I don't think that nittany was advocating just mindless slashing of staffs but a coherent and organized reduction in an much more top heavy force when compared to manning 50+ years ago.
Bingo. Yes, as is often the case here, I was spitballing, and deliberately made my argument a bit arbitrary and a bit hyperbolic. I wanted to see what would happen if I kicked over the anthill; I really think if we collectively agreed to stop accepting so much self-inflicted pain, and at least tried to put half that pain into solving what Brett rightfully says are complicated, intractable, pain-in-the-ass structural problems, we'd be better off. Because RLSO is also right. Just because change is hard doesn't mean change is bad.
Flash has a point; we don't want to slavishly use WWII or any era as a baseline. But we have a bad habit of setting a system in stone, letting a bureaucracy grow up around it, and then saying "this is how it has to be." No, it doesn't. The only place it has to be that way is in our own minds. Other options still exist even if you don't realize that they do. Use the power we have, and persuade those who have the power we don't. If laws need to be changed, then laws need to be changed. Yeah, you have to evaluate, screen, and sometimes get rid of people. The goal is that when that is done, they don't think it's happened for stupid reasons. Fixing this properly is a continuous, iterative process.