Pentagon Proposes Pre-World War II Level for Army
Pentagon Proposes Pre-World War II Level for Army by Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper, New York Times
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, described by several Pentagon officials on the condition of anonymity in advance of its release on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations…
Sounds like hyperbole. The Army strength was 269,023 in 1940. I will be suprised if the number proposed is that low.
When the cost of troops salaries and benefits is now close to 30% of the entire DoD O/M budget and climbing fast especially on the healthcare side—something has to give somewhere.
Will be interesting to see just how many of the hundreds of thousand DoA civilians will also be cut—that has not been talked about.
Also not a word of cuts to the thousands of defense contractors who in fact act as slot fillers where the DoA does not have the manpower.
a. With the new understanding that the great nations of Russia and China will not, as we originally thought, (1) transform more quickly and completely along modern western lines and (2) cooperate with us by helping to, likewise, transform other outlying states and societies. (Herein, Russia and China seeming to be more interested in “containing” the United States and doing so, for example, by championing the “conservative” values and causes of other outlying states and societies.)
b. And with the understanding that the populations of these other outlying states and societies, themselves, will not, as we initially thought (if liberated from their oppressive regimes/governments), quickly, easily and, mostly on their own, adopt our way of life, our way of governance and our values, attitudes and beliefs.
Because of these new understandings (which seem to negate the “end of history” thinking that, post-the Cold War, came to dominate strategy, foreign policy and military plans, operations and force structure), the United States has had to reconsider its future way forward.
Based on these new understandings — outlined at “a” and “b” above — the United States has moved to adopt a much less-optimistic (and, thus, a much less-aggressive) approach re: its strategy, foreign policy and military plans and operations.
This much less-optimistic and, thus, much less-aggressive approach helping to explain — not only the reductions/changes in our military force structure (such as those being discussed here) — but also the time frame (much longer) in which we hope to complete the transformation of such states and societies as those of China, Russia, Afghanistan, etc.
Stop buying the gadgets we don’t need use or want. Stop paying for 5 billion dollar uniforms. Stop paying defense contractors for ideas that are not practical at this time. Why pay 100 million on a rifle we never are getting in a useful window?
Stop throwing away money on wonder weapons, like Hitler did. Focus on realistic equipment. We need solid cutting edge equipment that is top of the line and works.
Not batman bet of gadgits.
This article is intentionally titled in an alarmist, inaccurate way. The secretary is calling for an army that is by a small margin the smallest army POST-WWII; but is nearly double the size of the Army that we had in 1940.
250,000 is the size of Army that worked for Great Britain prior to WWI.
250,000 is the size of Army that worked for the US prior to WWII.
Given our current shifting of duties to Army civilians and contractors it is reasonable to assume that 250,000 is an adequate size for our Army today. But that is not what Secretary Hagel said, in fact this is what he said yesterday:
“Finally, the Army. We seek a highly ready and capable Army, able to dominate any opponent across the full spectrum of operations. To achieve this, the Army must accelerate the pace and increase the scale of its postwar drawdown. Today, there are about 520,000 active-duty soldiers, which the Army had planned to reduce to 490,000.
However, the Strategic Choices and Management Review and the QDR both determined that since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy. Given reduced budgets, it is also larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready. We have decided to further reduce active-duty Army end strength to a range of 440,000 to 450,000 soldiers.”
Personnel costs at 30-40% of the budget is within the bounds of what most other industries have for expenses.
Yes, healthcare costs are eating a larger share of the budget and its alarming, as it is for every other employer in America. Thats a nationwide healthcare problem which isn’t going to get fixed by DOD budgeting.