Posted on Jul 8, 2015
9
9
0
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 27
11
11
0
Ugh...the 2011 Budget Control Act passed by Congress mandated the reduction in force. By 2017, teh Army must downsize to 450K. I have no idea why everyone is getting worked up now. It should have been a huge deal in 2011 when we could have done something about it. The Obama Administration has a hand in this, but Congress passed the law. If/when sequester comes in to the picture it will get much worse. Once again, that's a Congressional act. Pay attention people and identify the true source of action. We've got enough hyperbole from the media without stoking it ourselves.
(11)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
I'll play - it's harder to restart a cold procurement pipeline, especially if the manufacturers have closed or retooled than it is to restart a cold personnel pipeline. Also, Congressmen see the direct link between defense contractors/industries and their districts, while they don't see it for Soldiers (bases, yes. Soldiers, not so much).
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
The above was the more logical answer. The more cynical answer would be "the same reason that if I don't agree to a local tax increase, the things to be impacted will always be public safety and libraries - because nobody wants to vote against firefighters." IOW, a really bad bluff on the part of DoD.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL (Join to see) - Colonel; You say 'The sequester did not require personnel reductions. That was an Army decision. Not congress...not the president. The Army did that. It had a reason for doing so. If anyone has been playing along with the home game, they will know what that is...anyone?".
One reason could well be that no one has to admit that they made a mistake in weapons design/procurement (which can cost BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars) if all the savings required to continue funding that design/procurement program can come from a "simple" reduction in forces.
This would be "career continuation insurance" on the part of the military people involved and would be "re-election insurance" on the part of the political people involved.
One reason could well be that no one has to admit that they made a mistake in weapons design/procurement (which can cost BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars) if all the savings required to continue funding that design/procurement program can come from a "simple" reduction in forces.
This would be "career continuation insurance" on the part of the military people involved and would be "re-election insurance" on the part of the political people involved.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
While the "Evil Military Industrial Complex," answer is something that can't be ignored, what it came down to for Army leadership is with X dollars, we can equip, train and maintain a force that is "this size." We could keep more people and more units, but we would be forced into tiered readiness and a "hollow Army." You'd have Brigades that only existed on paper because their equipment wasn't maintained, their people had no money to train, and they were only manned at 50% before non-availables. Instead, the Army chose to get the right size that can be trained to standard. So...490 is what we have and 450 is what we are going to. A most recent example of a problem with a hollow force may be coming to bear in the Navy. They are going to have a 3 month gap in Aircraft Carrier coverage. Why? They can't close the gap in maintenance, personnel and training (READINESS). They aren't ready. That's what happens when your force is larger than your budget can allow.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Ultimately, I think the problem isn't size, it's positioning. We're still well shy of our most drastic post-conflict cuts and the biggest problem we have right now is that units are in the wrong places (hello pulling armor out of Europe!).
As for a "failure of ISIL strategy," it's been said from day one that this is a long game because there is no tangible benefit for the US getting overly involved militarily. Daesh is an existential threat to local players, not us. Other than a few recent losses, the coalition has done enormous damage to Daesh and they've lost about 25% of the ground they once held. Sure, we could jump in and roll them up like babies, but the cost in blood and treasure would be enormous for what would amount to slapping a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
As for a "failure of ISIL strategy," it's been said from day one that this is a long game because there is no tangible benefit for the US getting overly involved militarily. Daesh is an existential threat to local players, not us. Other than a few recent losses, the coalition has done enormous damage to Daesh and they've lost about 25% of the ground they once held. Sure, we could jump in and roll them up like babies, but the cost in blood and treasure would be enormous for what would amount to slapping a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
(4)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SGT Jeremiah B. Crushing ISIL/Daesh has no tangible benefits to the US? I don't agree. If we had a BOG presence and rolled up ISIL it will make recruiting very hard.
Isn't there a strategy in between NO or Limited involvement and 200K troops?
Isn't there a strategy in between NO or Limited involvement and 200K troops?
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
LTC John Shaw
"No tangible" was a touch of an overstatement. I'm just not sure it would pass muster if we looked at it from a pure cost/benefit perspective though. Daesh pose a long-term terrorism threat to us and are a destabilizer in the region, so we have an interest in ending their existence. Currently though, all they can really do is make some impotent calls to action on twitter that get the occasional lackluster response.
HOWEVER, the problem in that region isn't really Daesh. That little problem would have been ended before it even started had Iraq not been three petulant 5 year olds fighting over who gets all the cookies. Even now they (and other regional players) can't muster much unless you're talking about sectarian militias. The US is shouldering a lion's share of the air war and keeps having to add more advisers, forward observers and only God knows how many covert operations folks.
We need to deal with THAT problem before we commit major resources to the problem of Daesh. Otherwise, we'll just have a temporarily less crappy bit of desert that still pumps out terrorists like there's no tomorrow and is ripe for Daesh 2: Islamic Boogaloo to rear its ugly head.
"No tangible" was a touch of an overstatement. I'm just not sure it would pass muster if we looked at it from a pure cost/benefit perspective though. Daesh pose a long-term terrorism threat to us and are a destabilizer in the region, so we have an interest in ending their existence. Currently though, all they can really do is make some impotent calls to action on twitter that get the occasional lackluster response.
HOWEVER, the problem in that region isn't really Daesh. That little problem would have been ended before it even started had Iraq not been three petulant 5 year olds fighting over who gets all the cookies. Even now they (and other regional players) can't muster much unless you're talking about sectarian militias. The US is shouldering a lion's share of the air war and keeps having to add more advisers, forward observers and only God knows how many covert operations folks.
We need to deal with THAT problem before we commit major resources to the problem of Daesh. Otherwise, we'll just have a temporarily less crappy bit of desert that still pumps out terrorists like there's no tomorrow and is ripe for Daesh 2: Islamic Boogaloo to rear its ugly head.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Units in the wrong place, Europe? Have you not recognized that Russia has doubled down on growing its forces and upgrading its arsenal since 1999? Not to mention, where are the closest friendly forces to the southwest asian region and africa without being geographically in the region? NATO is comprised of european nations minus USA, Canada and Turkey. Having units ready to deploy in Europe cuts down on response time in the current hotspots i.e. 173rd and Ukraine.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
MSG (Join to see) - Oh, oops! let me make that clearer. I agree with you completely. I think pulling armor out of Europe was one of the biggest mistakes ever and we have no real ability to project force into Eastern Europe without asking a nation to host a guest unit or 2, which would risk escalating the whole situation unnecessarily.
I'll edit for clarity.
I'll edit for clarity.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Almost every time we cease a major war, the Army goes through cutbacks. History has shown these cutbacks went to far.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC John Shaw - I don't think we are ceasing our "war" with ISIL however the Pentagon Strategic Choices and Management Review this summer — "we are disinclined to conduct large-scale counterinsurgency operations any longer" "The United States no longer needs to plan its main combat forces, and specifically its standing Army, around a scenario of two simultaneous all-out ground wars." This think tank is using this as part of the premises used to justify the cutbacks.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
We always make the mistake of looking at the last war to determine our strategy moving forward. Things such as staffing levels, equipment etc. should be based upon forward looking threat assessments not what we did last. Large scale COIN operations may not be our next conflict/issue. It could be China, Russia, North Korea or a larger land war in the middle east with Iran or others.
They essentially change the strategy/mission to justify the cuts. We were not ready for WWI, WWII or Korea when the broke upon us.
They essentially change the strategy/mission to justify the cuts. We were not ready for WWI, WWII or Korea when the broke upon us.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google