Active Army drops below 500,000 soldiers

Army Times — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:50:21 -0500

From: Army Times

Personnel strength of the Regular Army has dropped below 500,000 for the first time in 10 years, with 498,642 soldiers being listed on active duty in the most recent official headcount of the force.

Statistics compiled by the Defense Manpower Data Center show that as the Army entered 2015 its reserve components had a combined strength of 547,007 soldiers — 349,881 in the National Guard, and 197,126 in the Army Reserve.

The Army drawdown is on track to reduce the active component to 490,000 soldiers by Oct. 1, as required in the fiscal 2015 budget authorization from Congress.

The drawdown is projected to continue after Oct. 1, with the fiscal 2016 spending request now before Congress listing an objective end-strength for next year of 475,000 soldiers, which is well shy of the manning projections of 450,000 to 420,000 soldiers that may be necessary if mandatory spending cuts called sequestration continue to the end of the decade.

DMDC statistics show that over the past 12 months, Army strength was reduced by 24,331 soldiers.

Most of that reduction was generated by capping recruiting at fewer than 60,000 soldiers, and re-enlistments at 50,000. Additional reductions were generated by involuntary early retirement boards for senior officers and retention screenings for majors, captains and senior NCOs.

Demographic information compiled by the DMDC shows that women comprise 13.9 percent of the Regular Army, with 16,024 officers, 52,793 enlisted soldiers and 768 West Point cadets serving on active duty.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/02/05/active-army-drops-below-500000-soldiers/22922649/

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Feb 6 at 2015 1:29 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:29:13 -0500

Big problem they will be facing is that they have a lot of inexperienced people that were promoted before they were ready to assume that next rank and duty position and will struggle for a few years to get where they need to be as we transition back to a peacetime footing. Hoping for my son's sake as well as all junior Soldiers that they do not suffer as a result of having those inexperienced leaders above them....smfh.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 6 at 2015 1:46 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:46:32 -0500

We'll just have to rebuild two years from now. Let's hope we survive until then...

Response by SGT Nia Chiaraluce made Feb 6 at 2015 2:45 PM

SGT Nia Chiaraluce — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:45:00 -0500

I have watched the Army ranks become flooded with persons that frankly did not belong in the Army resulting in the loss of some of the best mentors I ever had. The draw down originally was actually refreshing to see as the leadership was able to weed out the weak mentalities and overweight soldiers. Over the past five years it has become painful to watch some of the best NCOs I have ever worked under hang it up after 15 years of dedicated service. NCOs that emulate, breed and encourage legalities, morality and ethics. My only hope is that this will level out, as stated above, with the change of administration. I understand budget and cost mitigation, but at the expense of great leadership and training is where I draw my personal line. It is so hard to represent the great aspects of my leadership style in an Army that seems to be concerned with keeping their head low and not helping their left and right. It is heartbreaking when young new soldiers come to a unit and have no motivation to stay in within ninety days.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 6 at 2015 3:06 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:06:02 -0500

For us Desert Storm era service members, it was the same shebang. They opened the flood gates after returning all those IRR people and begged us to leave. 30 days from paper drop to the front door. After a year or two, they had to adjust policies like letting you reenlist even on your last day of service. One good thing about the military, they can shore up numbers REAL FAST when they need to.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 6 at 2015 5:23 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:23:11 -0500

I know this is because of the shrinking budget however I believe this to a mistake with everything that is happening geopolitically. I have this strange feeling that we will be increasing troop numbers to the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 2 at 2015 3:56 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:56:35 -0400

Well, they wanted a reduction in force. They now have it. Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 2:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:37:45 -0400

My concern: This draw down has hit combat vets very hard. They were the ones hovering around the 15 year mark and policy makers knew they would save the most by forcing them out on early retirement and avoiding the full retirement package with those troops. Now we have ISIS, Iran, Syria, and other hot spots brewing. If things approach a breaking point, we'll need to do what we did in 2003: open the flood gates again. That means new recruits with reduced training programs, poor equipment, and inexperienced leaders and trainers because we just axed the majority of them. Do we ever learn?

Response by SSG Mark Ives made Jun 4 at 2015 5:14 PM

SSG Mark Ives — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:14:44 -0400

Shades of 1991.... after the Gulf War.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jun 4 at 2015 7:56 PM

SFC Stephen King — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:56:35 -0400

History repeats itself. I have seen this before.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 8:43 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:43:31 -0400

As the US is basically an island, we are primarily a sea/air power. A huge land-based force strategically makes no sense. Although the Army is trying to draw down in a logical manner, they forget the force is made up of people and because of these considerations, people and families are negatively impacted.

I agree with US strategy in that we need a smaller, more rapidly deployable expeditionary Army. However, I think the Navy should be beefed up or we may be forced to cooperate with other countries that may have opposite human rights beliefs that we have...

I love the Army, but we don't really need a force that can fight two wars at once. The ass to teeth ratio is much to high to be economical or even prudent. As our borders don't really need guarding from a large invasion force, a huge standing Army is a drain on our economy.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jun 17 at 2021 10:51 AM

SFC Stephen King — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:51:50 -0400

Force reduced by those who decided an NCO has been in to long so all the leaders who groomed and prepared to provide, purpose, motivation and direction were shown the door. Time in service is crucial only when warranted.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Jun 17 at 2021 12:35 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:35:42 -0400

Pretty sure America's unofficial Army far outnumbers the police and government combined. There are many reasons why there's never been a war on American soil.