Historians agree: Worst President Ever

[SirNitram]

managed to put the most powerful military in the world to shame by failing to meet the 'Two fronts' standard of the Pentagon,

Can you elaborate on this "two fronts" standard? Is there an actual long standing foreign policy about not opening a war on two fronts, or is it a lot more subtle with diplomatic + military meaning two "fronts"?

I could be very wrong, but I believe the Pentagon's standard of military readiness was to be able to engage on two fronts simultaneously.

[Patrick Degan]

Are we sure no other President has comissioned legal justification to revoke the 4th Amendment, the Writ,

Under the Sedition and Espionage Acts of 1917/18, Woodrow Wilson, his DoJ, his Treasury Dept., and the Postmaster General of the United States, simply outright suspended the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments de facto, and proceeded to sling hundreds of socialists, German-American immigrants, and antiwar protestors into prison, suppressed dissenting opinion, seized socialist newspapers in the mails, and smashed the IWW labour union and the Socialist Party of America by jailing its leadership including Eugene V. Debs —who was also an outspoken antiwar and antidraft protestor. Conscientious objectors risked prison for refusing to fight in Mr. Wilson's War, and the acts "justified" three years of police-state repression carried out by the legal machinery of government. The maker of a movie about the American Revolution was thrown in prison for producing "anti-British propaganda" and thereby weakening the war effort by encouraging dissent against our British allies during the time of crisis. Wilson was a dictator to an extent Chimpus Caesar can only dream of but hasn't the guts or competence to actually attempt.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I love history, because it's full of so many interestingly flawed characters, nad david drake is right. the more you know the past, the more discouraged and unsuprised you are with the present.

[Dargos]

I could be very wrong, but I believe the Pentagon's standard of military readiness was to be able to engage on two fronts simultaneously.

As of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review that is still a part of the official strategy.

Pg. 38 of the Quadrennial Defense Review

Surge -wage two nearly simultaneous conventional
campaigns (or one conventional campaign if already engaged in a large-scale, long-duration irregular campaign), while selectively reinforcing deterrence against opportunistic acts of aggression. Be prepared in
one of the two campaigns to remove a hostile regime, destroy its military capacity and set conditions for the transition to, or for the restoration of, civil society.

Bolding is mine.

The basic strategy is thus, holding action in one campaign, completely ass rape the enemy in other campaign.

In my opinion, it is a realistic expectation that the US military could do this.

[Ace Pace]

managed to put the most powerful military in the world to shame by failing to meet the 'Two fronts' standard of the Pentagon,

Can you elaborate on this "two fronts" standard? Is there an actual long standing foreign policy about not opening a war on two fronts, or is it a lot more subtle with diplomatic + military meaning two "fronts"?

If I'm not mistaken(Shep, Skimmer?), the "two fronts" Standard Nitram is talking about is the U.S. Doctrine of "two front war and a peace keeping operation at the same time" capacility.