Agreed that putting all your eggs in one basket is a mistake, but how many baskets can the country afford, or more appropriately how many is it willing to buy and keep on funding. When not at war the country is always going to be tempted to go for the peace dividend (reducing forces, mothballing bombers, etc). It's the belief that there's a peace dividend to grab that puts us in the position we are today. How quickly could Iraq and Afghanistan be wrapped up if American forces were at the size they were just prior to the end of the cold war? Unfortunately keeping our interests secure will not be accomplished exclusively by small forces or by specific weapons systems. We need a large mixed bag to meet the challenges of tomorrow. We have to be concerned with the possibility of gearing up only for small wars and leave a window of opportunity for someone capable of waging a large war. Awfully nice to have F-22's if you're up against any of the more technologically adept nations and equally nice to have B-52s for going after those without advanced air defenses or to have sufficient soldiers to put down an insurgency. We need it all, but if we can't have it let's have whatever is the next best thing. Unfortunately what we'll get is a mixture of what we need and a pile of pork.