Dear FRONTLINE,

Being a former Navy Seabee I know what it is like to be asked to carry out an assignment, when the proper tools are not available. I have watched our forces on tv during the course of my life time and Gen: Shinseki has the right idea I feel my natural aggressiveness and intelligence was dampened by todays' military. We need a force that can multitask and that has the speed and power to devestate any aggressor force. Having taken part in operation joint endevour in Bosnia the army had a tough time with it's heavy tanks, the U.S. needs to adopt a more nonconventional approach to warfare. You would think we would have learned our lesson from Vietnam & Somalia. I once had a Navy chief ask me why I had a double bladed boot knife fastened to my web gear, he then proceeded to tell me to remove it. This left me very perplexed. I thought I was a warrior in the military not in the girl scouts. The senators that were speaking to Gen: shinseki should never be given the power to influence an important decision like the one the Genenral made they are not the ones' that will fight the battles and possibly die. Finally our troops are being moved towards real time training and nothing should get in the way of this, however; I was curious as to will America be ready if another war as in the Gulf War arises? I also agree that our forces should not be used as a police force this is confusing, I was trained to kill, but then you throw me into a battle zone and tell me to arrest and baby sit.

steven carrio
bryan, tx

Dear FRONTLINE,

Doesn't the DOD already have a light, quick-reaction force? Specifically the Marines. While still training to become a force of the future maybe the Army should train to back up and reinforce an initial large scale assault performed by the Marines I'm assuming the marines are capable of such a show of force with the Army eventually relieving the Marines for a longer operation. Instead of each service fighting for the same mission, train to back each other in a more productive if less glorious role. Maybe I have this all wrong, I'm just a simple E-5, but I really believe there is a lot of duplication in the Armed forces.

John Shelton
Virginia Beach , VA

Dear FRONTLINE,

The transformation of the Army is vital to the future security of the country and the survival of our soldiers in the next war. A thinking enemy knows that our strength lies in conventional mechanized warfare. Unfortunately, an enemy does not have to defeat us in that arena in order to achieve their objective. Look at what is happening in Israel. They are fighting in the streets using tactics the Israelis are not primarily equipped to deal with and combatants not easy to identify from non-combatants. The Achilles' Heel for the U.S. is casualties. No amount of transformation can change the country's perspective on that. We can prepare our soldiers to fight and win in such an arena. No enemy in his right mind will confront our strength; they will attack our weakness. That is what we must prepare for.

Mark Stauffer
Ft. Knox, Kentucky

Dear FRONTLINE,

It seems to me like the military would still need some heavy fighting forces, such as the M-1 tanks, in future conflicts as well as light LAV type forces. The Army could have the light forces deploy quickly and have them do the job until the big guns can get there. I am not sure if light force could take a heavily armored tank platoon. Besides, isn't the Marine Corps a light, highly mobile fighting force capable of rapid deployment?

Rusty Appleton
Choctaw, Oklahoma