Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan
If our military is being stretched to capacity in wars of choice, do we need more force or better choices?
That is the origin of the problem. Despite increased military spending, the output has sharply declined. Estimates of the War on Terrorism range from three trillion dollars up to eight trillion (if we are to include annual defense budgets, homeland security expenditures, etc). In comparison, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cost the United States 3.5 trillion dollars (when adjusted for inflation). The inability to produce favorable outcomes in so-called "small" wars (the costs and consequences are anything but) is a clear indicator of institutional failure. The usual obsession with training quality and high-tech weapons systems dismisses the failure to properly identify threats and trends, leverage the appropriate resources, and implement an effective strategy. The military is being "stretched to capacity" because it is declining in strategic effectiveness despite the nearly asymmetric advantage in tactical capabilities. America is disarming itself because the defense economy is consuming the country's fiscal health.

Quote Originally Posted by Dayahun
How large a force do we really need?
A military is not useful in only destroying and deterring enemies, but depending on the circumstances, can be effective in building national capacity and engaging in the domestic economy. On a small scale, this is true for the National Guard and the Corps of Engineers. My point here is not to offer a specific number, but instead to suggest that there are multiple internal advantages in addition to the obvious external uses of a military. The problem is not defense participation in economic activities, but the presumption that governments must operate like businesses or households. The military can potentially train people in valuable skills in trades or services, promote education, provide widespread employment, and coalesce increasingly fractured elements of society.

Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
I would contend that the Army today is much less political than it was in the period after the Civil War (say 1870 through 1890 or so). If you look at service publications (and the Army and Navy Journal) from that time you'll find any number of political rants, fears about worker uprisings, and other bits and bobs. The Army also found itself entangled in a number of civil uses during that time (riot control and the like) that would not be tolerated today. The Army of that time also recruited from what were considered the "dregs of society," with a fair percentage of the enlisted ranks being of foreign birth (Irish and German mostly, but with a good sample of the other waves of immigrants from that time). It was also physically and socially isolated from American society of the time, and often (at least in the officer ranks) believed that it was superior to that society in terms of conduct, morals, and general bearing. What we're seeing could be taken in some ways as the Army (unwittingly, perhaps) returning to its real roots.
I would offer that the military has never been as quite apolitical as presumed by the general public, and although in the past military leadership has been more outspoken, today such public display is not practical nor desirable. Defense assets constitute approximately 70% of all federal property. We all know the immense size of the budget and the profit (and waste) of defense companies. Both parties are a part of this system. Prominent members of Congress have millions invested into these contractors. Senior leaders often retire to join the ranks of these companies as consultants and advisers. What need is there for a public display of politics when the military is complicit in the biggest play in town? Politicking and profiteering might be tolerable were it not directly resulting in the slow decline of America's ability to defend itself.

The military is in need of substantial reform. I believe that inviting the participation of the American public in that reform would deliver the most desirable outcomes. The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities. I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.