The U.S. Military as a whole needs an overhaul.

Because of the nature of Pro's argument the rebuttal will be most of my post. When I took this debate I assumed you where going to be arguing in favor of a more Nuclear centric strategy or at least another defined war doctrine other than the Power-Projection doctrine currently at the center of U.S. Military Strategic planning. What you gave me is kind of hard to decipher. Power-point; really? It sounds more like you have an opinion you wanted to air rather than a coherent military doctrine you wanted to argue in favor of. Alright, PowerPoint aside, This is at least something to grab onto with these other two points. 1. On leadership, accountability of leadership has always been an issue with any military. In the absence of really good argument by pro about what exactly to do besides a blanket assertion of 'dismiss bad commanders'. On this point I will grant Credit to Pro's point. This is not a new problem how ever, as Pro's source highlights " American troops were fighting to stay alive—no small feat in that summer’s [1944] bloody combat. One infantry company in the 90th began a day in July with 142 men and finished it with 32. Its battalion commander walked around babbling “I killed K Company, I killed K Company.” Later that summer, one of the 90th’s battalions, with 265 soldiers, surrendered to a German patrol of 50 men and two tanks. In six weeks of small advances, the division would use up all its infantrymen, requesting replacements of more than 100 percent. "[1] In this article, this story goes on to show the commander being relieved of command and replaced, as it should have been and continues to assert that modern U.S. military command fails to do this today, an assertion I do not dispute. Disputes over military leadership are nothing new how ever, we contended with bad commanders in virtually every war we've thought with varying levels of accountability going back to the Revolutionary war it self. Benedict Arnold for example.[2] A famous example is the legacy of Union general Killpatrick who: "... was a master, in his mid-twenties, of using political influence to get ahead. His men had little love for his manner and his willingness to exhaust men and horses and to order suicidal mounted cavalry charges."[3] 2. Weight of gear on soldiers is variable depending on mission duration and job of the solider in question. A soldier on patrol will carry something in the ball park of 20kg~ (40ish pounds) where as a solider on a long duration mission will be carrying a full 40kg up to 65kg+ This is all dependent on mission length and combat role and it is a reality of warfare that has persisted for a very long time. U.S. Strategic planners are already well aware of it[4] and spend a lot of money to develop lighter weight materials and lighter equipment with out compromising effectiveness. Army planners the world over have known of this issue for a very long time . Famously Sergeant Costello (75th rifle 1809) wrote in his biography of carrying at least 80 pounds of gear.[5] To conclude this round, Besides pro's war on power point, Nothing brought up is especially new nor is it issues that U.S. Strategic planning already contends with to one level or another. In point 2,regarding weight, this is a long term issue that has burdened troops and military planners through virtually every generation, the U.S. military is already working on it. Sources:[1] http://www.theatlantic.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.protonex.com... (Protonex is a military contractor who manufactures batteries and some other electronics.) [5]Costello, Edward. The Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns Hamden : Archon Books; 1968.