Increasing threat vs. military draw down

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:34:26 -0400

Does anyone else perceive a problem with the continued draw down with what appears to be an increase in the variety of threats and the strength of the threats? Is it just me?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 6:00 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:00:15 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I see it. We're a war-weary nation (and military), and with Democrats in the White House, there's a bent toward down-sizing. We have seen this, politically, over the past 40 or 50 years.

That said, the threat is there, and we will need a strong military to deal with it. Let's hope for the best in November 2016!

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 1 at 2014 6:22 PM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:22:57 -0400

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member you really don't even have to go back that far. Even in the last 14-16 years, we had to rebuild for GWOT after Clinton's drawdown. Deja Vous?

Response by SGT James Elphick made Oct 1 at 2014 6:52 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:52:10 -0400

I don't think the draw down is necessarily a problem even with increased threats around the world. In fact, a draw down with the right aims and goals could actually be beneficial leading to a leaner, meaner fighting force. Our force is still overly focused on being heavy and mechanized when the last 13 years have proven that light forces can be decisive (I'm referring to our enemy by the way). We need to downsize and refocus our military on the actual threats we are facing. This means lighter forces with more firepower, command and control, and experience at lower levels. But we are instead investing in much larger systems (i.e. F35's) instead of smaller systems that would create more effective soldiers (XM25's for example). From this there is always the argument that we will be ill-prepared or look weak to countries such as Russia and China. But this was the argument made about USMC operations between the wars and we all know how effective of fighters they turned out to be. This is because this low intensity conflicts breed junior leaders that can think on their feet and fight like hell, just the kinds of attributes we want in our future warfighters. So, no, I don't think the draw down is a problem as long as it is done right (by the way, it isn't. Removing good soldiers because of tattoos? Whatever) and we might want to take a look at our foreign policy while we are at it.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 1 at 2014 8:39 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:39:33 -0400

Right now our civilian leadership is in complete knee-jerk reaction mode, no thanks to the media corps who stirs (or smokes, depending on your point of view) the pot by the minute and stokes the fires on both sides of public opinion like a double agent. SOMEBODY needs to grab the reins pronto before we go over the cliff. Our troops don't know if they're coming or going, they're pulling them literally right off the front lines and getting rid of them as tensions keep rising and SIS keeps growing. IMHO, our military has been over extended for years and is still outfitted for long term regional conflict not this short term OOTWA, GWOT sh!t we've been fighting. Its like Vietnam again in the sense we're trying to fight a guerrilla war with one-size-fits-all conventional forces.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 8:40 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:40:36 -0400

The Air Force started drawing down in the middle of OIF/OEF.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 1 at 2014 8:42 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:42:31 -0400

Sir, sounds like you didn't get your daily dose of Kool-Aid! Please drink two glasses and revisit the topic! :-)

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Oct 1 at 2014 9:04 PM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:04:53 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, this has been going on since the end of the Cold War. We needed to recapitalize our armed forces along with modernizing it while we drew down. The Congress in its infinite wisdom (The same thing happened in the 1920's), decided we do not need to modernize since there is no enemy. We can defeat anyone with what we've got. What we really should have done was be ready for the "Unknown Enemy." But tell Congress that and they will still say what enemy. Of course if you mention a country like say China, they will say we can beat them with what we have. Its more prevalent with the Democrats than the Republicans, since the Republicans understand that National Security is supposed to be a higher priority than some of the things that the Democrats say should be.

When 9/11 happened the military was about a little more than 1/2 of what it was at the end of the Cold War. Also, someone got in their head that air power will win all future wars. Especially with what happened during the first Gulf War. We got war weary in the last 10 years because of not be able to modernize properly. Instead of just 200 F-22's, we needed at least 400-600, with the first ones entering service in the late 90's not 2004 (that is with a combat unit). A new tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135 in the early 2000's not now. The Navy needed new Destroyers, Cruisers, and Frigates to replace older vessels. The Carriers do not count since their construction schedule was the same going back to the late 60's. The Submarines the same thing. New ship type designs included in the above for the Navy as well. But when you have politicians that think they know more than the military, it spells disaster.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2015 9:11 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:11:20 -0500

It's cyclical. We are trying to ramp up again in the USAR and I think we will find it's much harder to do than we thought, esp to train to today's contingencies. Also you can't just make middle management fast when you lose them (see SOF truth #4 and substitute mid grade NCO/Officers for SOF).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 6:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:11:48 -0400

Yes sir. I do. In general the dept of defense says it cannot continue with the size of our budget. We're are the cuts from there payroll or programs. The only reason our budget is this large is from the wars.