Replies

Shouldn't our military be structured based on threat assessments and the capabilities of our potential enemies?

Yes. We have nuclear weapons, and a distinct advantage in drone / remote warfare technology. And we are not in a declared war. Along with the 1.4 million active duty you cite, we also have the 20,000 contractor Secretary Of State army in Iraq, the TSA, and other people we don't want to call military on various payrolls all over the place.

So if we did have a shooting war, and we can send in drones or warplanes stationed in Missouri, why do we need a military geared to sending 300-400,000 troops somewhere for years at a time with no end result in mind?

You haven't answered my questions on exactly how you would restructure our forces if you cut the overall staffing by two thirds or close to a million active duty forces.

Yes. We have nuclear weapons, and a distinct advantage in drone / remote warfare technology.

You need some other options besides nuclear war and drones. And you need the personnel and delivery systems to make them work.

And we are not in a declared war.

WWII was our last declared war. We face asymetrical threats. OBL declared war on the US in 1996.

Along with the 1.4 million active duty you cite, we also have the 20,000 contractor Secretary Of State army in Iraq, the TSA, and other people we don't want to call military on various payrolls all over the place.

So how would you defend our diplomatic and NGO presence in Iraq? If you think that TSA is a quasi military force then how about police and other state and local law enforcement personnel? Or the FBI? Or the CIA? Or NSA?

We don't have 300,000 to 400,000 troops to send anywhere now. Our military has already been significantly cut over the past decade. We need to look at what the threats are and how to best combat them now and in the future.

We also need to ask such questions as to what our role in the world is in terms of strategic security interests. Do we need to keep the sea lanes open around the world? We have a navy now of 323,000 with less than 300 ships, down significantly from the days when I served in the 60s and 70s when we had a 600 ship navy.

You can rationalize all the cuts you want but there are irreducible limits that should not be passed. You cannot reconstitute a trained military force overnight. It could take a generation to replace a trained cadre of people given the sophistication of our weapons systems and the training needed. And it depends on a steady influx of people to move up thru the ranks gaining experience and training.

Reducing our armed forces to 500,000 is sheer insanity. It sends a powerful message to our enemies and invites adventurism that makes the world less secure.