Do you think lowering the total number of soldiers in the Army makes the United States look weak?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:08:39 -0400

soldiers**

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 4:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:09:36 -0400

Cut and dry, yes. It will make the country weaker.

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Mar 21 at 2014 6:29 AM

SFC Gary Fox — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:29:18 -0400

Too many people have the false impression we can fight wars remotely by using UAVs and manned aircraft because we have been doing some of that to take out terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen. They seem to believe conventional wars are over. That's a false assumption to make as long as other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea maintain armies.

I have no doubt Russia took Crimea because Putin believes the US to be weak not just militarily, but weak financially and in morale. I personally don't believe Putin is done expanding Russia's borders.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Mar 21 at 2014 7:02 AM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:02:58 -0400

I addressed this before i believe.

Napoleon had a smaller army in most of the battles that he fought (well the famous ones). Dropping to a smaller size should not make us weaker. If you think about it while we where in the heart of the war we needed more troops to keep rotations from being ridiculous. Now we are slimming back down. This means that as NCOs and Leaders we need to focus on Training. I understand that money will be tight without a war. Well its also time for NCOs to be creative. Napoleon Won the battles not because he had the bigger army but because he made sure his soldiers where well trained, and well taken care of.

I have always believed that if you cut the size of the army and used that money to increase the quality of training you would raise the quality of the soldier. I would take 1 High Speed over 5 Anchors.

But as i stated THIS is a time when NCOs should shine. When there is no Money... No money for training... No money for parts... Its our time to continue to do what NCOs do... Train, be creative and change our Army from being quantity, to being Quality.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 21 at 2014 9:23 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:23:56 -0400

Simple answer is yes it will and does make us look weaker, especially with events transpiring as they are in the Russian/Middle Eastern areas. A bigger problem in my mind though is the weak-assed, appeasement seeking civilian leadership that we currently have. I never felt that we could effectively fight the 2-conflict idea that was put in place after the drawdown following DS/DS and it really was apparent during the OEF/OIF years. We are seeing a push for technology based weaponry, ie. UAS etc, to the detriment of our ground holding capabilities, ie. "Boots on the ground". As a Tanker I watched with trepidation and a bit of amusement after the end of the Cold War when it was talked about the lessening need/requirement for tanks on the modern battlefield, and then guess what played a big role in the Iraqi conflict? While we may not see the large-scale ground combat of yesteryear, guess who is raising it's ugly head in the Eurasian region?

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 21 at 2014 5:09 PM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:09:56 -0400

No, it will not make us look weaker as long as we take the proper steps to maintain an effective fighting force. We have technological advantages over many potential enemies, especially when it comes to air power. Also, our tanks are better, our weapons are better, and most importantly our soldiers are better, if not the best. The thinking is that we must have 3-1 odds in a fight. With a smaller force, that is where Force Multipliers come in. We don't have to fight a conventional war the conventional way just because that is how it has always been done or because that is how our enemy plans on fighting. I think we should take a lesson from our current enemies, Al-Qaeda/Taliban, and realize that a small, dedicated force can pose a serious threat even to larger, more advanced forces. Someone posted already that this is the time that NCO's need to shine and train our forces for any contingency. I like to think of the downsize as cutting excess/dead weight and making our military more fit, trim, and effective.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 5:44 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:44:07 -0400

Short answer yes , but it is only to the outsiders. Not The Americans. But the issue is way more complex than that, and I do not have that answer to that. The real question should be about our currenu CIC and Congress. Ronald Reagan never had that problem.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2014 4:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:26:10 -0400

Yes, May God have mercy on our souls.

It's time we start putting true veterans back in our government. We'll need a Teddy Roosevelt to save use from our impending doom.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2014 10:25 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:25:44 -0400

No, I think we need to have the best of the best and if we so happen to get rid of those who don't meet the standard at the same time, its a win-win.

Response by SFC Michael W. made May 31 at 2014 11:59 PM

SFC Michael W. — Sat, 31 May 2014 23:59:33 -0400

Most definitely! We have taken both slogans ( "Army Strong" and "Army of One") and combine it into one..."One Army Strong"! We have to maintain a large military force, regardless of the new toys and weapons used on the battlefield because when the mechanical and electronics fails it will be the TROOPS who makes the difference between winning or losing.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 31 at 2016 2:51 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:51:44 -0400

Not as weak as we'd look if we collapsed like the Soviet Union did. We had an unsustainable force strength at the height of the "Surge".