| #1 The problem with the article is that like most 'analysis' it focuses on what's measurable, noses and equipment. It fails to analyze qualitative changes in the forces and the transitional costs that involves. Just check out the equipage of the grunt in 1998 and what he gets today, not just in load but in the ability to exploit capabilities that didn't exist at low level unit ops. How more effective is that element today over that element yesterday? Now carry that perspective throughout the entire force structure. Personnel is also a major DoD cost and operating a volunteer military during war is never going to be done on the cheap except with low skill, basically trained cannon fodder. |