"I support Rummy's vision for the military.That's my position.I need not defend it..."
You, sir, are a walking example of why Rummy and conservatives cannot convince everyone. With people like you making his case, it is difficult for some to convert to the proper side of the argument. You state a position and cannot support it, saying instead that 'it proves itself.' However, res ipsa loquitor hardly even applies in the courtroom. It certainly does not apply to your argument, where on myriad occasions opponents of Rummy's plan have pointed out its failures. Again, I SUPPORT Rummy's general scheme--but saying "I'm right and it's proven" is the equivalent in debate of saying "Nyah, nyah, doodyhead!"
And I don't find your style of 'argument' not conservative. I find it childish and completely unpersuasive. It wouldn't matter if you were arguing for the most conservative of causes instead of Rummy's strategy, which conservatives may disagree upon. It's not your point that I disagree with, as I noted before. It's that you cannot support your opinion with reasons, preferring instead the fallacious response that the other side must instead supply an alternative. If you propose mining the moon for green cheese, I need not reply with an alternative option for getting the green cheese off the moon. Just so with Rummy's plan for force alignment. He has a plan; status quo is another option, and arguing against Rummy's plan does not logically demand a different plan from your opponents.
But continue to proceed blithely through life without self-improvement in this area. Of course, you may find your 'What's your alternative?!?!' response helpful occasionally in provoking silence from those with whom you 'debate.' But you'll also find that silence in the long run it does nothing to help your cause and indeed, as I pointed out, hurts it.
My, My, that did sound very officious. :-)