[jyl]

The cynic in me says that we have to guard against the natural human tendency to prepare for the last war, since the next war frequently looks different from the last war.

Example:
- The Korean War was a conventional war with large-scale battles, armor, amphibious landings, etc.
- The Vietnam War was a counter-insurgency war with small unit patrols, lots of interaction with civilians, a long period of low-intensity conflict, etc.
- The Gulf War I was a conventional war with big armoured battles, lots of airpower, etc.
- The Iraq War has turned into a counter-insurgency with small units, civilian interaction, long period of conflict, etc.

I know I am over-simplifying here - there were major battles in Vietnam - but you see how the wars have alternated in character.

So if the military now decides to regear itself more to fighting Iraq/Vietnam-style wars, my cynical fear is that the next war will be an intense conventional war in the Korean/Gulf I-style. I have this image of lightly armed Special Forces getting blown away in major land battles.

I'm also kind of skeptical about how much use the bulk of the military really is for the "war on terrorism". What would the Marines do about bombs in subway trains, anyway? And should we be optimizing our military for long-term occupation/pacification missions like Iraq, or should we concentrate on not getting into those situations in the future?

I wonder if this isn't Pentagon higher-ups sniffing where the money is and chasing budgets.