Posted on Mar 20, 2014
Do you think lowering the total number of soldiers in the Army makes the United States look weak?
2.92K
29
17
2
2
0
soldiers**
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
Too many people have the false impression we can fight wars remotely by using UAVs and manned aircraft because we have been doing some of that to take out terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen. They seem to believe conventional wars are over. That's a false assumption to make as long as other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea maintain armies.
I have no doubt Russia took Crimea because Putin believes the US to be weak not just militarily, but weak financially and in morale. I personally don't believe Putin is done expanding Russia's borders.
(5)
(0)
Simple answer is yes it will and does make us look weaker, especially with events transpiring as they are in the Russian/Middle Eastern areas. A bigger problem in my mind though is the weak-assed, appeasement seeking civilian leadership that we currently have. I never felt that we could effectively fight the 2-conflict idea that was put in place after the drawdown following DS/DS and it really was apparent during the OEF/OIF years. We are seeing a push for technology based weaponry, ie. UAS etc, to the detriment of our ground holding capabilities, ie. "Boots on the ground". As a Tanker I watched with trepidation and a bit of amusement after the end of the Cold War when it was talked about the lessening need/requirement for tanks on the modern battlefield, and then guess what played a big role in the Iraqi conflict? While we may not see the large-scale ground combat of yesteryear, guess who is raising it's ugly head in the Eurasian region?
(2)
(0)
I addressed this before i believe.
Napoleon had a smaller army in most of the battles that he fought (well the famous ones). Dropping to a smaller size should not make us weaker. If you think about it while we where in the heart of the war we needed more troops to keep rotations from being ridiculous. Now we are slimming back down. This means that as NCOs and Leaders we need to focus on Training. I understand that money will be tight without a war. Well its also time for NCOs to be creative. Napoleon Won the battles not because he had the bigger army but because he made sure his soldiers where well trained, and well taken care of.
I have always believed that if you cut the size of the army and used that money to increase the quality of training you would raise the quality of the soldier. I would take 1 High Speed over 5 Anchors.
But as i stated THIS is a time when NCOs should shine. When there is no Money... No money for training... No money for parts... Its our time to continue to do what NCOs do... Train, be creative and change our Army from being quantity, to being Quality.
Napoleon had a smaller army in most of the battles that he fought (well the famous ones). Dropping to a smaller size should not make us weaker. If you think about it while we where in the heart of the war we needed more troops to keep rotations from being ridiculous. Now we are slimming back down. This means that as NCOs and Leaders we need to focus on Training. I understand that money will be tight without a war. Well its also time for NCOs to be creative. Napoleon Won the battles not because he had the bigger army but because he made sure his soldiers where well trained, and well taken care of.
I have always believed that if you cut the size of the army and used that money to increase the quality of training you would raise the quality of the soldier. I would take 1 High Speed over 5 Anchors.
But as i stated THIS is a time when NCOs should shine. When there is no Money... No money for training... No money for parts... Its our time to continue to do what NCOs do... Train, be creative and change our Army from being quantity, to being Quality.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next