Force Structure Quotes

… you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

The cost of deploying one U. S. soldier is the equivalent to the cost of deploying 70 Afghan soldiers.

Within NATO, our Defence Capabilities Initiative has identified the essential capabilities all Allies must have for modern operations, and Allies are working to meet those requirements.

What is SOCOM's mission statement in two sentences? Most people I know in SOF cannot recite it. If it's not clear from the bottom up, then it's a problem.

There has never been a military commander in history who didn’t want more men for a longer time …

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. This Administration has overextended our military.

With the winding down of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States now has an opportunity to implement real defense reforms without having a serious impact on immediate battlefield needs.

We also very importantly recommend continued growth in the Army and the Marine Corps end strength.

I understand all the problems for the Ministry of Defence, of course I do; working within a budget and trying to do so many things is not easy.

One of the key challenges the military has faced - and the Army, in particular - is defining our requirements and keeping them stable.

Now that you're Secretary of War, what kind of an army do you think we ought to have?

The Army (considering the irritable state it is in, its suffering and composition) is a dangerous instrument to play with.

The all-volunteer army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well.

I can't tell you what the Army end strength will be. I know it has to be above 500,000. I know it has to be above 500,000 in the regular Army - and I've always said associated growth in the Guard and Reserve.

It is not whether an independent Scotland could go it alone and develop its own defence forces - of course it could - but what sort of forces would they be?

Without the Guard and Reserve, our active duty troops could hardly deploy.

And most countries are now reducing the number of conscripts and increasing the professionals that are available because they're available on short notice.

We haven’t done strategic military analysis in so long that most of our analysts don’t know how to do it any more..

We will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies. Right now we only have 23.

We need to transform our military forces by focusing on force posture, not force structure.

Seventeen consecutive years of irregular war, extended years of budget uncertainty, and an increasing complex security environment have eroded our competitive edge.

The only way to make budget cuts is to bring down force structure.

Instead of measuring military readiness in terms of overall size and numbers, we must focus on metrics of capability, particularly in technology, and positioning.

Because the resources available to the U. S. military will be increasingly limited, the objectives must be too.

I would also recommend that the Marine Corps be merged in the artillery or infantry, as the best mode of curing the many defects in its organization.