Chuckman
Senior Member
Glad you clarified. Guess I misunderstood.
In my shipyard experience "Do more with less" is a lazy way of dealing with budget problems.
"Doing more with less" is fairly standard operating procedure. The only time I recall that we were flush with resources and money was right after 9/11, otherwise it's do more with less.
The other issue with right sizing and appropriate missions is mission creep. You get a mission entirely within your wheelhouse, then something else gets added, and something else gets added, and so on and so on and so on. Next thing you know you're in a damn country for 20 years.
What actually is that mission? As an outsider looking in, I don't have any idea what our military does other than support lots and lots and lots of people in every country everywhere for no apparent benefit for those of us paying the bills. What more is needed? There are 50,000 in Japan, seems like a lot of people to do... stuff.
The Navy has duties which have been codified into freedom of navigation, keeping sea lanes open, projecting power, partnering with the Marine Corps. They have deterrent responsibility with missile subs. They are also charged with SIGINT and ELINT.
The Marine Corps? Their job is to kill people and break stuff.
The military is an organization is bloated, and although almost all the leadership will tell you they are shorthanded, the reality is they can chop off a decent portion and still maintain capability. A walk through the Pentagon will confirm that.
Is too big and cumbersome for a peace time military. But to make it the right size our esteemed elected officials need to change national strategy and defense policy, which almost none of them will ever do.