I would simply add that a good example of the difficulty they're in is given by the period in Afghanistan, where so many of our obviously well-trained personnel were deployed, when there was a dearth of available personnel to carry out the training of recent recruits and other personnel at various other levels requiring additional training.
This is why in my comments originally this morning I indicated that you don't turn off recruiting, as was done in the early 1990s; you don't ask people with experience to leave prematurely when they could serve for a longer period, because that creates a rather strange demography in the personnel in the forces. As my colleague has just mentioned, you take 10, 15, or 20 years to train a warrant officer, for instance, or certainly an officer at the rank of colonel; therefore the budget must be adequate to provide sufficient funding for all of those activities.
If reductions must be made, then they must be made in a way that will preserve the maximum amount of experience in the total force. Otherwise, you will end up with serious gaps, such as I've just indicated existed during the Afghanistan deployment.