Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Brad Sallows]

Others have already said it: Corps '86 anybody?

Details of what was in the book fade, but Corps '86 was only ridiculous if it was held up as an example of what we intended to buy at the time and for being over-stuffed. Someone long ago described it as an incomplete document that had gone through the "what does everyone think they need" phase, but not a scrub-down phase. Reduce the 10-tube batteries, remove the tank destroyers, reduce/remove some other wish-list over-reach, and some kind of Corps '25 (or, really, Army '25) target ought to exist. It has to be anchored to an estimate of the manpower and materiel the country can sustain through at least, say, 3 years of war, and can't usefully exist in the absence of similar work for naval and air forces, including all the "home" establishments. (IOW, everything taken together). Producing and continuously updating a "plan" that reflects the maximum we think we could project at steady state for some reasonable duration at least means we're thinking about a practical upper bound, how to reach it, and how to stay there (not necessarily indefinitely). Obviously we aren't obligated to perpetually strain ourselves in relative peace-time to implement it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

An alternate organization for discussion sake. In all reality will we ever see a time when the CA deploys a full division, or even a division minus with a full division headquarters? I suggest not.

Depends on whether you believe Russia (or China) poses a threat that Europe (or east Asia, backed by the US) can't handle without us. Plenty of people are waving the threat, but that might just be political grand-standing because they've suddenly been presented with the prospect of having to spend more on military forces.