Pentagon To Propose Shrinking Army

brianlux

Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/pentagon-army_n_4844656.html

Pentagon To Propose Shrinking Army, Scrapping Some Jets: Report

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will propose on Monday a reduction in the size of the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War Two and scrapping a class of Air Force attack jets, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

The plans, which the paper said were outlined by several Pentagon officials on condition of anonymity, would be aimed at reducing defense spending in the face of government austerity after a pledge by President Barack Obama to end U.S. involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would leave the military capable of defeating any enemy but too small for long foreign occupations, and would involve greater risk if U.S. forces were asked to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time.

"You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war," the Times quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying.

It added that some of the plans may face political opposition in Congress, but quoted the officials as saying that they had the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

unsung

We have over 900 military bases around the world, I support closing most of them. That's one of the main reasons I supported Ron Paul.

I'm tired of us being empire builders.

rgambs

unsung said:

We have over 900 military bases around the world, I support closing most of them. That's one of the main reasons I supported Ron Paul.

I'm tired of us being empire builders.

i couldn't agree with you more!

Jason P

It's misleading the public that we are somehow getting dratically smaller. A few less troops the army, but we will still be just as big as ever when you account for the other branches. And will be spending just as much taxpayer money as ever.

Cosmo

At some point... let's hope that America quits trying to be the modern replacement of Ancient Rome.

brianlux

Jason P said:

It's misleading the public that we are somehow getting dratically smaller. A few less troops the army, but we will still be just as big as ever when you account for the other branches. And will be spending just as much taxpayer money as ever.

Good point, Jason. Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that much of this is about shifting away from land based wars which is the Army's main role.

mickeyrat

opposition will come from states (read southern) with large Army presence. House has voted to keep spending levels the same for certain things that the Army has said it doesnt need. its about jobs in the south and the bloated gov contracts that the military brings.. Shift the ficus away from defense in a significant way. Save most or spend a little to encourage other manufacturing.

oysterjar

This is purely a political move and as stated by others will not save any money for the taxpayer. I see this as an opportunity to cut dead weight within the Army and spend more in other areas of the DOD.

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

We have over 900 military bases around the world, I support closing most of them. That's one of the main reasons I supported Ron Paul.

I'm tired of us being empire builders.

could not agree with you more.

but proposing and doing are different things. it is one thing to float the idea but implementing it is a completely different thing.

Jason P

rgambs

i agree that it is all talk, but it sure as hell beats the endless prattling about cutting social security!