Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
I would argue that it is neither politically feasible nor practical. The more bodies, the more difficult quality control becomes and the more difficult C2 becomes. Greater chance of more incidents that resemble Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and that douche who raped a girl and killed her family. A smaller number of better trained folks would be more practical, imo, if for no other reason that they will commit fewer follies.
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.