Colonel MacGregor is an interesting thinker but it is reported (to me)that he advised the Bush Administration (OVP) in 2002 that the US invasion force could be sized at two armored brigades. (I am willing to be told that this is not true)
The family of vehicles planned in "Future Combat Systems" is a long way off in any "timeline." As MacGregor implies, the idea that the future will be filled with more 4th generation wars of counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism is a debatable analysis. To gamble all on a force structure made up of light forces and commandos is a big, big gamble.
This week in Washington, The Association of the US Army (AUSA) held its convention. At that convention the Chief of Staff said that 20 years of conflict are anticipated by the Army. That is bad news for an army that is still wedded to the concept of soldiers as middle class married men with young families. A succession of pious, middle class uniformed leaders created that ideal for America's army after the Vietnam War. People in today's army are expected to conduct themselves socially like small town Americans. Drinking, smoking, sexual adventure are all severely sanctioned even in combat zones. Where is the "safety valve" for these guys? A set of mores of that type is not feasible in an army that lives at war in far flung places with often repeated and protracted combat tours. My active duty friends tell me that the "middle class" army is already breaking down as a form. Divorce, family dissolution and other symptoms abound. A different kind of army will emerge from the meat grinder. The marines? I know nothing of them.
The Chief of Staff also said that the National Guard and Army Reserve must be maintained as vital parts of the structure. I will leave it to you, gentle reader, to comment on that before I give my view. pl