Posted on Aug 14, 2014
The Most Anticipated Surprise of the War: the Post War Army
3.79K
29
8
11
11
0
We are now entering an era of relative ease for the military in relation to the past decade of war. As with the end of every war, the military must assess its structure for the anticipated lack of a large-scale conflict. As we all know, the Army grew during the Global War on Terror as we were shifting from peace keeping to War Fighting. As with Newton’s Third Law of Motion; what goes up must come down.
What is more astonishing than the reduction of the force is how it is being portrayed. I am often on the receiving end of unrelenting statements that we won’t be able to project our military might with such a small force or how soldiers are being forced out while serving in a combat zone. I can understand how and why they came to such a conclusion but their arguments are not founded in history.
A statement arose among the criticism of our force in the early stages of the Iraq war that defines reality. Donald Rumsfeld said "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Prior to the attacks that launched us into the battlefields of WWII, the Army had approximately 269,023 soldiers. That number rose to 8,267,958 at the peak of the war and reduced to 593,167 post WWII. The draft played a role with the reduction of the force as many were resumed their lives now that their service was over.
Having to maintain a large Army, as opposed to having to rapidly build one, would prove far too costly and unnecessary as we were entering an era of relative peace. During the war the Army mobilized 18 National Guard divisions and 26 Army Reserve divisions. A large reserve force being readily able to be mobilize would only contribute to the justification of a smaller active duty Army. This would play out in Vietnam where the Army, consisting of 873,078 soldiers, growing by 50 percent and then being reduced to 784,333 with an overall loss of ten percent from pre-war levels.
Our Army has been drastically reduced to 480,801 soldiers before the GWOT started. Time would show that technology would significantly impact the numbers of those needed to effectively wage war. Yet, the GWOT would cause the Army to increase its ranks by 17 percent. With the projected number of the Army currently being 440,000 we would only see an overall loss of eight percent of the Army from pre-GWOT numbers. This being the smallest overall reduction of the Army since Vietnam.
We are led to believe that we are crippling our Army with the troop reductions. We are only continuing the life cycle of a war fighting Army. We will still be the world’s best military and our defense budget is still larger than the next best ten highest spending counties in the world. What do you see in the Army’s and overall military’s future?
What is more astonishing than the reduction of the force is how it is being portrayed. I am often on the receiving end of unrelenting statements that we won’t be able to project our military might with such a small force or how soldiers are being forced out while serving in a combat zone. I can understand how and why they came to such a conclusion but their arguments are not founded in history.
A statement arose among the criticism of our force in the early stages of the Iraq war that defines reality. Donald Rumsfeld said "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Prior to the attacks that launched us into the battlefields of WWII, the Army had approximately 269,023 soldiers. That number rose to 8,267,958 at the peak of the war and reduced to 593,167 post WWII. The draft played a role with the reduction of the force as many were resumed their lives now that their service was over.
Having to maintain a large Army, as opposed to having to rapidly build one, would prove far too costly and unnecessary as we were entering an era of relative peace. During the war the Army mobilized 18 National Guard divisions and 26 Army Reserve divisions. A large reserve force being readily able to be mobilize would only contribute to the justification of a smaller active duty Army. This would play out in Vietnam where the Army, consisting of 873,078 soldiers, growing by 50 percent and then being reduced to 784,333 with an overall loss of ten percent from pre-war levels.
Our Army has been drastically reduced to 480,801 soldiers before the GWOT started. Time would show that technology would significantly impact the numbers of those needed to effectively wage war. Yet, the GWOT would cause the Army to increase its ranks by 17 percent. With the projected number of the Army currently being 440,000 we would only see an overall loss of eight percent of the Army from pre-GWOT numbers. This being the smallest overall reduction of the Army since Vietnam.
We are led to believe that we are crippling our Army with the troop reductions. We are only continuing the life cycle of a war fighting Army. We will still be the world’s best military and our defense budget is still larger than the next best ten highest spending counties in the world. What do you see in the Army’s and overall military’s future?
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Command Post
Downsizing Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
I joined the Army in 1989 and went to Germany. The wall came down and they were certain that our Bradley BN was heading t the Fulda gap.....it turned into a wild party with east meeting west. Then came the Gulf War and the ranks surged and we were no longer a cold war Army. 100 hours later the war was over. Back in Germany, our small 4 br barracks rooms held 10 people now because off the thousands of troops that were on IRR that got called up. We had troops that were recently civilians and were clearly past their usable shelf life as grunts. Then, they did a MASSIVE personnel cut. The Army opened up the flood gates and said "submit a 4187 and the door will hit you in the A$$" (para-phrased). After a few months of chaos, they noticed that too many people abandoned ship and they enacted a freeze until they got accountability and had accurate numbers (I imagine). We had our Somalias, Kosovos, Bosnias, Haitis, etc, etc, until we were full on in the mix, fighting 2 wars at once. There was stop loss, relaxed enlistment standards to shore up numbers (especially during the surge). Now we are trimming and trimming. I can say with a lot of experience, the Army, and our other amigos in the DOD will make it work no matter what happens to our great nation in the years to come. By the time you get done complaining about how decisions are being made, the changes are already 3/4's drawn up. Our military can go anywhere and do anything that is required of it. That will NEVER stop being true. That is why we are so close knit. We live the suck.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
The reduction is a double edge sword. There is a fine line between saving money and leaving the country with a force unable to answer the call to defend the country.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
It is. It must be done smart but much of the saving is superficial. The budget Army is going to get less money but these funds were only there for due to the War. Much of this money was for the Units that are being deactivated and for equipment that we no longer need. We no longer need to project the cost of the war in the military budget. If you have a company were you have 10 guys you hired for the christmas shopping surge. What do you do with them after christmas. You can no longer justify their need but they are costing you money. You must let them go. By using the 10 you are only losing what you gained. I wouldn't count them in the overall performance of the regular employees in the company.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
A more lean force.More specialized training.More intergration Human and machines.A shift in the mission towards a more Global Force.A force that not only protects Citizens on Earth but Citizens in Space.
(3)
(0)
Darren Marchant
You are on the right track with that. The US must quietly prepare for an expanded manned security mission in LEO & Lunar fields of operations. it cannot be understated that a balance must be maintained between US dominance in these areas & international cooperation aimed @ preventing conflict over access to LEO & deep space. the most likely form that manned space security will take will be a space version of the role of the US Coast Guard, a US Orbit Guard. Protecting US interests in the solar environment will include going to the rescue of people who in the interest of legitimately expanding human presence in space find themselves in harms way, as well as enforcing future US treaties of international access & utilization of space resources. periods of downsizing are a good opportunity to scout for top performers to retain and retrain for future leadership roles.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google