[Sparta]

I agree with this editorial. We need 12-15 divisions in the Army and look at adding another Marine division. The trick is to build up these forces without compromising the quality of our armed forces.

[Seydlitz]

Amen, brother.

I like Rummy, but he's a hair's breadth away from becoming a new Robert McNamara. Conservatives must take him to task for his flawed vision. No Democrats have a sufficient understanding of military affairs and geopolitics for them to make any worthwhile contribution in this regard.

[dirtboy]

Winning wars is not enough. We must also be able to maintain the peace globally and win the peace after the battles have been fought.

How about we instead retract all the Clinton-era nonsense that Slick got us into, and then we'll only need one more division.

Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century

That explains much.

[68skylark]

I'm going to disagree with the thrust of this editorial. Most people seem to agree that the country would be better off with another 6 active duty combat brigades (in addition to the 33 we have now), and perhaps another couple reserve combat brigades.

That's not a whole lot of people (30,000 to 35,000 folks on active duty). I think that adequate personnel can probably be found in the current force structure, by moving people from non-combat jobs where they now work.

Closing some bases will also help free up people for deployment elsewhere.

A similar re-organization could also increase the combat effectiveness of our reserves.

[Godzilla]

When I reviewed the number of active divisions during the Iraq war, when N. Korea was getting uppity, I was shocked to see how many divisions were retired in the 10 years since I got out of the service. We need more, not fewer, active divisions (as well as expanding the AF, Navy and Marines)

[KarlInOhio]

Another thing we need to do is bring more functions back into active duty units. It seems like any action, no matter how small, has required bringing up reserve units for the past decade or so. The Balkans and Afghanistan should not have required reservists. Iraq was big enough where it might have, but the functions of any reserve units brought up should be examined to see if we need to put them back into active duty.

[dark_lord]

only a small percentage of these non-combat jobs can be safely given over to non-military personnel and that the rest are not civilian-jobs-in-the-making, but tasks military personnel carry out for good reason--and, as such, require a military chain of command.

That's a crock. Yeah, we do need more combat strength. But it is an absolute fact that we have a LOT of positions filled by military personnel right here in the US that are never going to be forward deployed. Ever. And almost all of them could be filled by civilian contractors with security clearances. Anyone who has actually been in the military can tell you that.

Anyone who doesn't think so, think: pick, pack, ship, clean, guard, repair, maintain, and paper processing.

[Daus]

It is clear that we don't have sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan;

Not that the author bothered to either, but can anyone support that statement? This is just one of those things that get's repeated over and over without any critical evaluation.

What would more troops DO in Afghanistan? We are not there to rule and govern, we went in to clean up and help start a new government which is training it's own troops. That is getting done.