The alternative to a small cheap light force that will probably be optimized for "small" wars against second or third rate opponents is pretty obviously a larger better armored, more capable, and thus more expensive force. We had such a force the last time we went against Iraq, thanks to Ronald Reagan's build up.
President G.H.W Bush had a plan to downsize the military to account for the fall of the Soviet Union. Clinton implemented that plan, and about 2X more in reductions. Surely we don't need to cut any more, although we have since Clinton strutted off to Chapaqua, and we are planning to cut even more. We are grounding more than a third of the B-52 fleet, even though it was programmed to keep flying through 2040, we'd already slashed the B-1 fleet by about the same. We're going to reduce the number of aircraft carriers by one, IIRC. We've cut and stretched all kinds of R&D projects, so we are eating our seed corn too. We can't handle a pipsqueak country like Iraq without calling up the National Guard and Reserve. I think we've cut enough, but we are talking of cutting those reserve forces even as we use them.
Maintaining the mixed, heavy and light, force that we, IMHO, need won't come cheap. Heck we might have to devote the same fraction of the GDP to defense that we did at the low point of the Carter years. (4.7% in '78 and '79), now we are spending less than 4.0% of the GDP on the military. Where would the money come from? Well at that same time we were spending 9.9% of GDP on entitlements, in FY 2004 it was 11.6%, and has likely gone up since then. At the peak of the Reagan buildup we were spending 6.2% of GDP on defense and 10.5% on entitlements. In 1962, before the Cuban missile crises and the Vietnam war, IOW, a time of relative peace, we where spending 9.3% on the military and 6.1% on entitlements.
There's nothing in the Constitution on entitlements, there is something in there about Congress having the power to raise Armies, and a Navy. There is a requirement that the federal government protect the states from attack. I'd say we, and that includes President "W" Bush, have our priorities out of whack.
"Well at that same time we were spending 9.9% of GDP on entitlements, in FY 2004 it was 11.6%, and has likely gone up since then."
Yep, since Johnson nobody needs to sacrifice for a war--it's now guns AND butter. God forbid people work to buy their own $#@!$#@!$ butter.
The military force you describe, is pretty much what existed during my service time starting back in the 60's.I certainly agree with your assessment of "eating our seed corn" and streching the guard and reserve.
Since 9-11 I've wondered what it will have to take for our government and our citizens to realize that entitlements are an unsustainable luxury that weakens us, and that the time has come to put far more resources in to the larger force you speak of.
As I mentioned further up the thread, given what he has to work with, Rumsfeld has done well,IMO.