On the bright side of all this (misuse of troops), I fondly recall Gen Schoomaker red in the face chewing some butt at a remote base in Afghanistan when he saw a platoon of soldiers filling sandbags - for his benefit. The make work stopped quickly and locals were employed to fill sandbags. This type of leadership is sorely needed now, and probably always has been.

The use of contractors and locals for the busy work that needs to be done could reflect this shift from "have enough men to be ready for anything" to "have men enough who are ready for anything." I am much in favor of the second approach.

The bigger army problem, IMO, isn't one of numbers. More would be better. It is an attitude that "if only I had more guys, I would have to think of a better way to use the one's I have." An imperfect ancedote for this, I am sure we are all familiar with the area beautification that takes one day a week out of the training calender. I would return to on base housing to see the civilians mowing my lawn. I brought this to the SMA attention, ensuring him that my wife could mow the grass at home, if he would just send the civilians to the barracks so I could train the men. It comes as a shock to me that the managers of the Army find nothing wrong with taking guys off the "assembly line" to pick up trash or do landscaping. Any business who did this in the competitive market would be trounced.

So, first we must become more effecient. We now feel the pain of our poor management style, this is a great motivator to make things better. Then we add bigger numbers to the better system.

That's my pitch.