The most interesting part of his talk, however, was his concern that the military will focus on increased force structure rather than modernization or readiness:
In land warfare, likewise, the Russians are a major threat to Europe, and we need heavy Army forces to deter them, Winnefeld said, but “buying a lot more troops to handle that that are garrisoned in United States congressional districts is not the answer.” (Former European Command chief Philip Breedlove has even suggested the Russian fleet could block reinforcements moving across the Atlantic). Rather than ship units across the sea, Winnefeld said, the Army needs a large stockpile of advanced equipment ready to go in Europe.
“That is going to require a smaller Army because we’ve got to pay for it,” Winnefeld said. “I wouldn’t take a dime away from the Army, but I would change their operational concept in Europe.” Unfortunately, he said, both the Army and its supporters in Congress have a deep emotional commitment to keeping the largest possible force.
Read it all here. When I was at the Air Force, this is exactly the approach we took--focusing our budget authority on readiness for the current fight and modernization of our weapon systems even at the price of a smaller force. This approach was not well received in Congress.Instead of trying to grow larger, Winnefeld argued, the military would do better to try to grow more innovative.