re: Let's talk about military spending

quote:

---

I don't have to sell it to them. I have to sell it to the American people.

---

This is another area where we're a victim of our own success. I still see the need for a regular army and regular air force, although certainly it could be structured in a more compact way if we were able to disentangle from treaty obligations and foreign investments with us in the role of Team America: World Police. But, the military is one of those aspects of American life that remains highly popular, highly credible and highly respected by the American people - going back to at least 1981 (with many thanks to Ronaldus Magnus).

And, as I've maintained in this - the reserve and guard components, while great (and cost effective) augments to force, simply can't do all the things the standing forces can do, and certainly not with the short response times of the 21st Century.

Even if we adopted your "activate and train 1 year out of 6" - how is that substantively different from a Regular Army and Air Force approximately 15% of the total army and air force?

Philosphically, I get it - without a standing army/air force, it's much harder to get us into some of these thickets. You're saying that the USN and USMC can handle "most" overseas issues, but they can get into a pickle as well - and it will take much longer to get things spun up in a "real" crisis - longer than we will have, honestly. In a way, Pandora's Box was opened when we kept a large standing military after WWII for the Cold War - it will take generations (if it can be done at all) to revert to a late 1930s structure, which even then would contemplate some regular force structure and a cadre available to build a much larger force around (even though I don't believe we will ever have the luxury of that much time).