I disagree with the statement ReARMM will not achieve it's object of effective force generation not because of its design parameters, but rather the current operating environment the Army finds itself in regarding issues surrounding recruiting/retention, a lack of logistical support to execute tasks to standard, an inability to effectively translate strategic objectives into operational requirements while heavily depending on tactical tasks to determine force readiness. From an academic perspective and positive aspect, ReARMM meets JP 5-0's requirements for an objective and thus should work to effectively generate ready and regionally aligned forces; specifically, the ReARMM framework contains defined phases along mission lines and unit life cycles (modernization, training, and mission and 8/24 months or 12-36/60 months), decisive principles (predictable, stable, and synchronized), and attainable goals (unit METs and METLs). To expound upon the advantages to the system, the goals are specific, measurable, and time bound (i.e. quantifiable) because of the C-USR evaluation system with relevance defined via regionally aligned strategic objectives