Army ‘taking a hard look’ at what end-strength it can actually afford

Right! But the military will always ask for more, and will never say "we have too many mission." That's not their end of the conversation. Their end is - here's what we see strategically, and so here's what we think we need, and here's where we can take measured risks in a resource-constrained environment. But the civilian leadership have to provide the resources, and our elected officials have to be the ones to say - well, do we really still need to be in the Sinai? Or Bosnia? just as small examples. Seems to me now as a civilian, that we are often reluctant to look at the roles & missions that result from our various commitments, especially wrt to how long we "stay" in places.

My two cents, or perhaps half a cent worth:

We can have fewer missions, but expect to gain them back in the future (then it will be a rush to man and standards will be reduced even more). The level of troops should not determine what can be afforded. What commodities are being paid for on missions? What technology can be downsized or eliminated? Is it necessary for each level of command to see every "joe" running around the battlefield by use of computer and other electronics when drones are available? Night vision, use of maps and compasses are required and so are highly trained troops. What equipment can be eliminated? Cut out technology and you can cut down on expenses of civilians that is billed to the DoD. How many civilian contractors are under DoD to service and provide training for technology?

Why is the US still in other countries like: Sinai, Bosnia, Afghan, Somalia, Niger, Liberia, DRC, CAR, Uganda, Kenya, Djibouti? Strategic footholds are easier to maintain than to try and gain them.

Here's the kicker - cut down on military and increase costs by use of civilian contractors. I'd rather see troops readily available than inexperience contractors running amok and causing more damage then good. Lessons should have been learned by that during the constant change of names of different contracting agencies - Blackwater and MPRI are two as examples - under the Obama administration. Cut down on troops and increase contractors... thanks but no thanks.

Yeah - I'm definitely not advocating "contractors" replacing troops. Armed forces = armed forces. I guess I'm more about examining the missions, and the means by which we fulfill them. Not every problem is a nail, requiring a hammer. Feels like our leaders love the driver, and are sometimes using it instead of the 7 iron. The military has become the "go to" club in our bag - a credit really, to our ability to accomplish most anything thrown at us. It's become an "easy" button. There are other elements of national strategic power and I think we've lost the balance between them. I don't want to see the Army shrink below 485k... I remember when it was 781k - but that was a different strategic time. But the chiefs are arguing for increases because our 485k can't keep up w/optempo at that end strength. So the alternative to me is not "cheaper troops" or lower standards, it's less optempo! I get wanting to keep every hill we've ever taken, especially when those came at great cost, and, feel vital to our security - but is that really doable?