Chuck Hagel Proposes Downsizing US Amry to Pre-WWII Size

There are a lot of common sense changes that we could be making to cut costs in our military. The first thing I'd do is eliminate all the duplicated efforts. Get rid of the branches and organize the military in a manner that is efficient. No more Navy pilots, Marine pilots, Army pilots, Coast Guard pilots and Air Force pilots - just pilots. No more multiple military intelligence services. No more duplicated boot camps (send everyone to one big-ass boot camp and from there they get the specialized training needed for their field, not their "branch". Yeah, I know this flies in the face of long-standing traditions, but we can't afford to keep paying the kind of money we are paying to support these traditions. We need to make out military a leaner, more efficient war machine.

 

I don't.

I agree with the great George C. Scott line in the movie Patton where the general said he does not expect American soldiers to die for their country.

Instead we prefer that our people live and the enemy die for their country instead.

Just a movie I know.

But the logic is irrefutable.

 

I couldn't care less about other countries. But I understand treaty obligations.

Article I section 8 clause 12.

 

But it is not total spending. It is about one third of the total budget and more than half of the discretionary spending that has to be authorized by congress year after year after year.

Not saying the military should be non discretionary, but you are playing number games here.

 

When we had the small standing army that Hagel is proposing now did that keep us out of WWII?

 

If we cut out military in half, we would still have the best military.

 

Which is of course a meaningless figure. We also have a $700 billion dollar budget deficit.

If those programs support the citizenry, they are perfectly legitimate.

 

Uh, I've proven we are the largest military........http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2013-6?op=1

 

Just 3.8 of the economy to the military. 37%+ to other BS. If te military is unsustainable all that other stuff you like that is ten times more expensive is unsustainable isn't it?

If the "discretionary" part makes you upset, just mandate military spending. That will solve your issue.

 

You are confusing logic with delusion.

 

Do they? Hard data to show they are worth it? Why are you OK with taking from some to give to others but not Ok with providing for a common defense?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't post things just because you are bored. Go back and explain why you think it is delusional.

 

No we are not.

 

We all knew that in total spending. You said largest then the next 20 combined though didnt you?

 

In said section, there is the necessary and proper clause which allows Congress to pass laws that meet the basic tenet of the clause you are referring to. To provide and support can and does mean a standing army if Congress authorizes a standing army through the Constitutional process. And congress did that when in our first years we had only 700 total troops form 1787 to 1812. It was after the War of 1812 that our leaders realized we needed a standing army and navy. .

 

Exactly. We have no business being involved in foreign affairs. What goes on in Syria, Iraq, or Zambia is of no consequence to us. Our Founders created the US Coast Guard in 1789 to protect our shores. The rest of the Nation's security belongs to state/local militias.

Let's do as I said before and, like you said, be rid of the UN. America for Americans of all stripes. That's when we'll have peace and prosperity.

 

I'm willing to cut the military budget and share the responsibility for the deaths of future American soldiers later.

But part of the deal has to include proportional cuts to the social welfare programs also.

No cuts for the military unless libs share the pain.

 

Has nobody ever learned from history in this administration? Every single time we down size our military within a few years we need exactly what we cut, its like clock work... Bravo for the military hating morons who never learn!

 

They do not have a "difficult" time adjusting to a normal life... they are unfit for society. Hence them losers aint part of it. And it's the army who made them to be like that. I wouldn't call it some incident when well over 100.000 may not be part of society.

Anybody that suggest that the US must have some army base on Japan, because otherwise China will attack Japan, ... is IMHO out of it's f*cking mind. China has aboslutely no history of being or ever planning to be some new world order oppressing other nations.

And closing down the Japanese base, doesnt mean isolation one bit. You can have perfectly normal strong economic ties without the guns.

right... a life of unskilled labour. What a great perspective.

So what. Japan is still world 4th biggest economy. It's a big boy and they are in no imminent danger what so ever to be over run by anybody.

I understand the reasons. They are just exceptionally far fetched. It's almost right there with protecting Japan vs an alian invasion. There is no need.

 

China, Russia, NK, the ME states. Unlike the days of WW2 when rifled soldiers made up the larger part of the forces now a 400,000 member force would be able to field about 100,000. How many do you think China could field? And if war broke out between us and China and then Russia decided to take advantage we would not be able to stop them.

 

The Peace Dividend was started under Bush Sr, continued with a GOP House and Senate when Clinton was in office and concluded when GWB was president and ended in 2005.

 

I'm not out of my mind.

Stationing troops in Japan and Korea is crucial to demonstrating to those countries they we intend to stand by them in a crisis.

Two wars with India, one with Vietnam and the occupation of Tibet suggest otherwise.

 

Maybe we should stop invading other countries on fake pretenses then?

 

The Indians and Vietnamese didn't have any problem defending themselves and Tibet never had a military. Should we invade Tibet?

 

I asked the libs a question that none of them has responded to.

Did the small army we had in 1940 keep us out of WWII?

 

In other words, you have a job that depends upon the military budget.

There's no deal to be made. You don't seem to have a problem screwing your fellow citizens so a select few can profit. How magnanimous.

I'm not a lib but you are a fake conservative. Maybe you and your buds should volunteer to serve pro-bono, you'll get quarters and a meal card and won't have to worry about anything.