I don't know, just to name a few:
- George Washington - LTC of Militia French and Indian War
- Abe Lincoln- Captain of Volunteers, Blackhawk Indian War
- Andrew Jackson - General of Volunteers, rivermen and pirates, War of 1812
- Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, etc: JOs in WWII
- Truman: Missouri NG FA Battery CDR, WWI
Obviously these are just a few, it was such a part of the fabric of our culture that virtually every President either served in war as a young man, or was a General coming off off a big victory.
My point is not that we don't need a big army though. If we keep the mission what it is now the Army needs to be even bigger. My point is that we should not see having a large standing army as being mandatory. We need to conduct a major review of all of our foreign policy tools, policies, and institutions in the context of a National Grand Strategy for how we move forward from where we are right now. Once we have a strategy and that review, the size and role of the Army and all of DoD need to be on the table just like everything else.
As many have stated, the Army is doing a lot of things that aren't very "Army-like," and that detract from the ability to train and equip for "Army" missions. Until we create new organizations to do those things, the Army will remain the catch-all.
So here is my question: If it comes down to a choice of an Army half the current size that just focuses on war fighting, with the creation of a new organization that does nation building; or keeping the Army the current size with the current full range of missions, which one will the boys in the Pentagon sign up for??
Bookmarks