As it stands now it will take two years to get the equipment back to where it should be.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Rumsfield's legacy, a broken military.

Bush should have accepted his resignation in 2004.

You can not a machine at 110% and expect it not to break at some point.  It's not Rumsfields fault.  We have been doing force reduction since 1985.  Smaller military, less money, less training, "Do more with less", "Army of One" "IRR" "Draft Registration" Give me a break, you are going to blame somebody here?  Let's blame our congress for refusing to support an active full strength military.  Let's blame our nation for sticking its nose in every county's business since 1954.  We want to be the the policeman to the world and do it with a little tiny military.. OK but then this is the price you pay.  Rumsfield didn't break this freakin machine!  Congress milked it dry by sopping up the fat with white bread on domestic welfare programs for illegal immigration and welfare moms who have six kids to feed while driving a Lexis and then shipping us off to places like Haiti while they play golf.  Rumsfield was given an impossible job, just like a lot of other people.  

Time is relative, relatives take time.

First, we have not been reducing the military since 1985(the 10th Mountain was activated in 1985 or 1986).  We did not start doing any draw downs until 1989 at the end of the Cold War.  It is true that since 1993 we have cut the force levels way too low.  This was done by a Democratic President and at least allowed if not helped be a Republican Congress.  Rumsfeld is not to blame for any of that.  And fact, prior to taking office he said one of his goals was to reduce the real world commitments of our military.

However, even before 9/11 he refused to do just that, publicly backtracking.  Rumsfeld and the Administration also blew a chance following 9/11 to increase the size of the military to meet the new war(with Tommy Franks in complete agreement).  Rumsfeld was behind the idea to keep the size of the invasion and occupation force too small.  Rumsfeld was directly responsible for picking Ray Garner at the last minute to handle the post invasion government and then failed to adequately fund or staff it.  Rumsfeld put Paul Bremer in to replace Garner.  Rumsfeld chose to fund and field the Raptor and other high tech weapons that have little use in the counterinsurgency/counterterrorism war we are fighting.  All of this has exacerbated the situation we are in now.

The fact is that the military, and the Army in particular, are reaching the breaking point and there is more than enough blame to go around, Presidents, SecDefs and Congress.  But nobody can get a pass.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

I love providing sources:  Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not constitute a build up:  Creating a new Mountain Division by taking from other units does not mean a build up.  Here are some solid sources:

US Military Spending as a percentage of GDP Since 1985
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005

1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7

An appropriate read for this discussion might be a special report prepared for Congress written by Edward F. Bruner in May of 2004 titled, "Military Forces: What is an Appropriate Size for the United States?" An electronic copy is available here: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754.pdf

Source: In thousands from the 2000 US Census total number of Active Duty Troops by year for all services including the US Coast Guard.  You will see the troop draw down pattern.  The reduction was first ordered by Congress Sometime in 1983.  I am familiar with the program because the Army initiated it's first early force reduction with an early ETS option allowing soldier an early ETS option of up to 120 days, one month for each year of Active military service contracted and currently served on all contracts signed after January 1 1979.  Several soldiers assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division were given this early out option in December 1983 as part of what was referred to as "Early Out Force Reduction."

1987 2,174
1988 2,138
1989 2,130
1990 2,044
1991 1,986
1992 1,807
1993 1,705
1994 1,611
1995 1,518
1996 1,472
1997 1,439
1998 1,407

Rumsfield made some bad decisions based on direction from the President and the joint chiefs and on his own accord.  I agree with you.  Plenty of blame to spread around.  Lots of greed in the equation here no doubt.  Trying to keep some of our resources on reserves for the world to blow up somewhere else I am sure was also part of the motive.  No doubt we had a fear the next idiot to push off was India or Iran or Pakistan or China.  Just watch and see what happens here in the next 12 months and you'll not be surprised at how the world watches as America depletes it's financial resources, it's military strength and it's willingness to react so it can take advantage of our ability to respond.  I hope the first missile hits congress. (not really but wouldn't it be poetic justice.)

Time is relative, relatives take time.

(Chris-DNR-1SG(R))

"fortune favors the brave"- Nicolo Machiavelli