Let the AF have a reasonable number of the latest fighters and plenty of pilots to man them, and be sure that we can up the production rate if needed downstream.

Let the Army have four more divisions, and ensure that the reserves are cared for as well. Keep the M1A2s in shape, and work on a successor at a reasonable rate, as well as fighting vehicles and fast transport. Another division of special forces may be a good idea.

Let the Navy maintain its carrier task forces, and replace carriers that have outlived their usefulness versus maintenance costs. Let them buy more Super Hornets, and train more pilots also. Increase the number of Virginia class subs significantly.

Let the Marines stand up another division, and ensure their air support and transport.

Let the Coast Guard solve their Littoral ship program and significantly increase their production rate.

So, I think I have just spent that 6%, and I would be willing to raise my taxes to pay for it. Every time we go for a "peace dividend" we put ourselves in grave jeopardy at the beginning of the next conflict. I would rather be considered "nearly invincible" by potential enemies such as Russia or China ten or more years from now, than to rely on somehow weathering the first three years of a war with great losses before we catch up and go ahead.

To me, this is the cost of our freedom: to stay strong militarily.

never the multi-tens-of-billions spent on Navy vessels that (arguably) contribute no more - and possibly significantly less - to those kinds of conflicts.

I think naval affairs are, for whatever reason, simply more arcane and off radar. I for one have a decent understanding at the macro level of airpower but only the most theoretical one of naval power.

More troops, especially those useful for small wars (special operations, intelligence, logistics, military police, civil affairs, etc.). Fewer high-tech aircraft, like the Joint Strike Fighter. More versatile low-tech aircraft, like the C-17 transport plane or the UH-60 helicopter.

I find it interesting that whenever anyone talks about high-cost, high-tech military purchases that don't contribute directly to fighting insurgencies, they only ever mention multi-hundred-million $$ Air Force gear, but never the multi-tens-of-billions spent on Navy vessels that (arguably) contribute no more - and possibly significantly less - to those kinds of conflicts.

It has been obvious to me for years now that the Army needs more soldiers and the Air Force needs less F-22s. All those extended tours in the Middle East and rapid turnaround in redeployments is grinding down the troops, and they aren't using the F-22s they already have.

Manpower, especially highly educated and trained manpower, is expensive.

Sure, but what you and Phil seem to be saying is that (to quote Phil): "it’s clear he’s talking about a massive reallocation of Pentagon money and a dramatic reordering of priorities."

By arguing for an 18% bump in the military budget Mullen isn't arguing for a "reallocation" at all--that implies shifting around the amount of money they are already getting.

He is advocating for a massive increase.

There are currently about 1.5 million active duty forces and another 1.5 million reservists (or 105,000 Full Time Equivalents). If Mullen got his way that would be about $50,000 in additional revenue per soldier.

That's no reallocation--that's a money grab.

It seems that an honest threat assessment would find that there are more efficient ways to allocate existing resources and that such a radical level of expenditure would be unwise.

Manpower, especially highly educated and trained manpower, is expensive.

Except at the margins, though, it didn’t happen because entrenched interests and institutional inertia coalesced around saving the big ticket programs. It’s high time that we get past those barriers.

I agree--the big ticket items are not going to be very useful to stop a handful of nuts armed with $2.99 boxcutters from hijacking an airplane.

But how do you reconcile this with Mullen's call to increase the military budget by 18%?

It seems that an honest threat assessment would find that there are more efficient ways to allocate existing resources and that such a radical level of expenditure would be unwise..