[News in War History] US Faces 'Two Wars' for the First Time in 80 Years... Why Fighting on Two Fronts Is Difficult

First Europe-Middle East War Since WWII
Wanli Emperor's Three-Front War Leads to Ming Dynasty's Fall
US May Re-adopt 'Two-War' Strategy

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian armed faction Hamas has now exceeded one month, creating a two-front war alongside the Ukraine war, which is entering its third year. The U.S. government, which must support both sides, is facing a very difficult situation with the presidential election just one year away.

The U.S. government managing two fronts simultaneously in different regions is the first time in over 80 years since World War II, when it fought on the European and Pacific fronts. Inside and outside the U.S. government, voices are growing louder that at least one front should be concluded amid concerns about inflation and economic recession.

Throughout history and across cultures, countries facing multi-front wars have rarely endured for long, even if they were powerful nations. Fighting on two fronts alone consumes enormous manpower and resources, placing a tremendous financial burden on the country.

In this segment, we will examine the current 'two-war' situation facing the U.S. and explore the history of multi-front wars that have put many great powers in difficult situations.

◆News: "U.S. Pressures Ukraine for Peace Talks... Struggling to Support Two Wars"

On the 4th (local time), Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, appealed for support for Ukraine during a joint press conference with Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, held in Kyiv. [Image source=Reuters·Yonhap News]

Let's start with the news. On the 4th (local time), U.S. NBC reported, citing a senior Biden administration official, that the U.S. and the European Union (EU) have demanded Ukraine discuss a peace negotiation plan to end the war. According to the report, while the U.S. and EU officially continue to support Ukraine, they are pressuring Ukraine to make concessions.

Ukraine, meanwhile, strongly insists that support from the U.S. and the West must continue as the international community's attention shifts to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, after meeting with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Kyiv on the 4th, held a press conference denying NBC's report, stating, "None of our partners pressured us to negotiate with Russia or give anything up," and added, "The war in the Middle East is diverting the world's attention from Ukraine. That is Russia's goal."

However, the U.S. government, which must support two wars simultaneously in the Middle East and Europe, is increasingly facing difficulties. Particularly, voices within the U.S. are growing louder calling for an end to support for Ukraine. The U.S. economy is struggling, and with severe inflation threatening the cost of living for ordinary citizens, supporting two wars is seen as an excessive burden.

A Gallup poll conducted last month among 1,500 American adults found that 41% of respondents believe U.S. support for Ukraine is excessive. This is a significant increase from the 29% who responded similarly in a June survey. Additionally, 43% agreed that "even if Ukraine has to give up territory occupied by Russia, the U.S. should try to end the war as soon as possible," up from 36% in June.

Especially since supporting two wars simultaneously is the first time in over 80 years since World War II, the U.S. government is showing considerable unease. There are concerns that getting entangled in wars in Europe and the Middle East?regions with completely different cultures and histories?could lead to significant losses in national power, as happened to many great powers in the past.

◆History 1: The Ming Dynasty Bankrupted by Fighting Three Fronts: Mongols, Joseon, and Yunnan

A painting of the Battle of Pyongyang Fortress in 1593. At that time, the army of General Li Rusong, dispatched from the Ming Dynasty, and the Joseon army successfully recaptured Pyongyang Fortress together.
[Image source=National Museum of Korea]

Historically, multi-front wars have caused enormous losses in national power and, if mishandled, could lead to state bankruptcy. Because of this, most countries adopted the strategy of "distant alliances and attacking nearby" (원교근공, Won-gyo-geun-gong), maintaining friendly relations with distant countries while waging war on neighboring states.

However, unavoidable circumstances sometimes led to multi-front wars. There are historical cases where prolonged multi-front wars led to national extinction. One such example is the 16th-century Ming Dynasty, which aided Joseon during the Imjin War. At the time, the Ming Dynasty was the wealthiest country globally with a population of 150 million, but fighting three simultaneous wars drained its finances.

In 1592, the year the Imjin War broke out in Joseon, the Ming Dynasty faced three simultaneous wars. This occurred during the reign of the 13th Ming emperor, Wanli, and is known as the "Wanli Three Great Campaigns" (萬曆三大征). Alongside the seven-year Imjin War, two other fronts opened, causing massive financial losses and weakening the Ming's national power.

The first front of the Wanli Three Great Campaigns was the "Pubei Rebellion" in February 1592 in the Mongol region. It is often called the "Ningxia Rebellion" after the region where it occurred. The rebellion was led by Pubei, a Mongol general who had originally surrendered to the Ming but unified the Mongol region to revolt. After eight months of fierce fighting, the rebellion was suppressed. General Li Rusong (이여송), who was later dispatched to Joseon during the Imjin War, oversaw this campaign.

Immediately after suppressing the rebellion, General Li Rusong led Ming forces to Joseon, where the Imjin War had broken out. Over the seven years of military deployment to Joseon, Emperor Wanli purchased one million seok (a traditional grain measure) of grain from Shandong Province to supply Joseon. Although the Ming ultimately achieved victory, the financial toll was enormous.

Meanwhile, in 1597, during the ongoing Imjin War, a rebellion broke out in the area now known as Yunnan Province, specifically in Pazhou (播州), led by the warlord Yang family who controlled the region. This is called the "Yang Yinglong Rebellion," named after the local ruler Yang Yinglong. The conflict lasted until 1600. Thus, the Ming Dynasty was fighting major wars simultaneously in Mongolia, Joseon, and Yunnan.

Although the Ming managed to suppress all three fronts, the chronic financial deficits caused by these wars contributed to the dynasty's downfall. After Emperor Wanli's death in 1620, the Ming Dynasty fell to the Qing Dynasty just 24 years later. Financial shortages made it difficult to supply the military, and plans for expeditions to Liaodong were repeatedly canceled due to lack of funds, ultimately failing to stop Qing expansion and leading to the Ming's collapse.

◆History 2: Germany Forced into Two-Front War and the U.S. Fighting on Two Fronts

In February 1945, the US Marines raised the American flag after capturing Iwo Jima. During World War II, the US fought two wars simultaneously: against Nazi Germany in Europe and against Japan in the Pacific.

The connection between multi-front wars and enormous financial burdens continued into modern times. Germany, which had to fight on both the Western and Eastern fronts during World Wars I and II, eventually collapsed due to severe shortages of military supplies. Especially during World War II, massive losses on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union turned the tide against Germany.

Japan's overextension of fronts by involving its allies Italy and the U.S. also contributed to its defeat. Italy, which entered the war in October 1940, invaded Egypt and Greece and attacked southeastern France, recklessly expanding its fronts but suffered defeats. Germany had to take over these fronts from Italy, dispersing its military strength.

Japan, fighting multi-front wars radiating in all directions, suffered massive losses in manpower and resources and was ultimately defeated. After starting the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Japan failed to conclude it properly and expanded its fronts to the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Then, with the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, it opened a front against the U.S., creating a multi-front war situation by itself.

This led to a rapid shift in U.S. public opinion from opposition to entering the war to support for intervention. The U.S. then fought simultaneous two-front wars in Europe and the Pacific, winning both and emerging as the world's sole superpower.

◆Implication: Controversy Over U.S. Return to 'Two-War' Strategy

On the 9th (local time), U.S. President Joe Biden speaking at the United Auto Workers (UAW) event held in Belvidere, Illinois.
[Image source=AP Yonhap News]

Now, after more than 80 years, the U.S. faces two wars again, sparking internal debate. There are growing calls to reconsider the "Win-hold-win" strategy, a two-front war maintenance strategy abandoned in 2012.

The Win-hold-win strategy originated during the Gulf War in 1990 under the George H.W. Bush administration. It aimed to ensure the U.S. had the military capacity to win wars on two fronts simultaneously?in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, key areas of U.S. hegemony. However, the strategy was discarded during the Barack Obama administration in 2012 due to the excessive cost of maintaining two fronts.

Since then, U.S. war strategy has been scaled down to the "One Plus" strategy, which focuses on winning one war and containing conflict in another. This strategy was led by Joe Biden, then Vice President under Obama. It is ironic that just 11 years after leading troop reductions, Biden now argues for military expansion again.

With the U.S. presidential election just one year away, the issue of a two-war strategy is expected to become a hot topic in American politics. Whether the American public will accept the U.S. resuming its role as the "world's policeman" amid severe economic difficulties will significantly impact not only the U.S. election but also global security dynamics.