Over at Phil Carter's Intel Dump, JD Henderson has a very intelligent and critical look at the future of the US military budget and "Force Structure." As opposed to the needs of the war in which the troops are currently engaged.

DID has covered both the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and FY 2007 buget request in depth from multiple perspectives, and Ralph Peters got a lot of buzz out of his article "The Counter-Revolution In Military Affairs" which aims at a similar target. Having said that, I especially recommend the discussions that accompany JD's post. JD Henderson has a strong military background, as one can see from his bio. His article begins with a focus on The Economist magazine's QDR article, but keep going into the comments section for some very intelligent debate and shared experiences. Outstanding.

I particularly liked JD's OPFOR experience comment, describing how they crushed regular units who thought technology alone would grant them victory.

To me, this represents the kind and quality of discussion we should be having in public about our military - but almost never do. Instead, debates so often revolve around left-liberals who begin from a position of contempt and/or ignorance vs. the right simply arguing for more funds - and of course, every politician arguing for every program that happens to be their district. As James Fallows has noted, the question "what kind of force structure and military policies best protect America" often gets lost in that shuffle.