The Department of Defense and the Department of Security and Foreign Development

The Active Duty Army will have 48 Brigade Combat Teams by 2013 arrayed as such:

• 19 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (20 if you count 3rd ACR, which is close enough for our purposes)

• 6 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams

• 13 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams

• 6 Airborne Brigade Combat Teams

• 4 Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams
  

• Additionally, the Marines have 12 Regimental Combat Teams

• Grand Total 48+12= 60 Brigades
  

I see the HBCT's optimized for high-intensity conflict, the SBCT's optimized for mid-intensity conflict, and IBCT's becoming more and more optimized for mid-to-low intensity conflict. This is the way it should be. Marine RCTs can be structured to fight in high-intensity conflicts, but the do their best work at the mid-to-low level, their organic equipment typically being more comparable to a Stryker BCT. In the future, Stryker and Infantry BCT's will have to integrate peacekeeping and nation building capabilities at the unit level, this will entail the attachment of:

1. NGO's (UN, WHO)
2. Coalition allies (UK&Friends, EU, China, India, whoever wants to come along)
3. Public sector orgs (State Dept, USAID, Peace Corps)
4. Private sector - Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton, choke on it hippies, they're here to stay.
   
5. Foreign Direct Investment - It will start with Security and Infrastructure contracts directly with the coalition, but if security improves enough, the investment starts to flow and then a Less-Developed Country becomes a Low-Cost Country, ripe for rapid economic growth that is the pre-condition for any lasting peace.

These new elements will be controversial and will blur the lines between military and civilian, overseas and posse comitatus, but they are necessary, and given the current trajectory, inevitable. I would posit that a reduction in the number of Heavy Brigade Combat Teams is necessary both from a strategic and fiscal point of view. An increase in the now proven and accepted Stryker Brigades wouldn't be a bad thing. The reduction in HBCT's will reduce the cost of FCS, and the $ saved can be used for more Strykers.

I propose developing the entire combat forces of the United States along a delineation between Forced-Entry Capable, and Follow-on units. High-End assets go with the Forced-Entry critters, Cheap and plentiful follow behind them.

Proposed Force Structure:

Forced Entry Capable Teams (23+8) Brigades Total) -

1. Stays in DoD
   
2. 6 Airborne Brigade Combat Teams and 4 Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams by Air
3. 10 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (+ 8 National Guard HBCTs) by Land
4. 3 Marine Expeditionary Brigades and their naval support assets by Sea
   
5. Carrier Strike Groups, SSNs, SSGNs, Surface combatants DDG or larger
   
6. F-22's F-35's, B-1's, B-2's, etc
7. Kicks in the door, grabs the bad guy, Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, etc, and then pulls out, usually in less than a month.
   

Security and Development Force (37+19) Brigades Total) -

1. Moves to a Department of Foreign Security and Development that unites diplomatic, security, public, and private development and stabilization centers under one flag in a one effort.
   
2. 12 Stryker BCTs (+ 1 National Guard Stryker BCTs)
   
3. 16 Infantry BCTs (+ 18 National Guard Infantry BCTs)
   
4. 9 (The Remaining Marine RCT's)
5. LPD's and LSD's to support the humanitarian, peacekeeping, disaster-response, etc, Littoral Combat Ships
   
6. UAV's, UAV's, UAV's, Airlift, Airlift, Airlift
7. Follows immediately behind the Forced-Entry force, even sharing command and support structures with the DoD forces, is handed off command when security reaches a threshold (enemy can no longer operate beyond the company level) on a regional basis. Stays "until the job is done." If we get good at this, it doesn't have to be 5 years later, it can be a single year-long tour.
   

This delineation allows for a better management of conflicts without cutting any single branch completely out of the DoD budget. I believe they all have something to contribute, though obviously the majority of the effort will shift over time to supporting the Security and Development Force, which is simply an extension of the fact that we are running out of plausible nation-states that could challenge us and simply shifting focus to expanding economic connectivity. As Gates pointed out, where in the world would a plausible conventional conflict occur?