We never know who our enemies are going to be in the future or what kind of weaponry they have been able to procure.

You raise a good point, blah. And one that makes Gates' (and Rummy's) philosophy look rather poor - if we lose the kind of conflict they're building the military towards (Iraq- & Afghan-style smash-and-hold, with a bit of COIN), we look bad. But if we lose the kind of conflict a 'heavy' military is better at (say, China or a resurgently-aggressive Putin-flavored USSR), the US more or less ceases to exist.

Personally I think Mr. Gates is dreaming with this announcement. Our military might is based in large part on our trying to fight the next war. We never know who our enemies are going to be in the future or what kind of weaponry they have been able to procure.

Hilary on the other hand, could never have been relied upon to look twice at the military pork.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts, marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future budgets.

Problem, of course is the ones approving the budgets are only guessing what the next war will be like.

I thought the big hit on the military (esp. the Army) was that they were always working to re-fight the last war rather than the next one.

More accurately, I think, they're always preparing to fight the war they'd most like to fight. Which, basically, is a combo WWII/Desert Storm with more expensive toys.