So slower and heavier is better for a stationary army of occupation? I don't think so. The military has to constantly transform itself in response to a fluid environment. Rumsfeld is correct in that the current Army is battle-hardened with three years of experience in an often hostile terrain. There is no reason at all to think that the allied forces of reason cannot prevail in Iran as well.bobg said:Actually, I wasn't looking for that. I was comparing the latest Quadrennial Defense Review to the 2001 QDR and to Bush's campaign promises (back then, Rice and Rumsfeld were the only good thing you could say about Bush). The words about transforming the military are still there, but the effort seems to be running out of gas (the QDR sets the vision while the budget tells how effectively the vision is being implemented).
We saw the impact even a partial transformation into a lighter, faster, more lethal military could have during the Iraq invasion. That's fine for America's traditional goals, when invading and occupying a foreign country was the last thing on anyone's mind. Unfortunately, faster and lighter aren't that effective for a stationary army of occupation. The US military is designed to respond to crises, not to create them.