Posted on Jul 27, 2015
Did you Know Under Obama, Our Military’s Strength Has Significantly Decreased?
9.56K
76
48
9
9
0
Under Obama, Our Military’s Strength Has Significantly Decreased
Most neglected of all U.S. national security elements are our strategic forces.
The Army's manpower is down 10 percent since President Obama took office. Our naval capabilities are aging and inadequate to meet our national security demands. The Air Force fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history. The Marines are running only about two-thirds the number of battalions they have historically needed to meet day-to-day operational demands.
Will the next POTUS be able to recover from this?
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/26/weapon_system_revive/
Most neglected of all U.S. national security elements are our strategic forces.
The Army's manpower is down 10 percent since President Obama took office. Our naval capabilities are aging and inadequate to meet our national security demands. The Air Force fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history. The Marines are running only about two-thirds the number of battalions they have historically needed to meet day-to-day operational demands.
Will the next POTUS be able to recover from this?
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/26/weapon_system_revive/
Service
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
5
5
0
Sir, I believe that the catching title maybe a little bit misleading. Although our Military strength has decreased and it is on a steady down slope, and as much as I will like to put the blame on the Commander-In-Chief I believe that decrease is two fold.
1. The fact that we are not heavily involved in the war has play into the decrease of the strength, and
2. the present economy and the shrinking of the defense budget also plays a role in the decrease of the Military strength. This can be look at as a demand supply chain type of equation. The conventional wars have ended therefore, the strength of the Military decreases as well. Also, as the conventional forces/ strength is decreasing the need for SOFT ready Soldiers and Officers is increasing if this was an investment strategy, one would say follow the money. Meaning for those that are looking to stay in the Military maybe it is time for them to start looking into becoming SOFT Soldiers because the need is there and it is real.
1. The fact that we are not heavily involved in the war has play into the decrease of the strength, and
2. the present economy and the shrinking of the defense budget also plays a role in the decrease of the Military strength. This can be look at as a demand supply chain type of equation. The conventional wars have ended therefore, the strength of the Military decreases as well. Also, as the conventional forces/ strength is decreasing the need for SOFT ready Soldiers and Officers is increasing if this was an investment strategy, one would say follow the money. Meaning for those that are looking to stay in the Military maybe it is time for them to start looking into becoming SOFT Soldiers because the need is there and it is real.
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CPT (Join to see) Good observations, but unfortunately that is the way the article was published. I believe it was to grab people's attention like most editorial authors try to do. You bring up some very good points, but of you got into a conflict with the millions of Chinese in their Army today would Point No. 2 still be an option? What are your thoughts?
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
I believe that if we had to engage the Chinese military in a conventional war, the demand for recruits will rise and this will make option 2 a viable option unfortunately, the government will have to increase the incentives to attract the citizens into the service. For what is worth I believe we will kick Chinese Military
I believe that if we had to engage the Chinese military in a conventional war, the demand for recruits will rise and this will make option 2 a viable option unfortunately, the government will have to increase the incentives to attract the citizens into the service. For what is worth I believe we will kick Chinese Military
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Sgt Kelli Mays - I agree, but that is firmly a problem with the 2005 BRAC. We made some decisions during the early GWOT days on the assumption that the old guard was gone and we could focus more in asymmetrical threats. Oh how wrong we were...
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Historically COL Mikel J. Burroughs, in nations that are not totalitarian, military strength in terms of trained service members, equipment, materiel and sustainment ramps up for wars and ramps down after wars are "finished."
Our nations strength is not limited to trained manpower. For a legitimate assessment the trend should not be focused on active military manpower. Aging equipment can be useful however we are still using B-52 from time to time and there are many other examples of older equipment that was well designed and is useful in many scenarios.
One of the impacts of sequestration and other funding constraints has been a periodic internal assessment to determine core capabilities that need to be manned and equipped and to determine which capabilities should be manned and equipped through contract.
The decision to change the overall capability requirement from fighting to major wars within a certain time-frame to one war was made by the national command authority with input from the Service chiefs. This top level strategy drives manpower, equipping and sustainment targets. Acceptable risk is also factored into the equations.
A more useful set of metrics would look at Army BCTs and numbers fully manned and equipped primary weapon systems, Navy groups and numbers of fully manned and equipped primary weapons systems, USAF wings and numbers of fully manned and equipped primary weapons, and USMC fully manned and equipped primary weapons systems. Active military and Reserve component military strength needs to be included as well as government civilian and contractor personnel.
Our nations strength is not limited to trained manpower. For a legitimate assessment the trend should not be focused on active military manpower. Aging equipment can be useful however we are still using B-52 from time to time and there are many other examples of older equipment that was well designed and is useful in many scenarios.
One of the impacts of sequestration and other funding constraints has been a periodic internal assessment to determine core capabilities that need to be manned and equipped and to determine which capabilities should be manned and equipped through contract.
The decision to change the overall capability requirement from fighting to major wars within a certain time-frame to one war was made by the national command authority with input from the Service chiefs. This top level strategy drives manpower, equipping and sustainment targets. Acceptable risk is also factored into the equations.
A more useful set of metrics would look at Army BCTs and numbers fully manned and equipped primary weapon systems, Navy groups and numbers of fully manned and equipped primary weapons systems, USAF wings and numbers of fully manned and equipped primary weapons, and USMC fully manned and equipped primary weapons systems. Active military and Reserve component military strength needs to be included as well as government civilian and contractor personnel.
(5)
(0)
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Well I would not say that baby boomers really stress the system unless you are advocating euthanasia for those of who are baby boomers SPC David S.:-)
I think you meant that as the baby boomers age combined with increased age longevity and less children being born that social security (SS) and medicare will be stressed significantly. That I generally agree with. I have been hoping that SS will be modified so that contributors will be able to choose their investments, own the accounts, and be able to leave the funds in their wills to whomever they choose. Right now when somebody receiving SS dies, the spouse is forced to return part of the last SS payment to the deceased - specific amount determined based on time between payment and death measured in days.
I think you meant that as the baby boomers age combined with increased age longevity and less children being born that social security (SS) and medicare will be stressed significantly. That I generally agree with. I have been hoping that SS will be modified so that contributors will be able to choose their investments, own the accounts, and be able to leave the funds in their wills to whomever they choose. Right now when somebody receiving SS dies, the spouse is forced to return part of the last SS payment to the deceased - specific amount determined based on time between payment and death measured in days.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
No sir, no Soylent Green here - I wouldn't think of dumping all that mental capital - and yes you are correct on what I was eluding to - however allowing people to control their own investment my be tricky. However it does sounds like a good business model in teaching the young bloods how to invest.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It seems that military forces per se have not significantly increased under a Democratic President since Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson. In fact, under Carter, Clinton, and Obama we experienced declines; the biggest cut were mainly under Clinton via base closures, the loss of many brigades, and the "Peace Dividend" we heard so much about but never seemed to find. To be fair the military industrial complex increased via contractors in all administrations, but so has the number of political appointees. Under Republicans military forces increased but also declined after peaking during events such as during the original Iraq/Kuwait deployment; at that same time there was also the implementation of the Conventional Forces Treaty (CFW) when many units such as Pershing, were inactivated in Europe, beginning with 1st ID (fwd).
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google