Which Division should be deactivated as the Army draws down?

My option would be to cut the staffs by about 50% while keeping all 10 Active DIV Flags flying. Also, additional GO slots Army wide need cut, including all the extra stars in each DIV - One Major General and a SINGLE Brigadier General are enough for a DIV staff...not the multiple 1-stars we see now. Those extra BGs be deployment level staffing or war-time...not draw-down peace time manning.

As much as I believe we need to cut the amount of senior leaders in the Army...we need to slash the number of civilians in the units to ZERO...maybe keep ONE for safety and one for FRG, but that is it. No senior civilian leaders in DCO slots or anything like that though. Get green-suiters back in the school houses, staffs, running the bases, cooking food, and everything else we hired civilians and contractors to do the last 12 years.

Best help I've had with movement was the civilians at FRK handling post movement and transportation...and I have no issues with keeping post level assets like that. We have officers and NCOs though that specialize in movement to handle unit movements in coordination with post/garrison level civilian assets.

I like your idea on the Pentagon. Maybe we just cut 1/5 of the positions and move all the military offices from Crystal City into the Pentagon where they belong. For those who have never been to the DC area, Crystal City is part of Arlington County and is just South of the Pentgon. We have MANY military offices all through there since there is not enough space at the Pentagon to house everyone. It's almost like a mini-military community down there; go by at lunch sometime and see all the different services out for lunch.

Tough decision to be made. So much to consider!

SFC - A unit's history is less important than it's current strength and operating capability. We've deactivated hundreds of units with history and lineage that predate the US Army. IMHO, the Army should consolidate units to (a) save money by reducing HQ support headcount while (b) maintaining, if not enhancing operational capability. I also think the time is right to create joint units - for example, combining Army and USMC ground assets into a single entity. You could do this on a pilot basis to work out the kinks, then go full bore. This would increase interoperability, reduce HQ headcount even more, and take the best of what each Service has to offer, using it for the common good.

1SG Blount - I don't know how well it would work, but I definitely like the idea of creating a Joint unit with Army and USMC assets. I think the interoperations would be a huge learning experience for both services and that we could make some very powerful units that have a broader capability. Agree that it would take a pilot program perhaps to see how things work out, but might be worth the effort. I've been Joint before, and when you bring the services together to accomplish a mission, you can get a lot more done than simply all going it alone.

1SG Brown - yah, the interoperability piece would be a huge issue, with each side basically arguing about who's in charge. IF you got the right commanders sending the right message from the get-go, something like this would work. A possible scenario could be joining up smaller, more tactical units as a (eg SOF, MARSOC), then company-sized elements before moving up eschelons as you go. I'm guessing you'd find greater cooperation at the tactical levels than staff. For that matter, you MIGHT even have joint NCO Schools where each Service could learn from the other. Hmmm.....