If Congress has controlled the exact size of the military ... thick and thin ... through legislation (which no one to my knowledge has challenged as unconstitutional), then what's the necessity for a much more cumbersome amendment process?

I mean this regardless of what the actual size ought to be. You want it either reduced or enlarged, it's a lot easier to go the legislative route (as was done in the early 90s to reduce, and the past couple years to increase end strength).

Please tell me you weren't taken in by that nonsense (or 'codswallop' to use one of his) about bucky having actually died, as opposed to merely retiring his online persona ...

Mike: I was raised to respect the office of the president (in the full Weberian sense), rather than the fallible human being himself. Still do. It bothers me when people boo Bush when he goes to the mound to throw the ball ... not because I think they should be nice to Bush but because Bush has so besmirched that office I respect (which I oddly did not feel about Clinton and his not-uncommon indiscretions).

In any case, I'd bet that this is the basis of how most people think they ought to regard the president/presidency, but the distinction has been lost.

Reality: Without actually denying that Americans have gone mad in recent years(I just returned to the country last year and I am still not sure), I hope you'll take with a grain of salt what you glean from sampling the collective, but sample-biased American 'id' that you encounter online. A lot of your observations are spot on, so I imagine you are taking the appropriate cautions ...

When I am elected preznit I will appoint you as SecDef. Unless you would rather have State...

I'm not ambitious. I'll settle for ASD/SOLIC, to stay close to my tribe ... so long as you don't saddle me with a boss like Rumsfeld! :>

Whenever I'm online, I keep a salt shaker at the ready. That said, I really should add that the American online community is exceptionally erudite - and while one can easily find some pretty unnerving stuff (e.g. regarding Rachel Ray and her scarf, to cite a recent example), I find and take great comfort in much of what I see Americans "saying" online.

As to what you wrote above this quote, I had an eerie sense of deja vu ... were you and I perhaps having an identical conversation a few years ago in 'Just World News'?

With respect to your salt shaker ... I recommend the addition of tequila, and limes. :>

Seriously, I take comfort in your comfort. Much of what I read scares the living crap out of me. But maybe that's another instance of sample bias ... it's the alarming bits that get one's full attention, no?

Tell me QS, what enemy or threat do you see in the future that requires our military to maintain current strengths well into the future.

What you're asking me to defend is the opposite of what I said, RMP. I argued for standing armies, not for current force levels and suggested we could all agree that the status quo is too much.

As to how much is just enough, I am agnostic. I'd rather see an intelligent alignment between our perceptions of the actual threats (which we can discuss, if you want), our intelligent hedging for the threats we can't perceive, a useful set of scenarios for planning guidance, appropriate and practical doctrine, matching force structure, matching and modular systems, and programs to resource those.

In addition to alignment, we could have better budget sensitivity; There's no reason we couldn't, e.g. use a core/cadre approach with land forces, longer doctrinal cycles with air and sea forces, industrial processes that incentivized cost reduction (esp. through greater component modularity) and a less bass-ackwards approach to technology all around. (That last one is an especially long rant waiting to happen)

Overall, I'm a prickler for alignment; anyone's opinion about force levels or budget numbers in the absence of these is just bullshit or ideology.

Speaking of ideology, the second of the threats you mention is by far the more formidable. As Clausewitz said, there is preparing for war and there is war. The case for going to war is intended to be made by the executive, the plans for the armed response to the threat by the military (as well as diplomatic, economic, political, etc. components by others) and approval granted by the people. That 'remarkable' trinity should work just fine except where it is weakened by various factors or directly undermined by, for example, the groups you mention ... as it was in Iraq.

As to the first threat, I admit to being a 'military industrial complex' skeptic. While I'm sympathetic with the overall narrative and need for vigilance, we on this side of the political argument haven't taken the trouble to update the narrative with any details about how our dastardly foes actually operate (especially now).

To date, the main threat from this quarter hasn't been that the so-called MIC would create enemies or get us into wars, it's that they would sell us stuff we don't want, don't need or can't use.

Witness the lingering gazillion dollar littoral craft, JSF, Crusader, FCS, etc. programs that take an act of God to kill, and God better bring a lunch. These are clearly out of whack with our current needs, and/or any efforts to identify some imaginary foe. Note the opposition of both Rumsfeld and Gates, for different reasons, to those who, under the MIC-theory, they should have embraced.