My Perception of the Military Organization
American military power suffers continual trade-offs during fiscal tightening. We cannot afford everything, and our options for dividing funds are simple. We may spend money on training and manpower, equipment modernization, current missions or quality of life issues. Almost every item in the Army budget fits, albeit roughly, into one of these elements. As in the interwar period of 1918-1941, we cannot fund everything. There are, however, ways in which we may use ideas and words to increase our combat effectiveness without significant expenditures. There is room for improvement in our doctrine and the policies through which we "manage" our forces. The actual tactical composition of the future Army, be it the "medium brigade" or something else, is almost irrelevant to the issue. Regardless of the name, we are leaning toward smaller units as our basic tactical building block. This trend suggests a possible solution with deep roots in Army history. We may use human nature to help build cohesion by bringing back the regiments.
Although addressing another army in another period, the factors apply to human beings generally. Divisions are, for the most part, too large to invoke emotional affiliation except when viewed in the past tense. Regiments, true regiments such as the US Army lost with the restructuring into the Potomac Army of General Maxwell Taylor, may form the basis for cohesion at the tactical level in the future as they have in the past (Bateman).
We are facing a period of decreased personal commitment to the military and a concurrent loss of professionalism characterized by a devotion to self over a devotion to the institution. While many of the reasons for this are tied to the recent downsizing of the military and the resultant uncertainty that the survivors feel towards the Army as a body, the effects may well prove disastrous unless...