Full Spectrum Forces are indeed what the US needs. Full Spectrum on the widest possible view. Currently we have an Air Force, Naval Forces including a very capable Marine Corps (that was punished less than the other forces during the 90s drawdowns and Clinton/Aspin reorgs). In the Army, which is what I think we know best, we have forces from highly specialised intelligence gathering and special operations forces, to effective light infantry (yeah, you worried about the 173rd. Were they ever really threatened? Remember, we have air), to the mailed fist of our tank/mech forces. (There was an American general in WWII who said, "when Hitler put his war on wheels, he sent it right up our alley.") We also have a whole division that is organised as a heliborne unit. Where does the Stryker unit fit in all of this? It sits uneasily in between the light infantry unit and the heavy mech unit. And it costs money we haven't got.
As far as reinforcing the 173rd with a Stryker Brigade, where are you going to get the airlift, even if you had the brigade in your pocket? If the Army passed on the Stryker procurement and sank the whole amount into C-17 procurement, that would give the ARMY more power by giving it more strategic and operational mobility. Air flow was our biggest problem in Stan, and I'm hearing it was/is a problem in Iraq as well. More strategic airlift would answer two legs of your future-army triad: moe deployable and more sustainable.
Have you ever considered that general Shinseki has earned many of the "cheap shots" aimed at him? Part of it is his personal style. He's not exactly a consensus builder, is he? And part of it is the professional manifestations of that same personal arrogance. I'll not forget his attempts to undermine and embarrass the civilian leadership of the Department in the days before Iraq kicked off. I also was witness to some of his machinations in the Crusader debate. First, in his attempt to lobby Congress, he crossed the line, and then pushed a subordinate onto his sword over that. We all know where the buck really stopped on that one, and his not owning up to it gives a moment of clear insight into his character. Then, when he was embarrassed over the question of artillery in Afghanistan, he threw a small fit -- ever since, there has been an artillery unit sitting on its hands in Afghanistan. Neither the military situation nor the terrain allow any role for artillery. But this unit has to be supplied, etc., and amounts to "useless mouths to feed" in theater. They're there to soothe the ego of a vain and weak man -- no more, no less.
Twenty years from now, he will probably only be remembered as the guy that put the spoons in berets. Even in that, what he did was a Clintonian diversionary strike: by firing the beret fait accompli out over the heads of the audience at AUSA, he diverted the Army down that rathole and cut off debate on his transformation agenda. It was cunning. It was effective. It was underhanded. It was Eric K. Shinseki at his best.
I give Shinseki credit for outstanding combat service. I give him credit for transformation, which was a Big Idea (but I'm a little cynical, haing soldiered through many other Chiefs' Big Ideas... Remember "Army of Excellence?" How about "No More Task Force Smiths?" Let's see... "Airland Battle?" If you look at history books you'll see more examples, like the "Pentomic Division"). We'll be seeing more of him, because Daniel Inouye (another decorated combat veteran, although I have to say his medal-lobbying was kind of unseemly) is retiring, and Eric K. Shinseki, D-HI, will be taking his place in the Senate. (There'll be an election, but in Hawaii it's just a formality). You'll have plenty of years to judge whether I called his character correctly.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F