Rumsfeld had been talking of reducing the Army to just four divisions prior to 9-11. One of the many reasons he got a no confidence vote from the uniformed military.
Source for this claim? I say it nonsense. Prove me wrong.
Oh, not the 'nonsense' attack!
I'm not your gopher. Look it up yourself. It was in military publications when he was proposing it. They are online, do your own footwork or wallow in your current ignorance. It makes no difference to me.
This essay makes the point that you should "Marshal far more resources than you think you need to fight a war". I agree with that and I don't think we did that.
Thomas Mackubin Owens says in this essay that:
Unfortunately, as military historian Fred Kagan has observed, Rumsfeld’s understanding of transformation is vague and confused. It is based on false premises and lies at the heart of our problems in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s attitude toward land power illustrates this. Early on, the Secretary actually sought to go far beyond the Army’s plan and reduce the Army’s force structure from a mix of 10 heavy and light active-duty divisions to eight or fewer light divisions. He wanted to move all the Army’s heavy forces—armored and mechanized infantry—to the National Guard. As thinly stretched as our forces are today in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine how things would be if the Army were 20 percent smaller and lacking in regular heavy forces.
Now, I do not agree with all of that and I think that transformation is a necessary process. But better military minds than you or I have found reason to criticize Rummy's performance as SECDEF. We would be foolish to ignore them.
This will give you an idea of what was being proposed for defense prior to 9-11. It's very likely Rumsfeld's more extreme cuts were in response to the budget restraints he was getting from the White House:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010723.pdf