United States. If Venezuela is attacked by external military forces, the Venezuelan government will take extraordinary measures according to law.
Third, the United States may be increasingly unable to interfere in the Asia-Pacific region. The days of interfering in the Asia-Pacific situation by flying a few aircraft carriers are gone forever.
The United States is no longer the original United States, and the world is no longer the original world.