What do you think about our Commander in Chief's decision to down size the Amry?

SGM Jerry Finin — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:22:43 -0500

Totally against this decision. Find something else to cut back on but not our forces. These are dedicated Soldiers who's lively hood you are messing over.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 2 at 2014 11:36 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:36:35 -0500

This wasn't the Commander-IN-Chief's decision to downsize, it was the Defense Department's decision. The Defense Department's budget was cut by Congress forcing their hand to cut something...the Defense Department chose to cut service members. Also, post-war end strengths are not new...war creates money and when war reduces, so does the money.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 11:40 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:40:08 -0500

It's all about money, if you dont agree with me then read the articles and take a look at the interviews and press conferences with Secretary Hagel. Time and again he mentions budget and the fact that a majority of our military budget is spent on personnel costs. There is plenty of "dead weight" in the Army that needs to go however programs such as the QSP are not the way to do it. The QSP (not QMP) is a convenient means to an end in regards to cutting personnel. Through this program we will lose many great NCOs based solely on the size of their CMF and slots available. If you are a stellar NCO in a small CMF and you are near your RCP or retirement you will more than likely recieve separation notification, while mediocre NCOs in large CMFs will be retained. I'm a Logistician and I have seen quite a few great NCOs in low density MOSs get involuntarily separated or have to re-class. Experience makes a Leader, rank has never made anyone a Leader. One day the Army will learn how to properly manage Senior NCOs but, unfortunately, it does not appear that it will be anytime soon. If the Army ruthlessly pursued separation action through the QMP process we would get to "right size" a lot quicker and, at the end of the day, in a lot better shape Leadership wise.

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Mar 2 at 2014 11:53 PM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:53:05 -0500

I do think there is a lot of Soldiers and leaders a like that don't belong or deserve to stay in. We all knew the downsize was coming sooner or later. I know that most of it has to deal with money.

However, cutting down to the size they want us to be at seems like an awfully small Army in my opinion. If WWIII breaks out we would definitely probably struggle to get going with those types of numbers. We are going to lose a lot of good Soldiers and Leaders that don't deserve to be pushed out though. Just as well, we are still going to have plenty that should have been pushed out but they'll slip through the cracks and be allowed to stay in. I don't know that there is really any solution to either of these problems. It sucks but what can we do about it?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 11:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:57:12 -0500

Do not like it. Simple enough.

Response by PO1 Julio G. made Mar 3 at 2014 1:05 AM

PO1 Julio G. — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 01:05:46 -0500

Do you think maybe the decision came from the General of the Army instead?

I think we need to investigate the background of the decision. Is it budget? Is it strategic? Is technology allowing for less personnel?

Look at what Bill Clinton did to the Navy. Closed several bases, and ordered the decommissioning of many ships. The plan? Smarter ships that required less personnel. The replacement of the Battle Ship with the modern CG's, DDG's that could go faster, maneuver better, carry more ammo, launch attacks from much longer distances, etc, etc.

I saw the evolution of the Navy and the reduction was strategized - and it worked.

Maybe the Army is doing the same thing...

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Mar 3 at 2014 2:25 AM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:25:43 -0500

SGM We have to downsize. It is all about the money. There is no reason to have all these service members sitting around collecting a paycheck when there is no war to fight. Unfortunately that is the reality of the situation that we are in. When there is another war we will have to grow again and when that war is over many will be told thank you for your service but we no longer need you.

If you were running a business that provided a service would you continue to employ workers even if you didn't have the work for them. No you wouldn't, and this is where we are with the draw down in Afghanistan.

Response by SN Thomas Imerti made Mar 3 at 2014 8:30 PM

SN Thomas Imerti — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:30:50 -0500

TOTALLY the wrong move!!! There are more countries that want to see us CRAWLING on our knees than I can ever remember. The draft may be the only way to protect our great nation in the near future.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 8:34 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:34:50 -0500

A lot of the articles and clips from interviews have stated we are downsizing to a more lethal and technologically capable military with a heavy emphasis on special operations soldiers. While I do agree that Special Operations do give the United States a highly flexible and adaptive strike option. While we may not need a large standing Army, this need for all this technocrap is misplaced.  Allow me to quote GEN Patton, "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory." In my humble opinion, yes we need to downsize our Army. Yes we need to invest in Special Operations, and yes to a small degree we need to invest in some technology for lifesaving equipment. We need to invest more money in training soldiers and developing leaders.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 4 at 2014 9:33 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:33:38 -0500

Commander IN Chief, and it's not his decision. That would be the Secretary of Defense, under the recommendations of his respective Chiefs of Staff.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 9:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:53:12 -0500

Its going on everywhere. A lot of people's livelihoods depends on jobs they are losing, at least the Army is trying to get all the "trouble makers" out first.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 10:08 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:08:45 -0500

Its going on everywhere. A lot of people's livelihoods depends on jobs they are losing, at least the Army is trying to get all the "trouble makers" out first.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 10:11 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:11:32 -0500

SGM,

I hate the idea of downsizing. As a Combat Engineer our
numbers should be threw the roof but the Army has already reduced the MTO&E
for Route Clearance Companies by 20%. I just feel like we could have waited
another five years before such a drastic downsizing.

V/R

1SG Haro

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2014 9:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 May 2014 21:39:40 -0400

Why cant politicians cut back on their salaries instead??? LEAVE THE MILITARY ALONE!!!!

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 3 at 2014 10:14 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Sat, 03 May 2014 22:14:04 -0400

Who ever came up with this idea needs to be court martialed, impeached, tried for treason, and if necessary executed. I guess you say I am slightly (sarcasm intended) against this idea. George Santayana commented "Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat it." At the end of WWII we downsized our military forces, some 6 short years later we were up to our necks in the Korean War, churning out soldiers by the bushel baskets to fill in the gaps created by the downsizing. Again, at the end of the Korean War we downsized only to be up to our necks in Vietnam, again short on soldiers and turning our poorly trained newbies whose fellow soldiers didn't want to learn their names because they didn't live long enough in most cases to be of value to the unit. Sound familiar? Here we go again.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made May 3 at 2014 10:28 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Sat, 03 May 2014 22:28:59 -0400

Don't like it but unfortunately it has happened after every war or conflict. They start taking money away from the services and the quickest way to show savings is reducing personnel. Promotions will slow down, PCS's will be extended, there will be a reduction in enlistment quotas, Commissioned Officers will see a RIF (Reduction in Force), Efficiency Reports will be reviewed and the first force out lists will be from sub to average performers. Personnel costs are easy for them to show savings.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 4 at 2014 8:25 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 04 May 2014 20:25:56 -0400

Congress cuts the check. You get what you pay for. Having served for 21 years and 3 of those years as Naval District Washington Badge #9, I know how things work in DC and this has nothing to do with the CINC and everything to do with military necesity (We are getting out of 2 wars) and a cheap congress. I watch how they vote in the House and the House owns this no matter how some may try and spin it.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made May 4 at 2014 8:50 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Sun, 04 May 2014 20:50:30 -0400

Anything I think about our current CinC, cannot be said in mixed company

Response by SPC Dean J. Thompson made May 11 at 2014 10:13 AM

SPC Dean J. Thompson — Sun, 11 May 2014 10:13:44 -0400

Seems a little crazy to me considering the way Russia and North Korea are acting and with China building up it's forces at a slow but steady pace. We need to keep what we have. We make this same mistake every time we think things are winding down and it just comes back to bit us.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made May 11 at 2014 10:25 AM

SFC Christopher Perry — Sun, 11 May 2014 10:25:40 -0400

SGM,

I will go another direction altogether with this one. The last time they implemented cuts that even came close to these were following Desert Storm. If you looked around at the lay of the land at that point you could almost justify a bit of a cutback.

However, those cuts were miniscule compared to what we are witnessing today, and will continue to see on into the future. And when standing back to survey the landscape of the global stage today I just don't see any justification for cutting back on defense. Russia and their antics, Syria is far from ending and could spill over into other parts of the region at any point, Iran and their nuclear program (that doesn't exist) just to name a few. Who could possibly forget the fact that in the eyes of any terrorist group worth their we are the great Satan that must be destroyed.

Sorry, this is just not the time to cut back the size of that which will defend this country if the need were to arise.

Response by CPO Tom Wick made Jun 4 at 2014 10:32 AM

CPO Tom Wick — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:32:15 -0400

we need a new president and the Army chief should be fired !

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 11:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:54:17 -0400

In my opinion this Commander in Chief is a domestic enemy of this nation and as part of the military oath we are to defend the constitution and the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic and this nation needs to be defended against the socalled commander in chief who has released terrorist inorder to regain a deserter and has called our soldiers terrorist and has prevented our wounded warriors from the Fort Hood massacure from receiving the proper medical care and military benefits by calling the terrorist attack on our troops work place violance. Furthermore I beleive that it is the proper procedure for the military to inforce that part of the oath by forcable removing the socalled commander in cheif and any other goverment official that blatently disreguard the constitution also I beleive that it is also the job of the military to enforce the borders of this nationand to forcably remove anyone that illegally crosses our borders also to round up every illegal immigrant along with their children reguardless from where the came from and send them back to whereever they came from. as for the socalled commander in cheif he should have never been allowed to take office as he is not a citizen of the United States and if anyone cares to lookinto his past they will find that he attended college on a foreign exchange student visa and even traveled to Afganastan on a passpport from Indoniasa and even his ooriginal Hawaiian birthcertificate says that he was born in Kenya and even his wife has said that they were visiting his place of birth when they visited Kenya

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Jun 11 at 2014 12:22 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:22:43 -0400

Perhaps he could cut back on family vacations, that would probably save enough money to give everyone in the service a raise. Most decisions our Commander and Chief makes are enough to give one an ulcer. Cut entitlements, there is enough money to fund the military, VA, and military pensions for the next hundred years.

I wrote an essay a couple years ago about supporting the troops from a government perspective. They are the ones that have the least compassion for our service members and vets.

Some of his decisions leads me to think he wants the military to be at a third world standard.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 11 at 2014 1:07 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:07:45 -0400

SGM,

My thoughts are that he is our Commander and Chief and that he, and the American people, do not care what you or I think...until he messes something up so badly that he has to call us and have us risk our lives to save their ass.

We knew that when we enlisted...or reenlisted, or at least some point we grew up and realized it (I hope)...and did it because we love this country and what it stands for regardless of who is in any one office. May God Bless the United States of America. I think we should all pray for our Commander and Chief...and sometimes I think Psalm 109 is good place to start...just sometimes.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 6:03 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:03:13 -0400

I won't have a problem with it until things start getting real silly. It is fine until they start trying to push people out by cutting back on things that are important like quality training and replacing it with BS work designed to make everyone so miserable that they don't want to be in any more.

I understand that the budget is what it is and you have to make due with what you have. If the options are keep everyone and training and equipment become old or non existent, or cut down the size of the military and keep quality training and equipment, then what is the point of keeping so many people around?

Plus with the wars coming to a close I can't say I didn't see something like this happening.

Response by SGT Mark Rhodes made Jun 12 at 2014 12:38 PM

SGT Mark Rhodes — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:38:58 -0400

This Commander needs to go he is a threat to our great nation and I cannot believe he has been allowed to do the things he has done and not impeached yet