Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
..I agree that a more agile, and all around better force is desirable, but I do not believe that we can decrease the number of ground troops that we have below the number we currently have...
Does the number required not depend on your doctrine and tactical principles? If it does, then the question becomes are those principles currently in place the best for the world as it is today?
1. I think that the actual mission ... at least the ca. 500k soldiers that we have...
Do we have 500K or more nearly a Million? I would opt for more troops, perhaps about 1.5 to 2 M -- but with only about 350-400K active; the rest would be in the Guard and Reserve. That 350-400K does not count the USMC which is not going away...
2. Even with a less "Take and Hold" based strategy abroad, situations will inevitably arise that the US will feel compelled to take and hold territory, even without planning to do so, and the military and the country does not want to get caught short in such a situation.
I don't agree with inevitable but it is certainly a possibility and therefor needs to acknowledged in plans. I again state that it is possible to control territory without occupying it provided one is trained and equipped to do so. An MRAP is not the vehicle of choice for that, nor is Bradley or an M1 -- neither is a helicopter. OTOH, if you want to physically occupy space, then the ground vehicles have a use -- the Helicopter is still not a good choice for the movement of people (okay for supplies). It's not even good for commanders who become physically and emotionally separated from their troops. Not good for the Troops because it physically and psychologically separates them from the ground on which they operate.
3. Even with a more "Raid" mentality, there is likely to be missions and times where a smaller force would be highly stressed. Specifically, I am imagining a situation where, even though the deployments are only 3 mos. the dwell time is also on 3 mos. or other similar configuration...
Raids aren't the only other option, just one I cited. If you do raids, you aren't looking at three month deployments, more like a week or two. In any event, you'd have to work on selling me on deployments (in the current usage of the term) of less than a year. I understand all the reasons for shorter deployment, I just disagree. Lengthy tours in unfriendly places go with the job; those not prepared for that should find other employment -- one reason why I say a smaller active force; fewer will join if the deployment rules change.

The loss of continuity, tactically and operationally is not worth the slight benefit gained (I realize most will not agree with this but we may see how that works with some folks in Afghanistan in the near future).
Tying into this, if we are going to have a force that is going to be this well trained we are going to have to be able to commit a greater amount of time to training, so a larger percentage of our force will be in training at any time.
Yes and no; longer enlistments / active duty requirements, better initial training and more unit training -- as opposed to units that piddle around in garrison a lot -- will mean less time in training because people would spend more time doing.

Not to worry; none of that will happen. Congress and the Mothers of America do not want truly competent and dangerous armed forces; just moderately competent. However, my point was and is that interventions in other nations should be avoided because we do not do them well, they do not suit the American psyche and impatient nature, are more expensive in all aspects than several alternatives and we -- as you originally said -- cannot afford the force we now have and some drastic reprogramming will be required in the future.

A smaller better trained force does certainly give up some capabilities (though I'd question how valuable Mass is today...) but it can provide other capabilities which may be more valuable. Not least a requirement to think situations and applications to remedy them through...