Did you Know Under Obama, Our Military’s Strength Has Significantly Decreased?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:17:33 -0400

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/

Under Obama, Our Military's Strength Has Significantly Decreased

Obama doesn't get the long game.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 27 at 2015 10:19 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:19:31 -0400

The facts suggest that is not true...
http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014

U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers

Here are how the numbers of active duty military personnel have fluctuated over the past 60 years through the Vietnam War, Cold War, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 27 at 2015 10:20 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:20:00 -0400

I think we saw the same sort of thing following WWII. With the move to cut the budget, things like defense projects and personel are always impacted first it seems. I do hope that whoever takes the seat next does something to ensure that we are in a position to take the appropriate action(s) when needed.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 27 at 2015 10:28 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:28:44 -0400

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 11:06 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:06:53 -0400

Somebody had to say it.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 27 at 2015 11:07 AM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:07:40 -0400

Elections have consequences, we will recover or not this next election will help determine the strength.
Just as Reagan recovered from Carter or Bush from Clinton.
We must decide if we are fighting a war or not...
1/2 of us think we are, 1/2 of us think we are not.
Note that Defense spending is now the fifth largest item, if we removed Vet spending it would be the sixth largest item.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2015 - Charts Tables History

Numbers, pie charts, trends for US Government Spending in 2015: Pensions, Healthcare, Education, Defense, Welfare. Data from OMB, Census Bureau.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 27 at 2015 11:38 AM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:38:10 -0400

Lets be frank about our fiscal condition, since Reagan, we have deficit spent like there was no tomorrow. We are trillions of dollars in debt, have no plan to repay that debt. We watched the Soviet Empire collapse under the weight of that debt. We spend in excess of how much of our GDP on Defense? 3.5 % or roughly 21% of Federal spending or $575 Billion Dollars. That equates to 1 out of 5 dollars goes to defense. Also in comparison is what we spend on welfare also around 3%. Now look at future spending projections, defense is projected to go up, and welfare is anticipated to go down to 2.66% of GDP.

In comparison I know people are going to say we should cut back foreign aid , which is .03% of GDP.

Now also look at what each of the last two presidents have spent:
Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers

Obama Deficits
FY 2016*: $474 bln
FY 2015*: $583 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln

Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

This does not include the existing budget deficit from the past that continues to build up interest. So I ask do we need to spend more on defense or be more practical about what we buy?

For the record I have included sources so you can reference it.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/FY15_Green_Book.pdf

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing

Charts and analysis of US government defense spending trends in the 20th century, with links to the numbers. Data from federal budget and US Census Bureau

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 27 at 2015 11:40 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:40:42 -0400

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.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 27 at 2015 11:54 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:54:21 -0400

Elections have consequences.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 27 at 2015 12:20 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:20:42 -0400

This is a wake up call for our nation!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 27 at 2015 12:26 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:26:48 -0400

I should hope so! We've become so bloated due to years of war. We compensated for quality with quantity, and unless we find someone else to "bring freedom", now we have to fix it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 12:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:59:41 -0400

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.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Jul 27 at 2015 1:00 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:00:29 -0400

Meh. I remember the RIF in the early '90s...

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-01/news/mn-362_1_gulf-war

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:33 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:33:33 -0400

Each time we go through contraction we loose valuable leadership and knowledge. There is learned knowledge that cannot be replaced.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 4:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:36:31 -0400

I realize our nations military and equipment, has cut back. But, I'm more concerned how these cuts affect our service men and women, serving at this moment. It makes U.S. citizens worry a little bit, because, I assume, they don't really understand the situation, or they don't care as long as it's not affecting them personally yet. But, it does affect our service members. They're the ones who will have to control the fires without much up to date equipment. I assume that, because several RP members, in the military, have expressed those sentiments. We're the strength of this Nation, despite politics and politicians. I do not understand who gives our POTUS the information which he is advised to act on. All of this China, Russian, North Korean, Iran, Afghanistan, talk, seems to me were headed for another Cold War. I might be spitting out of the wrong side of my mouth, but that's the way I see it.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 27 at 2015 4:46 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:46:51 -0400

I am not as concerned about the shrinkage in military manpower as I am concerned about the loss of a healthy economic base needed to support military readiness and operations. We need another Calvin Coolidge-like President to cut the government and taxes in half. The economy would quickly recover and we would be better able to field any military force needed to meet any threat.

Response by MSgt Alan H made Jul 27 at 2015 4:55 PM

MSgt Alan H — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:55:33 -0400

We are almost eight years into a democratic administration. As often happens with liberal leadership the military is reduced, cut back, often decimated compared to required world wide duties. As often happens, many pentagon era jump on the bandwagon agreeing with and approving of these measures. All I can say is vote republican. If this is a false impression I've gathered after my first day on active duty receiving a 14% raise from President Ronald Reagan 35 years ago and seeing the support of the military go up and down, please enlighten me.

Response by MSgt John Grollimund made Jul 27 at 2015 5:12 PM

MSgt John Grollimund — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:12:01 -0400

"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war". This phrase was echoed throughout my enlistment. Our military is no longer a society of professionals, kept on the razor sharp edge, ready and willing to take it to the enemy, foreign or domestic. We have become a lack luster band that is putting band aid fixes on aged equipment, just to try to make the missions happen. Due in part, to the new generation, and in part to the lack of benefits. We no longer keep the ones that shine with pride, drive and desire. They move on. We end up with the ones that are here for a paycheck, because its easy, and they are not held to task.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Jul 27 at 2015 10:43 PM

SGT John Wesley — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:43:44 -0400

Budget wise, if we cut $150 Billion, we'd still be at higher levels than during Reagan's era.

All Presidents have made cuts.

Eisenhower cut our defense budget by 27% after the Korean War, Obama is not even going that far.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Jul 28 at 2015 3:03 AM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:03:00 -0400

I have tried to keep up the the numbers in all branches and it would seem that yes they are all suffering in the numbers they have. I don't think cutting the numbers is such a good thing for all just a way of him trying to make cuts but in the wrong way.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 28 at 2015 10:47 AM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:47:19 -0400

Yep. aware...or at least feel we are not as strong as we were 7 years ago..... Makes me quite nervous knowing this. we may have the technology and know how....but with the administration suppressing military decisions...I believe it's weakened our status...and I feel we should have kept open some of the bases over seas that were closed. I do not feel that the rest of the world believe we are as strong and united as we once were. ...getting off topic a little from the article...but I believe this potus has separated us...we have a huge wedge ....we are greatly divided...we need a new leader who will unite us again.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 28 at 2015 11:06 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:06:47 -0400

I'd like to ask the crowd, is having a large standing military the answer to the worlds problems? How would having this juggernaut sitting and waiting help our current budget constraints in this country? As bas ackwards as procurement is, mismanaged as some of the forces are, to include bloated staffs, are we not right in downsizing (within reason), like we've done in EVERY war after it was over with? Are we becoming more of the problem with views that the military is no 1 above everything else? Besides that thought process is what communist countries think. Our military strength has decreased, but only in manpower, not tactics, or the ability to teach those tactics to another in a time of need. We do have the Nat Guard, Reserves, and IRR to back us up initially. I see no need to have a giant force, when it's long since time for America to start taking care of itself, and allowing others in various alliances to start leading the way to solving their geographic problems. Technology in the military is improving daily, and that is also offsetting the need for additional troops. And lastly having a large military is not going to solve the future of war....Cyberwar. An aircraft carrier group cannot project power to an IPv6 address. the 82nd, 101st, and the Rangers, can't storm and hold a botnet. And no SEAL or SF group can take over a server farm that "isn't there". We need to reallocate what we have in regards to persistent threats vs. temporary headaches vs. long term goals. We might actually be hitting the nail on the head in downsizing...maybe.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 4:18 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:18:56 -0400

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).

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 29 at 2015 8:05 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:05:50 -0400

The US Military is way over-sized. It ought to be cut.

There is no Nazi Germany. There is no USSR.

But who did the Sequestration of funds? That was the GOP, right?

Walt

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 12:12 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:12:02 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I can understand the need for some of the efforts to reduce the size of the force and spending, but I think this needs to be done with the notion of not sacrificing readiness or capabilities.