Army to Downsize Again. Why?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 11:54:13 -0400

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/

Obama admin to cut 40K Army soldiers

The Army will cut 40,000 soldiers over the next two years to keep pace with ever-shrinking budgets, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 8 at 2015 12:00 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:00:37 -0400

The answers is it costs tax-payers. It happens every conflict. Always has, always will.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jul 8 at 2015 12:14 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:14:34 -0400

This is the reason we cannot afford personnel
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-pentagon-literally-tossed-millions-of-dollars-into-the-trash-ce32489184a6

The Pentagon Literally Tossed Millions of Dollars Into the Trash — War Is Boring

Logistics agency would rather throw out faulty spare parts than go to the trouble of returning them

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 12:16 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:16:12 -0400

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?

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 8 at 2015 12:25 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:25:12 -0400

This isn't even our harshest cut by a long-shot. The only time we've cut forces less was after Vietnam. The truth is defense spending is a massive portion of our budget and isn't sustainable. Fewer personnel means more materials and training budget. It's just the way things are.

Besides, we could scare up a rather big, experienced military in pretty short order should it become necessary. The US and its allies can hold the line just fine while that gets spun up if the excrement hit the rotating air circulator. Large scale war is unlikely to just pop up out of nowhere or be over in short order.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jul 8 at 2015 1:01 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:01:01 -0400

I get that we need to reduce spending and get Military spending under control. But the people that we have in office right now are cutting at the bottom of the list. If you keep all the higher ranking officers and get rid of the enlisted ranks, who is going to do the work needing done. I don't see a 4 star general standing a post! I also don't see the need of 400, 400 billion dollar aircraft. give 50 to the Air force, give 100 to the navy. They can split with the Marines. And as far as that goes if you where going to up grade any thing how about the Military computer system. Deros don't talk to sidpers, Iperms, doesn't speak with the other, this don't speak to that, and the National Guard system doesn't speak with anything! Still running XP operating systems! Then you are going to change a uniform. What is wrong with the tan T-shirt that we already have.Why can't we keep the functional tan boots that are not falling apart instead of switching to those crappy brown things that fell apart on me in Afghanistan!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 4:31 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 04:31:10 -0400

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