[CGVet58]

yes, excellent article. (not to rain on the positive note in the above article, but...) I hope Rummy doesn't draw down the heavy divisional strength - currently we only have 10 army divisions, 4 of which are in Iraq, and major elements of 3 others disposed against NKor, in the Balkans, etc.

We shouldn't draw down "the regulars"; in fact, we probably need 4 more heavy divisions - because we have potential scenarios where the effectiveness of the SOF could be largely nuetralized (against huge armies like North Korea & China, or in difficult mountainous/jungle terrain such as North Korea, China, South America - or both!).

We also shouldn't draw down because it's alot easier to deconstruct a heavy fighting force than it is to build it back up again. Am not just referring to getting the men ready, we already know that we've plenty of ready Americans for that - specifically, I infer the political obstruction that would have to be overcome locally in order to fund/budget the billions necessary to ensure that any future heavy divisions/corps are properly trained and equipped with the best equipment.

As the Soviets used to say, "at some point in the force-mix equation, Quantity becomes Quality..."; they knew one of our F-15's was better than any one of their MiG's... but the playing field was more even when 30 of our fighters would face 70-80 of theirs.

CGVet58

[fnord]

Certainly the 'regular' portion of each branch has been drawn down too much (notice how many National Guard and Reserve units are deployed now, and for the foreseeable future). It's a balancing act to be sure.

NG units are over-deployed now, and on too many long-term missions. Since we have a large war on our hands, we should have a large standing military to deploy and fight it. It takes time to train troops and build equipment, and in the Navy's case especially, the lead time for increasing equipment stocks is enormous. The budget needs increased now ...

And whazzup with this notion?:
Army rules prohibit the service from relying on more than 100 retired commandos at any time

[Sonny M]

As the Soviets used to say, "at some point in the force-mix equation, Quantity becomes Quality..."; they knew one of our F-15's was better than any one of their MiG's... but the playing field was more even when 30 of our fighters would face 70-80 of theirs.

The Soviets used to have a military policy based on what is called the "drill bit theory". Essentially, imagine you have a wall, and you start drilling, your bit breaks, you get another one, you keep going, breaking bit after bit, untill you finally drill through. Long story short, they saw there personal as cannon fodder. (that must have been good for morale).

I read the report that Rumsfeld gave to congress about his vision, you can find essentially the same thing on the PNAC website. I personally believe that you do need a lighter and quicker, more flexable and efficient and mobile rapid deployment armed forces. That does not mean, you ignore the main forces always for the special forces. The 2 can work extremely well to compliment each other. This Gulf War proved that, and should be the ideal blue print of using conventional and special forces together to achieve a unique goal. The emphasis on speed is essential, but force with great speed can be absolutley brutal. If you go to the site, its on pdf, it's essentialy the exact outline of everything that is the new pentagon formula, with goals, implementation, justification, and detailed analysis. It looks to me like something straight out of Andrew Marshalls head and his ideas.