Ah, Army paratrooper. At least in the Navy we wait until the airplane is going to crash before we jump out of it.
For the type of warfare we're engaged in, infantry, the drop it in the skillet, grab it and growl guys, are critical. 6% force structure for the dirty work guys are simply not enough.
It's not as simple as deciding to reduce the number of other MOS's to ramp up the grunt force.
No infantryman fails to recognize the desirability or need of a combined force structure; grunts can't fly, sailors can't march, and the Air Force can't sleep outside where the snakes and spiders roam.
During the cold war we had a force structure designed to counter the threat....heavy army divisions, bigger (and more) ships, etc.
The force needs to be restructured to meet new and ongoing threats, and must be adaptable, and must have enough people at the point of the spear....we don't at this time.
During the Viet Nam era, the dragon's tail was 10 to 1. 10 people to support 1 grunt on the ground, and that was viewed as ludicrous at the time.
Now it's roughly 18 to 1
Yes, the military wins wars and battle through superior logistics and firepower but it still needs a grunt to take and hold ground until the political objectives are realized. We need more infantry.
Please, you're both wrong.
In the Air Force we live in Kansas, North Carolina, Texas or Germany, occasionally taking trips to Guam, Korea and the Sandbox.
When there's a war you might be gone for four months if things last really long.
The officers do the bulk of the 'fighting'; we can destroy the world hundreds of times over from a room 40 feet underground, hit 80 distinct targets with GPS-guided bombs from one aircraft, and decimate infantry and mechanized forces with AC-130 gunships.
Our ASVAB scores are clearly the highest, and no doubt our entire enlisted force could be commissioned today as Army or Navy officers, resulting in a marked improvement in both services.
Plus we're better looking.