The need for numbers

There's been a bit of talk about the defense budget. Obama and Panetta have been on TV talking about how great our armed forces are. But they gave no numbers.
We ought to know how many regular combat troops we will have. There was a time (WWII) when we had ten million men under arms. That's probably more than we need in the 21st century. But it does seem prudent to have enough regular troops to do down a third world pest hole like Iran or North Korea. Say 140,000, which is what we had in Iraq at one point. When doing the counting, we ought to count regulars separately from reserves. And we only want to count real combat arms, infantry, tankers, gunners, and combat engineers. Public affairs officers, contract administrators, motor pool, logistics, POL, finance, base housing, and MP's are not combat soldiers.
In the case of the Navy and Air Force, the numbers that matter are the number of operational warships and aircraft. Don't count rustbuckets in mothballs or antique aircraft parked at the Davis Monthan boneyard.
There is probably some fat to be trimmed out of the defense department. Parkinson (of Parkinson's law fame) once observed that the Royal Navy back in WWI had a large number of ships and a small number of clerks. By 1960 the navy had half the number of ships and ten times the number of clerks compared to 1914. That's an example of cuttable fat.
Then there is military procurement, so beloved of Congressmen. We could start by burning the 100,000 pages of procurement regulations that just add cost and slow deliveries. Insist that the services go out for competitive bids on EVERYTHING. Don't accept excuses that there isn't time for bidding. Accept bids from close allies like Canada and Britain.
Knock off the gold plate. Buy Jeeps for $22k instead of Hummers for $60K. Buy off-the-shelf equipment rather than design special stuff at extra cost.