Chuck Hagel Proposes Downsizing US Amry to Pre-WWII Size

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?hp

It's noted in the article that 'some members of congress have vowed to block the budget and personnel cuts" and that shrinking the military will make it difficult to deal with 2 simultaneous wars as we have been engaged in recently.

 

In the long run there is little choice. It's not politics, it's just math. I'm sure we can defend ourselves from invented and created enemies by not inventing or creating them and spending money more wisely.

 

Sounds good to me...

The one problem we might have is figuring out what all of the people who are getting paid to be in the military will do if we make major cut backs.

 

About time.

 

Logical.....what enemy requires the massive military we have now?

Iran? Even if Charles "Dr. Strangelove" Krauthammer got his massive bombing campaign, it wouldn't take but the Tomahawks, bunker busters, and B-2s that we have now.

North Korea? The Chubby Grandson would be vaporized within minutes of the DPROK military firing across the DMZ.....he's stupid, but he's not that stupid.

Russia? We WON the Cold War, remember? The Russians only care about getting RICH (like we do)....selling their gas and oil to Europe...and dating American models.

China? You don't kill the Goose That Lays the Golden T-Bills....or buys your crap for the shelves of Wal-mart. Why go to war with us...when they can "buy us out"?

 

Billions of dollars will be saved. Give that money to America's poor.

 

So the solution is sound from a Pentagon budget perspective by staying within their box, but what happens to all those thousands of people hitting the job market for jobs that aren't available? Good thing is they'll be ex-military with work ethic, skills and an understanding of how to work and fit into an organization with some great leadership skills to back them up, but if we don't have the jobs they're able to fill we're just pushing the problem to another part of the economy.

 

A huge problem with our current military is that too many people join as infantry or other low skill personnel because they need a job. They come out with little to no practical skills, and still need a job. Our military has been misused that way.
There are other ways to offer the same people work that could be much more doable with the lower military budget. Look at our infrastructure, and the answer that is provided by bringing back the Conservation Core. There are huge projects that need to be built if this country is to remain viable in the future. The current drought in the West should tell us that we need to make serious progress on retention of rainfall.
Our current disproportionate defense spending is NOT a sign of responsible social stewardship!

 

I oppose even consideration of such measures until we get all the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, completely. These kinds of cuts during operations invariably impact deployed servicemembers. I felt the pinch of cuts myself when I was in the service.

 

I concur. We have major problems that will continue to worsen and we have the manpower sitting idle to do that work, much of it without the skill or education to do more advanced work. We have a highway (interstate) system that is choked and in many places just cannot carry the volume of traffic required. We have major water shortages in CA as you mentioned, but less sever water shortages all over the country. We have bridges in need of repair and/or replacement, many of which are considered to be at critical points of needing those repairs. Lots of infrastructure that needs attention, lots of people needing work, but no funding to put those two together. My suggestion all along has been that if we're to invest via deficit spending regardless of how we feel about it, why not do so in a way that employs people on a large scale instead of pumping banks with liquidity while they already are sitting on excess reserves (that we pay interest on)?

Those types of jobs wouldn't be permanent, but they'd teach the workers skills by using their hands, machinery, learning or employing leadership skills, etc. Anything is better than sending folks home to sit and take in federal dollars for no productive output if we can use their manpower and improve our nation by doing so.

 

A bigger problem is how badly run the VA is. The Post 9/11 GI Bill is a great program and is sufficient (or at least basically sufficient) to help veterans like the ones you mentioned get a real education. It puts so much down for tuition that even at pricy private schools most veterans have full coverage after institutional aid, and it provides a housing allowance according to the cost of living in the area while the veteran is in school. The problem with it is that it's only while the veteran is in school. The VA doesn't give the housing allowance during summer break, spring break, Christmas break, any break, really. The expectation is that veterans will pick up work to pay their cost of living when school is out, whether it be one week or a couple months. It's not so easy to pick up temp work like that, and so I've known veterans that don't use the GI Bill b/c of that.

Now I'm single, I can manage my funds fine enough to carry through the breaks, but veterans with families to support aren't in that position, so the GI Bill essentially excludes veterans with kids. An increase in GI Bill funding of about 8% would be enough to cover veterans for the full time while they're in school. Do that, and it'll be realistic for more vets, and you won't have these unskilled vets that still get stuck in dead end jobs and don't use their GI Bill.

 

Funny, because as a grunt with two deployments to Iraq. Not only did I have to preform tasks as a war fighter, I also delt with communications gear, played cop, crime scene investigator, community organizer, helped direct civil projects, helped task out basic services like trash pickup, negotiator between certian factions. Just some of the jobs us dumb ol' infantry guys managed to do.

 

No, make them earn it. Don't just "give" it to them.

 

Start with the fraud and waste and work from there. Cut back but do so with the R & D scams going on.

Stop giving money away and stop playing favorites with the too large to fail crowd and more businesses will pop up. That's what happens when competition is allowed to exist. Unfortunately the best government corporate money can buy has spent the last 40 years eliminating their competition with over regulation and idiotic legislation that does nothing but kill small businesses.

 

I like it.

 

Bluespade- I served for 8 years in the Navy. During that time, I worked on virtually every Naval vessel in the Pacific, and a coupla' Merchant Marine ships as well. Of course, I had collateral duties, just like you.
When I got out, I was qualified to work in steel fabrication, and I did. I never made an impressive wage, but I did remain employed, back when steel fab was a viable trade in this country. Since the military, the only gov. check I have ever received has been income tax returns.
By whatever means, we need to bring the Blue Collar back to America.

 

What?

Are there no Neo-cons or elderly Cold Warriors left who will try to make the case we need three new squadrons of F-35 JS fighters and two more armored divisions and a brand-new nuclear aircraft carrier....

to take on a truck bomber in a Kabul marketplace????

 

Hopefully we put this money right back into education and infrastructure. Because a lot of people will be losing jobs. Other than that I think this is a great move. It's truly about time we started taking steps to reduce our military's size. Fact is we are dealing with the most peaceful time the planet has seen in nearly 100 years. I know it doesn't feel that way when the news is all about all the conflicts all over the world. But those are all small time compared to the large scale super power battles of yesteryear. It's time to downsize. We can still deal with the smaller conflicts with a small military.

 

The poor have already earned it. America was built on the backs of their ancestors. Due to past and present social injustices, America's poor are fully deserving of compensation and a comfortable retirement.

 

Unfortunately the only places those skills fit outside of the military are police and security. The cops were telling me I need to be able to shoot people in the back (explains a lot about the PPB actually) so I ended up doing security. Luckily you have the GI bill, and that will help you go wherever you want. Im making just over 60k now and another friend, also an infantryman, is getting ready to start at a higher wage when he graduates.

Sorry but as wide as the infantrymans skills are (who else who didnt go to med school can administer an IV?) they dont apply well to the civilian world outside of police and security.

 

The problem is that such an experience gives a good broad skill set, but lacks a valuable specific skill set. That's why civilian groups are slow to give credit to veterans who had some experience in an area which wasn't their specialty and which they didn't have significant training, but are quick to give credit to the Navy's nuclear engineers, to cryptos, etc. I was in much the same position. I was a deck seaman and then a quartermaster, I was an NCO, am skilled in navigation and analyzing data, I maintained the digital charts for the largest warship in the world, manned the helm of the largest warship in the world, have thousands of hours driving navy vehicles for varied purposes (safe ride, duty van, liberty routes. But, for all that, the most I'll get is, "that's cool" and "well that fits well into what we want, but you'll still have to undergo the same training as all the other unskilled workers entering this job and get the same pay." :/

It sucks, but a lot of civilian employers are kinda idiots. Vets are some of the best workers (really, who the hell works 100+ hours/week in obscene conditions like we did?), but a lot of civilian employers just don't know how to assess the value of veteran experience because there aren't enough of us. How much of the population are GWOT era veterans? 1%?

 

For the most part I agree. But on the other hand the supervisory skills I've learned in the military, has helped me in the civilian job market.

 

That is true. Leadership skills are the big one get to take anywhere

 

def time to downsize....past time really

 

Sounds good. Question, has a liberal EVER proposed a cut in anything other than the military?? It's no wonder everyone in the military hates liberals. I'm sure all that saved money will be given to welfare recipients so they can continue their dreams of smoking dope and playing video games. Good deal libs.