Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
...My point is that we should not see having a large standing army as being mandatory.
I'm not sure that everyone does see that, certainly some do but I think there are more that do not see it as desirable, much less mandatory. I do think a good many see it as an unavoidable necessity at this time.
We need to conduct a major review of all of our foreign policy tools, policies, and institutions in the context of a National Grand Strategy for how we move forward from where we are right now. Once we have a strategy and that review, the size and role of the Army and all of DoD need to be on the table just like everything else.
Ideally you're correct, practically speaking, I believe it highly unlikely anything along that line will occur. If it should, it won't last. Our governmental system with potentially major changes every two years and almost certainly every four or eight years won't support such continuity of purpose. There are many myths that say we did that -- exercise continuity of purpose -- during the Cold War but they are not true. Each new administration brought major changes. We have one abiding strategic interest which does carry forward with every governmental change -- we do not tolerate threats. I think that's adequate, not great -- but adequate.
As many have stated, the Army is doing a lot of things that aren't very "Army-like," and that detract from the ability to train and equip for "Army" missions. Until we create new organizations to do those things, the Army will remain the catch-all.
"Many" should read or recall more history. The US Army has done that for all of my lifetime; for all it's lifetime, in fact (and as do Armies in other nations). See the Corps of Engineers history and their Locks, Lakes and Dams for a small example. Think Lewis and Clark, roadbuilding in the early US, schoolteaching in the Philippines in the early 20th century, the CCC, McNamara's Project 100,000, Northern Watch and the Kurds to Guam, Kosovo...
So here is my question: If it comes down to a choice of an Army half the current size that just focuses on war fighting, with the creation of a new organization that does nation building; or keeping the Army the current size with the current full range of missions, which one will the boys in the Pentagon sign up for??
The latter because the former is totally lacking in flexibility, effectively locks the US into a strategy that hews to 'nation building' which generally is NOT in our interest and which we should avoid to the extent we are able and the boys in the Pentagon know that (well, most of 'em anyway) -- it's for those reasons and not just because the latter is the status quo, provides for a larger budget, keeps control in the hands of DoD and does not adversely impact warfighting capability though those factors also count.