I'm starting to think that the time home requirements are intended to force the re-institution of the draft. That would end the war. The number of protesters in the streets would increase exponentially.

Rummy wasn't interested in increasing the size of the force because he was convinced that "transformation" (more technology) had made a more manpower intensive military obsolete. 

Well, he was wrong.

One of my greatest disappointments with this administration was that they did not move immediately to increase the size of the force on taking office (do we devote even as much as 5% of GNP to defense even now?) as many of us were convinced that we should have never have cut the force so dramatically in the first place (and that was Bush I as well as Billy Jeff)..

BTW Rummy made his remarks in response to a trooper from my regiment.  I read them the next day in Stars and Stripes while sitting in a hillbilly armored truck getting ready to go north-I wasn't particularly sad to see him go and I only wish Bush would have fired him earlier (or he had resigned) so that the damned Dems might not have retaken Congress.

I re-enlisted a short time later.  I believe in the war effort and I want us to win, but getting your re-enlistment bonus tax free is nice too.

The transformation was based on the success of CAX operations, and Rummy was actually correct.  You are right however, that the cuts were too extreme in the first place, and the admin made the incorrect decision to not push for the re-establishment of troop numbers for political reasons, since they didn't wanna look like warmongers, which they would have had they increased troop levels, even if there wasn't a war.  So instead, they didn't do anything about troop levels, and just threw it too the military to compensate.  They could, but the strain is too much. 

We need a regular, and incremental buildup of are military forces over at least the next five years to be even close to our proper levels, and probably aren't going to have the active defensive force numbers to be able to do half the things we should be doing, for 10 or more.

Latest Democratic Effort to Surrender Iraq Fails

You should fix your typo.

I assume the problem is not enough infantrymen and that Rumsfeld was trying to force the Army to reduce the number of supporting troops it needs to function.  In other words, be more like the Marines. 

Does anyone know the breakdown of infantry/air/support/etc. in Iraq now?

 think it has a lot to do with the $25,000+ tax free bonuses.

There have been re-enlistment bonuses for as long as the military was all volunteer.  When I left, the MOS I was pigeonholed in was a 1x, there are some that reach 6x.  One of my Plt Sgts, about to re-enlist for the second time, as a Sgt, got enough cash on his first re-enlistment to buy a 1 year old LS 430 (best fucking car on the planet by the way, driving sports cars is fun, driving the Ls 430 is a pleasure that is barely describable) and to fund his passtime (he worked as a bookie, and did a short stint before enlisting, so he would sports gamble) from which he got hot one year and made a shitload of money.

That was in '98.  No war then, whats the reason for the bonus' then?

Actually, the Reup payments are relatively cheap compared to training, and logistics, and a fucking DEAL compared to general operational maintenance for numbers.

Also, It wasn't that rumsfeld thought that 40K troops could defeat the planet, it's more like 40K troops can do what 150K could do 10 years ago, and he was right.

The whole concept of mobile warfare, or would you prefer trench mentality?

Joseph,

Amen to the A-10.

There has not been serious consideration for a fixed wing close support ship in almost 30 years (add 10 years R&D to the 20+ age of the A-10) Choppers are awesome for close support in the assault, but aren't mobile enough to handle multiple, unidentified hazards during defense.  What you end up with is a mobile ground defense that is on it's own, engaging in a holding operation until they get support, and since there are so few close support aircraft anymore, those "fast movers" ain't all that fucking fast anymore.

Not to mention, there is not a single nation on the planet, or two nations on the planet that can gain air superiority against the US, we are too good, too well equiped and too well trained for russia and china to claim superiority against us, let alone the lesser nations who don't know shit about warfare.

One on one, with ANY nation on the planet, we will own the air, 2 on one (as long as both aren't russia and china, but it could be one or the other) we dominate it, but there are iffy parts.

Don't buy the lies, we own the air, and we did before the. . . .whats it called now?  the raptor? (what a lame fucking name, it will be called something else by the troops eventually) and supposedly the raptor (if thats the thrust vectored strike fighter) is so amazing that in tests survival times are almost exact to missile flights from first target contact.

Now we need a good solid, specialized close support craft capable of high speeds, and optional abilities at dirt moving.