Obama Administration DoD cutting Army 40K more troops, does this make sense given the failure of ISIL strategy?

2015-07-08T07:33:58-04:00

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/07/army-plans-to-cut-40000-troops/29826423/

The Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers from its ranks over the next two years, a reduction that will affect all its domestic and foreign posts, USA TODAY has learned. An additional 17,000 Army civilian

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 8 at 2015 8:21 AM

2015-07-08T08:21:24-04:00

No, it makes no sense, but this is about money, not what makes sense. The defense budget is huge, the largest I think, of the federal discretionary budget. LTC John Shaw

Response by TSgt David L. made Jul 8 at 2015 8:24 AM

2015-07-08T08:24:53-04:00

When is this post-war draw down going to end? It costs more to train up new troops to an Vet level troop (IMO) and you can't train boots-on-the-ground experience that we are loosing. More bad CIC bull$hit, again, IMO...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 8:35 AM

2015-07-08T08:35:50-04:00

We shouldn't cut any more troops, but it isn't because of ISIL/Daesh. So far "troops on the ground" have been a non-issue with them since so far everything is being done by aircraft supporting local forces (which is proper strategy, IMO). I just think we've cut too much.

And, of course, the cuts won't be from the hordes of entrenched Brigade-level and above seniors with no immediate purpose; no, it will be from junior officers and E5 through E7 ranks. It's been like this for every Administration, all the way back to the Post Cold War cuts and BRAC rounds.

Response by SFC Jeremy Stocker made Jul 8 at 2015 9:21 AM

2015-07-08T09:21:53-04:00

I Think we should expand our military in preparation of a huge ground war and cut a few of the politicians, the President included.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 9:50 AM

2015-07-08T09:50:49-04:00

Almost every time we cease a major war, the Army goes through cutbacks. History has shown these cutbacks went to far.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 8 at 2015 11:26 AM

2015-07-08T11:26:57-04:00

I like how you put "obama" when this budget was approved by conservatives. Though I do feel we need a more decisive strategy to fight ISIS.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-07-08T11:27:04-04:00

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.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 8 at 2015 12:34 PM

2015-07-08T12:34:26-04:00

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.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 8 at 2015 12:47 PM

2015-07-08T12:47:09-04:00

Troop cuts are a foolish move. I think the reduced end strength we have right now is a bad idea as well... Look what happened after 9/11. We had a huge drawdown after Desert Storm, and the thinkers said we could manage it with "citizen soldiers" - a highly reserve and guard based force.

Yet, we went to two theaters and couldn't do it without the citizen soldiers. Even with them, look how many tours people had. Unheard of numbers. We need to maintain a higher end strength for National Security, and as a deterrent force. If the bad guys aren't afraid of us, they cause problems.

I served a deployment on a Ballistic Missile sub. The ethos of "Boomer" sailors is 'if you shoot your missiles, you've failed'. A strong US military is vital for world PEACE...

Response by CAPT Douglas McDonald made Jul 8 at 2015 1:23 PM

2015-07-08T13:23:27-04:00

Not mutually exclusive...still don't have a credible battle plan for ISIS defeat

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 8 at 2015 2:10 PM

2015-07-08T14:10:51-04:00

It's the convergence of the budget and a quasi crystal ball.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jul 8 at 2015 5:00 PM

2015-07-08T17:00:59-04:00

Obama can communicate to the DOD and Congress that regardless of planned cuts from several years ago since ISIS has emerged as a credible threat. We can't cut ANY headcount and/or TO&E right now or we endanger the US, especially in-country. ISIS is here!

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 5:04 PM

2015-07-08T17:04:40-04:00

ECONOMICS 101

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 8 at 2015 5:06 PM

2015-07-08T17:06:11-04:00

Firstly of all, Daesh is not an existential threat to the U.S.. Daesh has morphed into a light mobile force capable of taking and holding territory. Recent losses by Daesh have reduced their territory by about 20-25%. The local hybrid forces are giving them a pretty good fight. Our strategy of support by conducting air strikes has led to over 1600 sorties. The idea that we need American BOG is not necessarily valid or desirable.

This reduction in troop strength is as a result of the BCA of 2011. Personnel costs have become a major chunk of the DOD budget and are quickly spiraling to there point of being unsustainable. Reduction in personnel or the procurement of new or replacement weapon systems may be an unenviable choice. At this point it's end strength. The key to managing this drawdown is where to take the cuts. Do we do it with a scalpel or a meat axe?

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jul 8 at 2015 5:12 PM

2015-07-08T17:12:21-04:00

What ISIL strategy? Did something happen while I was asleep/out of country/on a scooter ride?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 5:17 PM

2015-07-08T17:17:01-04:00

Let's be clear. This is a CONGRESSIONAL MOVE not the Presidential Administration.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 6:39 PM

2015-07-08T18:39:41-04:00

At least stay at the current 490K, if not increase troop strength. I get the budget issues, but do we sacrifice our national security for money? I think not. I say stop this craziness and stay at 490K.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 6:42 PM

2015-07-08T18:42:13-04:00

We just went through cuts in the AF and they cut too many enlisted personnel. They began inviting prior service members back of certain ranks. I don't believe we are in a position to lose that many men and women. I know there are programs in place for sustainability in each branch, but I think we need to be looking at other ways to save money instead of cutting manpower. We throw away hundreds, probably thousands of FLIPS in my unit and I can't help but feel like that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to wasted money and resources.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Jul 8 at 2015 7:38 PM

2015-07-08T19:38:43-04:00

If one looks at the current un-deployable population within the services, takes in to account the population of those who can be recruited within the standard physical fitness, we can easily cut the 40k. Lets just say that 20% is non-deployable (the number is higher) then 100k are unable to go abroad and defend the country. Yes, it is hard, however we must work at focus on who we have remaining and retain the best. The bean counters want the cut, but not in their state/district. We owe the American people to keep those who truly believe in the profession and are willing to do what it takes to remain viable in a EXPEDITIONARY force. We are not the Marines, but the Army of today doesn't fight wars on our soil, yet.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Jul 8 at 2015 7:41 PM

2015-07-08T19:41:25-04:00

This is asinine, we continue to identify that ISIL (ISIS) is a threat, but we do nothing of significance to thwart it! In the First Gulf War, we bombed Iraq for 78 days straight!! continuously, without mercy, when we sent ground troops in it took less than 100 hours to have them give up..That was with an established Army...Get a coalition (There are Arab countries on our side) Bomb the hell out of ISIS, (Funny how we see their parades on CNN, but no one bombs those parades). Kill most of them, the rest will run or hide. Done! Stop playing this game of we have them on the run, and PUT them on the run!

Response by CPT Alan W. made Jul 8 at 2015 10:17 PM

2015-07-08T22:17:16-04:00

Blame Congress for the RIF mandate.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 10:30 PM

2015-07-08T22:30:00-04:00

Budgets for manpower are on five year cycles, so anything planned in 2017 would have been budgeted in 2012 and planned in 2010 . I wouldn't put all the blame on congress since they don't read bills or budgets. Blame the assistant secretary for manpower and JCS in 2010.

If worse comes to worse, we have the reserves and title 10 statutes to get more people in the case of 'national emergency'.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 9 at 2015 8:07 PM

2015-07-09T20:07:51-04:00

When congress is unable to do its job and resorts to cowardly outs like the sequester deal, this is what we get as a result - regardless of what it does to the security of our nation.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 8:12 PM

2015-07-09T20:12:02-04:00

I remember when Secretary Rumsfeld was pushing back against Congress back in the mid-2000's. Congress just couldn't raise troop pay fast enough. Whatever the Pentagon proposed, the House would raise by another 1/2%. Every time, the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs would testify that it was unnecessary; that doing so would inhibit their ability to maintain readiness and equipment down the road. Congress scoffed and did it anyway, and the Pentagon made it all work by using the war supplementals to recapitalize equipment and fund deploying unit's training.
Then the war supplementals dried up.
Then came sequestration.
Then came 1% raises.
Now you have a retention problem that is hidden within the force reduction statistics. I predict that if we leave things as is we will blow right through that 420,000 figure.
The problem will be big in a couple of years. Mark my words.

Response by PO1 Brian Schletty made Jul 9 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-07-09T20:44:21-04:00

When GEN Dempsey was asked by Congress what he thought of the consequences of dumping 40k+ military on the civilian sector at home, he responded with "That is not my problem, that is for the Sec of State to deal with." Wow.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jul 9 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-07-09T20:44:48-04:00

There is no leadership in Washington. I'm seeing the end of the USA as we know it.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Jul 9 at 2015 10:53 PM

2015-07-09T22:53:12-04:00

What readiness? T he sequester has left our military below WWII levels before we became a world power! Now the Navy is looking to transport Marines on foreign naval ships! WTF!!!!!!!