[Gorjus]

. . why would we be "experimenting" . .

It $eem$ to me that the an$wer i$ obviou$.

Lighter forces are less expensive, and in an exponential way because lighter forces don't need as much transport to get where they need to go, don't need as much maintenance, don't need as much fuel, don't need as much of a lot of things.

The actual combat forces in the US military are about 1/3 the size they were in Desert Storm (Gulf War 1). Rumsfeld was faced with the choice between building up slowly, with a robust infrastructure and heavy forces usable in high-intensity conflict (things like the Crusader Self-Propelled Artillery system), or building up more quickly on the cheap with lighter forces.

He chose light, and he might have been right. Perhaps a 'better' force in the near term would be smarter than a 'best' force that took years to get together. In some scenarios, like Afghanistan, the lighter forces are even 'best'. Also, entropy being what it is, it took Clinton a lot less time to tear down the US Military than it would take to build it back up, and he had the US military in free fall for 8 years.

My big gripe is that Hackworth has been trumpeting the lighter force structure for years (complaining that our tanks are gold-plated, and that all our new systems are welfare for the defense industry), then he complains because we don't have 4 Armored Divisions ready to deploy to Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Pretending you can is hypocrisy. And he should know better.

[FreepnDeacn]

Maybe I'm just not crunching the numbers right, but to me, 390,000 troops does not seem to be a "light force" -- especially when you factor in the disproportionate amount of enemy butt that is being kicked.

Now... fifty civilian-clothed fedayeen on a bus that can be taken out with one shot? That's a "light" force.