Shrink The Army Even More - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The Detroit Free Press: Budget plan would slash Army by 100,000 soldiers

The plan would have the army reduced to 420,000, which The US Army Chief of Staff and others indicate is too small to fight a sustained major war.

Not to worry though, the smart people figure such a war can't possibly happen:

Even at the reduced numbers, the U.S. military is more than a match for any potential foe, said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University and a budget official in the Clinton administration.

"Who else that we are going to fight in a ground war has 420,000 soldiers?" Adams said in an e-mail. "Silly, really. Of course, we can."

Hmm, how about Pakistan, North Korea, and China for three potential trouble spots with land armies greater than 420,000 for starters? Not to mention we wouldn't be able to commit all 420,00 to one engagement without losing coverage elsewhere, so nations with significantly less than 420,00 troops could still pose a major problem.

But not to worry, The Obama White House experts are now assuring us that:

The White House strategy assumes that the U.S. military will no longer be engaged in long-term operations that are troop intensive. Instead, it envisions smaller, nimbler forces that deploy for short periods.

Yeah, Obama's experts are all set to fight the last war and ignore the current long engagements - see for example Afghanistan, then again they already forgot all about it. There are no guarantees in international geo-politics that you'll only face short, victorious wars. In fact when you shape your strategy for only one option, the ones you don't plan for are the ones most likely to come to the dance.