Gentlemen,

Just on the face of it doesn't or at least shouldn't this conversation be more about what missions international politics are likely to dictate than what forces are likely to be assigned to do?

By this I mean to say Responsibilities / Capabilities should be of primary discussion. As the roles of the Joint Chiefs and others is to inform the decisions of their political masters rather than direct them it would seem rather counter-productive to worry about that over which those within the military hierarchy have little control. If instead our defense leadership are able to effectively present what acceptable responsibilities are within normal considerations and accepting that there will be exceptions for which we much be prepared, than perhaps we end up with a more appropriate and balanced version of what the endstrength should look like.

Unclear I'm sure but not quite sure how else to put it?