Army Cutting 50,000 Soldiers

The U.S. Army plans to reduce its number of Soldiers by nearly 50,000 during a five-year span, a general said. The Army Times reported Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, service personnel chief, said the reductions would being in March.

The Army will cut forces in various ways, including buyouts, voluntary and involuntary separations and retirements, to bring the total to 520,400 active-duty Soldiers by Sept. 30, 2016, the report said.

MOAR

http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/army-cutting-50000-soldiers.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

============================

Given our current economic situation, whats should we draw active duty strength down to?

Or

Are you willing to keep a force this size (or larger) into the foreseeable future until we have finished what we started in A-stan and Iraq and all out troops come home?

In the weeks after 9/11 we should have started the draft and enlisted the number of soldiers needed to do what we were planning on doing (rebuilding a country).

520,000 Soldiers ( + Maines/Airmen/Sailors) is enough to defeat an enemy military force. It is not enough to occupy and rebuild a nation (or two).

Just my $.02

yea they are already asking at my reserve unit that if you want out all you have to do is say the word.

---

TWL|CoOlBr33zE
TeamWarfare Competition Manager
Email: Coolbreeze@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_cod

Originally posted by: Allen
In the weeks after 9/11 we should have started the draft and enlisted the number of soldiers needed to do what we were planning on doing (rebuilding a country).

520,000 Soldiers ( + Maines/Airmen/Sailors) is enough to defeat an enemy military force. It is not enough to occupy and rebuild a nation (or two).

Just my $.02

I am and always will be, against a draft. There has to be an exceptionally compelling reason for me to ever support one. I definitely do not want men who dont want to be there. They are a liability.

Also, bear in mind that the US Military isnt supposed to be the global reconstruction team. We go in to break shit and kill people. Once thats done, its time to go. Fuck 'em. Civilian reconstruction is exactly that. Military can stay long enough to facilitate the replacement and installment of security and police services, then its time for them to go.

I agree.

The ideal situation would have been to go into Afghanistan and do the military work and then withdraw and allow the State Dept/N. Alliance to clean things up and establish a functioning government.

But, we stayed with a military force and tried to occupy and rebuild it our way.

Unfortunately, I don't think we ever had enough troops to do that. So then if you are going to stick with that plan you have two options: a draft, or raise military benefits out the roof to the point of where more people enlist. Either option would have sufficed.

I don't like a draft and I also think it should only be used in extreme circumstances. What I really meant was we needed more people on the ground to do what we tried to do.

Edit: Or there is a third option: more extensive use of the reserve components. In the Army's case they have more reservists (counting the NG) than active duty Soldiers. The total (between active and reserves) is about 1.1 million and no more than 250,000 or so were ever deployed at once. Of course we can't deploy all of them at once either for various reasons.

Post edited by Allen at 9/28/2011 7:29:33 PM

close all over sea bases.

end of topic.

First things first, instead of drawing down on the men and women who actually go out and do the job, start cutting down on our top heavy brass. The number of generals and admirals we have is just ridiculous... not only are a good portion of them completely unnecessary (filling "invented" jobs created by others in the "good ol' boys" club), but they have the largest pay checks AND have large staffs following em' around that are also a waste of manning and tax dollars.

Second, the cuts mostly need to come in the areas of recruiting and senior personnel (both officer AND enlisted) who are stagnant or showing declining performance, since they are just wasting away and holding a rank that someone more useful could fill.

I'm sure, though, there gonna cut the most vital personnel (those, generally speaking, with 7 to 15 years of service).
Post edited by Irrenarzt at 9/28/2011 7:50:16 PM

I hate to say this, but it's time to cut!

I think we can protect this country by doing the following.

Marines = gone
Army = cut half and move the rest to the border
Navy = gone
Airforce = increase number by 50%
Coast Guard = Gone

We got the border protected by the army. The Airforce will maintain our nukes and drop moab's on dicks who fuck with us. If you are from Saudi Arabia and you blow yourself up at a disco in New York, drop a moab on Saudi Arabia.

I would take all other military personel who got cut and pay them $52 an hour to kick liberals asses when they come out to march and anybody starting a problem.

I'm pretty sure this would work fine!

Originally posted by: Cocytus
....

I would take all other military personel who got cut and pay them $52 an hour to kick liberals asses when they come out to march and anybody starting a problem.

I'm pretty sure this would work fine!

Cocy, you've been crackin' me up lately. I wonder if anyone elses catches these little nuances of yours. Maybe they do and just dont find them amusing. I do.

End all foreign engagements.
Remove all foreign bases.
Gradually eliminate the Army (over 5-10 years), only to be reinstated after an official declaration of war, and only to be staffed by volunteers and full time National Guard. The Army will be eliminated again within one year of the end of the war.
Maintain the Airforce, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Cut their funding by 25-50%.
National Guard is each state's responsibility.

Done.

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 9/28/2011 10:39:43 PM

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Cocytus
....

I would take all other military personel who got cut and pay them $52 an hour to kick liberals asses when they come out to march and anybody starting a problem.

I'm pretty sure this would work fine!

Cocy, you've been crackin' me up lately. I wonder if anyone elses catches these little nuances of yours. Maybe they do and just dont find them amusing. I do.

I also find them entertaining.


_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
End all foreign engagements.
Remove all foreign bases.
Gradually eliminate the Army (over 5-10 years), only to be reinstated after an official declaration of war, and only to be staffed by volunteers and full time National Guard. The Army will be eliminated again within one year of the end of the war.
Maintain the Airforce, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Cut their funding by 25-50%.
National Guard is each state's responsibility.

Done.

Why do you choose to disband a professional Army yet keep the Marines?

I find this very curious and would like to listen to your reasoning.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
End all foreign engagements.
Remove all foreign bases.
Gradually eliminate the Army (over 5-10 years), only to be reinstated after an official declaration of war, and only to be staffed by volunteers and full time National Guard. The Army will be eliminated again within one year of the end of the war.
Maintain the Airforce, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Cut their funding by 25-50%.
National Guard is each state's responsibility.

Done.

Why do you choose to disband a professional Army yet keep the Marines?

I find this very curious and would like to listen to your reasoning.

The Marines are part of the Navy.

Originally posted by: Article 1 Section 8
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

There's no constitutional authorization for a standing Federal Army.

You want the Marines, of course, to handle the quick need for ground forces abroad, the National Guard for ground defenses domestically, the Navy and Coast Guard (redundant?) for naval defenses and the Air Force for air defenses.

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 9/28/2011 11:09:30 PM

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

There's no constitutional authorization for a standing Federal Army.

Nor is there for an Air Force if that's what you're basing your opinion on.

Edit: We used to have a system similar to what you've described and it fell far short when we needed it. Congress wised up and changed the system around with the introduction of the NG Bureau. The result is what we have now.

Post edited by Allen at 9/28/2011 11:14:25 PM

Originally posted by: Allen

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

There's no constitutional authorization for a standing Federal Army.

Nor is there for an Air Force if that's what you're basing your opinion on.

True. An amendment is required for them to exist too. Thanks for noting that. I totally overlooked it.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: Allen

Edit: We used to have a system similar to what you've described and it fell far short when we needed it. Congress wised up and changed the system around with the introduction of the NG Bureau. The result is what we have now.

An amendment is required for that to be truly legal. Yet another usurpation of power.

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 9/28/2011 11:16:40 PM

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

The U.S. Army plans to reduce its number of Soldiers by nearly 50,000 during a five-year span, a general said. The Army Times reported Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, service personnel chief, said the reductions would being in March.

The Army will cut forces in various ways, including buyouts, voluntary and involuntary separations and retirements, to bring the total to 520,400 active-duty Soldiers by Sept. 30, 2016, the report said.

MOAR

http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/army-cutting-50000-soldiers.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

============================

Given our current economic situation, whats should we draw active duty strength down to?

Or

Are you willing to keep a force this size (or larger) into the foreseeable future until we have finished what we started in A-stan and Iraq and all out troops come home?

you cannot define "finished", can you?

that's the key. I think the cut is fine right now.

what is your recommendation as far as this cut is concerned, yes or no?
_____________________________

'just enough' military is a guarantee to eventually lose within a couple of conflicts.

Originally posted by: samUwell
close all over sea bases.

end of topic.

hmmm, im not a fan.
_____________________________

Originally posted by: Stryk
'just enough' military is a guarantee to eventually lose within a couple of conflicts.

Goood.....then maybe that will make us pick our battles a little more wisely.

I'd rather our country be defended like Sparta than watch it collapse and burn like Rome.

Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ

Originally posted by: samUwell
close all over sea bases.

end of topic.

hmmm, im not a fan.

And neither is most of Europe.....or Japan and South Korea

Hence the reason they can continually gloat about spending so little on military and so much on social services. It's far easier to do that when someone else is picking up your "global" security bill.

Mock,

I would not have as many as we currently have, that's for sure. I would leave a presence but nothing more.

Also, SK needs to be seriously reformulated, too many US soldiers are mer speedbumps there.

regarding the OP, this article on NYT is highly relevant

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/from-soldier-to-student-a-bumpy-road/
_____________________________

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
End all foreign engagements.
Remove all foreign bases.
Gradually eliminate the Army (over 5-10 years), only to be reinstated after an official declaration of war, and only to be staffed by volunteers and full time National Guard. The Army will be eliminated again within one year of the end of the war.
Maintain the Airforce, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Cut their funding by 25-50%.
National Guard is each state's responsibility.

Done.

Why do you choose to disband a professional Army yet keep the Marines?

I find this very curious and would like to listen to your reasoning.

The Marines are part of the Navy.

Originally posted by: Article 1 Section 8
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

There's no constitutional authorization for a standing Federal Army.

You want the Marines, of course, to handle the quick need for ground forces abroad, the National Guard for ground defenses domestically, the Navy and Coast Guard (redundant?) for naval defenses and the Air Force for air defenses.

Yet another stupid ass Libertarian assessment. I know it goes against the word of the Constitution, but when other country's are armed to the fucking teeth, there's no way I support building and destroying a National army based on risks out there. There's constant risk, and if you don't acknowledge that you are a complete fucking moron.

I do agree that a declaration of war should always be first.

War moves faster than it ever has and soldiers take longer to train than in the past.

It takes 13 weeks to train the basic infantryman in the US Army. That's full time training, and usually even then they come out lacking what you'd hope. Some jobs require upwards of a year or two.

In the event of a real war, where the US was actually threatened, relying exclusively on the NGs of different states would lead to a losing war.

I know I know, the Navy and AF would hold them off for 2-3 years while we trained up the necessary soldiers. But what if our AF and Navy were overwhelemd or outgunned? Checkmate before the war even starts?

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Yet another stupid ass Libertarian assessment. I know it goes against the word of the Constitution, but when other country's are armed to the fucking teeth, there's no way I support building and destroying a National army based on risks out there. There's constant risk, and if you don't acknowledge that you are a complete fucking moron.

I do agree that a declaration of war should always be first.

Let's not get overboard....

There is always inherent risk and dangers. With more people than ever before there is likely more threats out there today than ever before.

With that said...50,000 is just a drop in the bucket.

US Army active component: 539,675
US Army Reserve component: 557,375
=================================
Total Army: 1,097,050

This is barely ten percent of active or reserve.

And is less than 5% in total of the two groups.

They are hardly dismantling anything and I think a five percent reduction in just the Army....is a bare essential considering our current financial mess.

I'd personally call for a ten percent cut across the board....hitting all branches....if it was me....
Post edited by Mockery at 9/29/2011 12:04:51 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Yet another stupid ass Libertarian assessment. I know it goes against the word of the Constitution, but when other country's are armed to the fucking teeth, there's no way I support building and destroying a National army based on risks out there. There's constant risk, and if you don't acknowledge that you are a complete fucking moron.

I do agree that a declaration of war should always be first.

Let's not get overboard....

There is always inherent risk and dangers. With more people than ever before there is likely more threats out there today than ever before.

With that said...50,000 is just a drop in the bucket.

US Army active component: 539,675
US Army Reserve component: 557,375
=================================
Total Army: 1,097,050

This is barely ten percent of active or reserve.

And is less than 5% in total of the two groups.

They are hardly dismantling anything and I think a five percent reduction in just the Army....is a bare essential considering our current financial mess.

I'd personally call for a ten percent cut across the board....hitting all branches....if it was me....

Do you believe we should follow the exact words of the Constitution regarding the defense of the country?

Originally posted by: Allen
War moves faster than it ever has and soldiers take longer to train than in the past.

It takes 13 weeks to train the basic infantryman in the US Army. That's full time training, and usually even then they come out lacking what you'd hope. Some jobs require upwards of a year or two.

In the event of a real war, where the US was actually threatened, relying exclusively on the NGs of different states would lead to a losing war.

I know I know, the Navy and AF would hold them off for 2-3 years while we trained up the necessary soldiers. But what if our AF and Navy were overwhelemd or outgunned? Checkmate before the war even starts?

I honestly can't imagine another scenario where we need to, nor would want to, do another all out occupation.

Even if zerg attacked I'd like to think that an all out air and sea bombardment would more than suffice until we can get the infantry logistics up and running again.



Nothing in my mind gets people killed faster than sending in our infantry far too soon. Be it D-Day...X-day...or any of our other land based debacles.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/29/2011 12:09:06 AM

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Yet another stupid ass Libertarian assessment. I know it goes against the word of the Constitution, but when other country's are armed to the fucking teeth, there's no way I support building and destroying a National army based on risks out there. There's constant risk, and if you don't acknowledge that you are a complete fucking moron.

I do agree that a declaration of war should always be first.

Let's not get overboard....

There is always inherent risk and dangers. With more people than ever before there is likely more threats out there today than ever before.

With that said...50,000 is just a drop in the bucket.

US Army active component: 539,675
US Army Reserve component: 557,375
=================================
Total Army: 1,097,050

This is barely ten percent of active or reserve.

And is less than 5% in total of the two groups.

They are hardly dismantling anything and I think a five percent reduction in just the Army....is a bare essential considering our current financial mess.

I'd personally call for a ten percent cut across the board....hitting all branches....if it was me....

Do you believe we should follow the exact words of the Constitution regarding the defense of the country?

Depends on who is actually interpreting the Constitution I suppose. If it's Bush/Obama....probably not.

If it's Judge Napolitano...probably

All I know is that I'm confuzzled why we still have 18 times more troops on the border of the DMZ than we do enforcing the border with Mexico.

I guess I just can't help but continually question our ROI and priorities.

The big underlying assumption in the argument for disbanding the Army is that our Navy and Air Force are invincible against everything that might be thrown at them.

I have a lot of confidence in their technology and ability, but I don't think I want to put all my eggs in that basket.
Post edited by Allen at 9/29/2011 12:17:57 AM

Here is where my bias becomes clearly evident.

The only thing we really need infantry for....in my mind....this day and age....is nation building.

I fucking hate nation building. I have little issue with blasting down and completely flattening.....but the occupying and rebuilding phase is always an utter failure for us.

Be it Korea...Vietnam...Iraq....or Afghanistan.

Japan was about our only real success story and I like to attribute that to us being a lot heavier on the blasting....and a lot slower on the occupying strategy.

That and it really helps to have everyone on board, like Congressional approval/authorization, to be there.

Originally posted by: Allen
The big underlying assumption in the argument for disbanding the Army is that our Navy and Air Force are invincible against everything that might be thrown at them.

I have a lot of confidence in their technology and ability, but I don't think I want to put all my eggs in that basket.

Could you provide me with a feasible scenario that they couldn't handle then?

Infantry is historically for clean up....not initialization.

I frankly don't care so much about clean up anymore.

It takes the infantry to clear out areas that are not exclusive military targets, whether they are in a foreign country or areas occupied in your own country.

We can't bomb everything anymore. We had to cut that stuff out after Vietnam.

It also depends on an enemy's AA abilities. The Taliban, and even the Iraqi Army (in 2003) didn't really have any. Other modern military forces do have substantial AA capabilities that can shut down the exclusive air option.

Then there's armor. Behind air assets, the infantry remain the largest threat to armored vehicles and tanks.

Edit: I won't say the "largest threat" since there are other armored vehicles, but they are a serious threat.
Post edited by Allen at 9/29/2011 12:31:59 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Allen
The big underlying assumption in the argument for disbanding the Army is that our Navy and Air Force are invincible against everything that might be thrown at them.

I have a lot of confidence in their technology and ability, but I don't think I want to put all my eggs in that basket.

Could you provide me with a feasible scenario that they couldn't handle then?

Infantry is historically for clean up....not initialization.

I frankly don't care so much about clean up anymore.

Sure. Electronic warfare could (we don't know) essentially negate our advantages in the air and on the sea.

We haven't fought a modern air or sea battle in decades. All of the stuff about our superiority in those areas is implied, not tested.
Post edited by Allen at 9/29/2011 12:30:33 AM

One other thing:

The majority of targets that are the subject of air and sea bombardments, are spotted by people on the ground.

That trend has changed as we transition from laser guided munitions to GPS guided, but it still usually takes a force on the ground to find the targets.

Originally posted by: Allen
One other thing:

The majority of targets that are the subject of air and sea bombardments, are spotted by people on the ground.

That trend has changed as we transition from laser guided munitions to GPS guided, but it still usually takes a force on the ground to find the targets.

Satellites, UAVS and special ops.

I still don't see the need for hundreds of standing infantry divisions.

I'm not saying can them all, but I am saying that we can sufficiently afford to have ten percent less IMO.

Originally posted by: Allen

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Allen
The big underlying assumption in the argument for disbanding the Army is that our Navy and Air Force are invincible against everything that might be thrown at them.

I have a lot of confidence in their technology and ability, but I don't think I want to put all my eggs in that basket.

Could you provide me with a feasible scenario that they couldn't handle then?

Infantry is historically for clean up....not initialization.

I frankly don't care so much about clean up anymore.

Sure. Electronic warfare could (we don't know) essentially negate our advantages in the air and on the sea.

We haven't fought a modern air or sea battle in decades. All of the stuff about our superiority in those areas is implied, not tested.

It's better than tested...it's what the military pays hundreds of billions of dollars to do each year (it's also what I do for a living).

We just don't use a lot of these assets because most of our battles are the result of internal strife from trying to be nation builders.

When it comes to kicking ass no one on Earth can touch us. When it comes to restructuring a country that is ideologically consistent and adherent to our fundamental beliefs......well, thats when shit completely falls apart.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/29/2011 12:54:05 AM

Sure. Im not saying we can't shrink the number, but disbanding the entire standing Army would be ill advised I think.

Special ops are infantry.

Satellites are vulnerable to the already mentioned electronic warfare. The Chinese have been able to blind our satellites using lasers in the past (or have tried, can't remember).

UAVs are susceptible to the same AA that planes are.

Edit: Look at it from a potential enemy's point of view. If the US has no standing Army, whatsoever, then all you need to do is find a way to negate their airpower. Accomplish that, at whatever cost, and you've won.

That's a much easier battle to win than having to fight even a few hundred thousand soldiers.
Post edited by Allen at 9/29/2011 12:59:47 AM

Originally posted by: Allen
Sure. Im not saying we can't shrink the number, but disbanding the entire standing Army would be I'll advised I think.

I agree....10% != 100% though.

Originally posted by: Allen
Special ops are infantry.

I agree...and a totally necessary part IMO.

As was evident in the OBL raid.

Originally posted by: Allen
Satellites are vulnerable to the already mentioned electronic warfare. The Chinese have been able to blind our satellites using lasers in the past (or have tried, can't remember).

UAVs are susceptible to the same AA that planes are.

Sure you can blind optics with lasers....just as you can shoot them down with surface to air missiles. That's why we have lots of satellites and UAVS in lots of different areas.

When you do that they are no less susceptible than human infantry are....who, may I say, are no less prone to bombs and issues from lasers being fired directly into their optics/eyes.


Post edited by Mockery at 9/29/2011 12:59:22 AM

2012

alien take over

government is involved

they are removing our own military so its easier for them to take over


etc

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
End all foreign engagements.
Remove all foreign bases.
Gradually eliminate the Army (over 5-10 years), only to be reinstated after an official declaration of war, and only to be staffed by volunteers and full time National Guard. The Army will be eliminated again within one year of the end of the war.
Maintain the Airforce, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Cut their funding by 25-50%.
National Guard is each state's responsibility.

Done.

Why do you choose to disband a professional Army yet keep the Marines?

I find this very curious and would like to listen to your reasoning.

The Marines are part of the Navy.

Originally posted by: Article 1 Section 8
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

There's no constitutional authorization for a standing Federal Army.

You want the Marines, of course, to handle the quick need for ground forces abroad, the National Guard for ground defenses domestically, the Navy and Coast Guard (redundant?) for naval defenses and the Air Force for air defenses.

Yet another stupid ass Libertarian assessment. I know it goes against the word of the Constitution, but when other country's are armed to the fucking teeth, there's no way I support building and destroying a National army based on risks out there. There's constant risk, and if you don't acknowledge that you are a complete fucking moron.

I do agree that a declaration of war should always be first.

Then amend the fucking thing.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864