![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
During the past decade of war, the US Army has employed its forces in roles they were not intended to fulfill. The Army could have been better prepared if it had fielded a better mixture of forces. Instead of focusing on specific threats that narrowly specify which conflicts the Army will best be prepared for, the Army should maintain a broad range of capabilities that can meet a variety of circumstances. Accordingly, the Army should seek a force structure that exhibits a 3:1:1 ratio of Infantry, Armor, and Stryker brigade combat teams (BCTs) based on the possible range of conditions that US forces could face.
Notes
1. US Army, Citation2010 Army Posture Statement, 13.
2. General Accounting Office, ‘Realistic Deployment Timelines’, 2.
3. Garamone, ‘Missions Grow as Money Declines’.
4. Lopez, ‘Brigade Combat Teams Cut’.
5. Murdock et al., Building the 2021 Affordable Military, 5–22.
6. Otterman, ‘Iraq’s Prewar Military Capabilities’.
7. Freier and Guy, ‘What Next for Army Force Structure?’.