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

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.

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.

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).

COL Mikel J. Burroughs SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
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/

Somebody had to say it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.