Um, okay:
Rather than confronting China and Russia where the fighting would be toughest, the thinking goes, the U.S. would broaden the conflict into areas where it has the advantage, eventually inflicting enough pain that the enemy yields.
The theory of horizontal escalation thus holds that the U.S. can wage a war on its terms rather than the enemy’s — and that it can achieve victory without paying the price of a more direct approach. Unfortunately, this theory is too good to be true: Horizontal escalation ultimately stumbles on several key problems.
I just don't buy the three reasons this kind of "horizontal escalation" is automatically a bad idea.
We may have reasons of our own not to wage war outside of the immediate theater our enemy chooses, but the idea that we should of course go along with the scope and scale of war that our enemy chose for their own advantage is insane. Attacking an enemy's weakest point is kind of War 101.
But sure, being able to fight away from the enemy's chosen theater does not allow us to ignore dealing with and fighting the enemy at the point of their attack. If I may be so bold, duh.
Maybe the knowledge that we will wage war if attacked at any point will deter a potential enemy from thinking they can enjoy a short and glorious war in a theater they alone get to define.
If a country goes to war with America, they go to war with America. Everywhere.
UPDATE: The more I reflect on the article the more ridiculous it seems.
How is it possible to think that Russia could declare war on America's European Command (EUCOM) alone and every other American command just sits out the fight? Or that we should go along with that narrow fight that Russia chose?
Don't we in part try to deter attacks by gathering allies to defend eastern NATO? Yet not even all of America's military power is supposed to fight Russia if Russia attacks eastern NATO?
