I would be in favor of that as well - but that still would not change the obvious fact (something that this dude treats as profound and previously hidden) that most of the men who die in combat are ... get this ... front line soliders doing the fighting!
Somehow to him, that is failure. To anyone else, it is a symbol of our overwhelming technological superiority that our enemies have a hard time attacking our other assets.
Yeah, it's pretty much a given that infantry takes the brunt. I've seen very few well played chess matches where the pawns weren't the first pieces down and off the board.
I think Scales tripped over his reproductive appendage in his attempt to promote an expanded force.
"the pressures of fighting a war with too limited a force caused Army noncommissioned officers, the human glue that holds our Army together, to leave en masse. The result was chaos. In the early '70 conditions became so bad that the American Army virtually ceased to exist as a fighting force. Again in the late seventies the Carter administration tried to accomplish too many missions with too few soldiers. Again the Army voted with its feet, creating a "hollow Army" that embarrassed the nation with its incompetence during Desert One, the failed hostage rescue effort in Iran. The lessons are clear: a good army takes generations to build and only a few short years to break.
I think the point of the General's complaint is that we do not have enough infantry troops. I would agree. We are placing a heavy burden on a relatively small number of troops. WIthout an increase in infantry troops the stateside rotations will need to be increased, and at the same time, the period for unit refitting and training will be shortened, all of which is an unfair burden placed squarely on the shoulders of the infantryman.