Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
I agree, but part of the reason that we have the really well trained military we do now is money. If money gets cut it is at least as likely to come from training budgets as it is from R&D and Acquisitions. Indeed, because of the diffuse costs and specific benefits incentive structure, it is actually more likely to come from training than from either of those areas. For evidence of this, the training division of every single service is the least well funded in comparison to its mission. That is usually because there are only a couple of congressmen with training bases in their area, but there are a crap-load with factories that make things.

I do have to say, though, that I already believe that we are already at the minimum number of soldiers we can have and continue to carry off missions like Iraq or Afghanistan with any hope of success.
When I ponder budget cuts, my first concern is not training. It is manning and equipping. We have a larger force because of the mission set. We are also getting more money because of the missions set - and because the public demands lots of stuff for those troops. I can't see budgets being cut significantly unless the mission set changes and/or the force size is reduced. That would be the impetus, imo. I would also add that many of the positive changes made in our training over the past 10 years had very little to do with money, but lots to do with leaders' attitudes about risk and preparation for war. For example, the old practice of rodding people onto ranges and teaching them to fear their weapons is going away due to attitude adjustments, not budgets. I would also add that the most significant thing that has made us into a better trained force is our optempo. Training is nice, but experience is better.