3
3
0
This article came out today. I have serious concerns about the decision to downsize our Army again. The US used to always be able to support (and win) at least two significant theaters of operations simultaneously while maintaining security of our global interests. We are already struggling with being able to support any more than one significant operation. Is this anticipated downsizing really a wise idea at this time?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/8/obama-admin-cut-40k-army-soldiers/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/8/obama-admin-cut-40k-army-soldiers/
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Downsizing
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
The answers is it costs tax-payers. It happens every conflict. Always has, always will.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
The question is what are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of this. We are embracing the Cyber Battlefield now so we expect this to be at least a new frontier if not a new battleground. We need to man this. If we downsize while growing this capability, what do we end up sacrificing? If we decided two years from now to do sustained operations again, could we do it or would we have spent more on recruiting, training and the like than the cost of maintaining these 40k?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
First, this is definitely a grave concern that the military keeps downsizing. This will lead to an economic bust due to the fact individuals will be displaced from Active Duty. The only upside is the potential to strengthen the Reserves. With the decreased spending on full time Active Duty, we can finally get funds to fully support and properly train the reserve component. Additionally, AD individuals can bring their experience to the Reserve side, and training tasks might actually get properly addressed. This is just food for thought. Regardless, the situation is getting dire... Great post!
Very Respectfully,
1LT Krohn
Very Respectfully,
1LT Krohn
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google