« What does the word “civilizational” mean in French? | Main | President Trump cannot pardon himself out of trouble »

July 12, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

But in Iraq it's my opinion that the existing combat service support structures could have supported twice as many warfighters as they did. No matter how few convoys are running, the sustainment headquarters are about the same size.


One implication of your assumption is that HQ units made large efficiency gains between 1990 and 2005. They fell by somewhere between four and ten percentage points between Gulf One and Gulf Two, even though Gulf Two mobilized fewer soldiers. (The 369th CSB HQ certainly didn't seem very efficient, but I have no basis for comparison.)

Is that conclusion reasonable?

I should add that the Germany comparisons might not be entirely fair; American HQ elements would have been responsible for non-American NATO units in the event of war.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)