Here is what I've been saying for years on the need to give the Army a greater percentage of the Defense Budget, since they seem be the only service which "get's it" in the post 9/11 warfare:
Since the Army is carrying most of the load in the War on Terror,
and thus is more susceptible to reform than the other two, they should get the
lions share of the annual funds, say a 50%-25%-and 25% ratio. Then perhaps their
more hi-tech siblings would become less interested in fighting some future war
that never occurs and be more useful in wars we already have.
And here is what the Christian Science Monitor reveals, that some in the legislature are finally coming around:
A bipartisan House panel is nudging the Pentagon to begin a
conversation on how to reform itself in many ways. But at the Pentagon, talk of
change usually has a budgetary impact...The fiscal 2009 budget request released
this month, for example, shows the Army requesting a 27 percent share, the Air
Force asking for a 28 percent share, and the Navy, which includes the Marine
Corps, wanting a 29 percent share of the proposed $515 billion budget.
Cooper's seven-member panel is expected to release a study this week on each
of the branches' "roles and missions" that may threaten services that are seen
to perform more conventional warfare...
"There should be vociferous support from inside the services,
since the military has been left carrying the burden of the failures of our
national security institutions," reads a draft of the report, to be released
Thursday. "Instead, our military has resisted change just as they have past
efforts at reform. The Air Force and Navy are reemphasizing more traditional
threats and downplaying the unexpected threats we face today."
The Army has its own Navy and air force, and the Marines also emphasize air support for troops rather than Cold War era first strike and air superiority strategies. If the other services won't face reality, their funds should be passed on to those who know how to use them.
Concerning the hi tech military: I just don't see how we can continue to build weapons that take decades to design and field, are so costly we can only afford a handful, that must remain in service for decades still for some future uncertain conflict. Meanwhile, the weapons we use in the wars we actually do fight, such as helicopters, ground attack planes, transports, and tankers, are older than the pilots that fly them or the generals who command them!
It won't continue to work, this hi tech military. Something has to give.