Your point about the strain on men and equipment in a smaller service is spot on. Problem is Obama justifies it with his “strategy driven” policy lie. Mitt did a fair job of pointing out Obama changed the strategy from a two war readiness (fight-hold-fight) to a one war strategy. It was obvious to me at the time that the driver for this strategy change by the Obama admin was not the threat environment, but rather the desire to have the strategy map to his military reduction plan. O is a liar, a manipulator, and an arrogant POS.
John Hackett and the other authors of The Third World War, published as the Carter fatuousness -- or should I say, the "peace Democrats" McGovernik/Stalinist scheming -- was bringing the Western militaries to the brink of straight-up military challenge and defeat by the Soviets, commented extensively on how this kind of scheming and plotting corrupted Western contributions to NATO in the 60's and 70's. The fish rotted from the head: the constant "reorganizations" downward of the NATO force structure were always undertaken by Labour and Left pols fascinated by the political allure of, and Communist union-led pressure for, Bread to the Masses.
Now we're doing it, and politicians like Barky are the ones inducing the rot in formerly solid wood.