Forum Thread

Pentagon plans to shrink army to lowest level in 70 years

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    New York Times, February 23, 2014: Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

    The New York Times is reporting that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to take the Pentagon off a war footing by cutting the army down to a level of 440,00 to 450,000 troops, and also eliminate the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 attack aircraft amongst other cost cutting budget proposals. The army level will be the lowest since the early 1940s.

    The cuts are in line with the Bipartisan Budget Act passed by Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015.

    The cuts are indicative of a shift in the way the USA fights wars focusing more heavily on Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare and less on combat boots on the ground.

    It's a step in the right direction, but I expect certain members of Congress and organizations will oppose the moves.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Personally I see this coming back to bite us in the end. Like it or not we are at war. However that being said we do need to balance the budget in this country and this is one way to do it. Its going to be done, I just hope that they have an exception if we are attacked, allowing an emergency budget. If that's in there, go for it. (To quote the author John Rhingo, not to be confused with the singer John Ringo, "The problem with emergency plans is they always forget the emergency")
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We currently spend more the money in defense than the next 23 countries combine and 20 of those countries are our allies. It is extremely unlikely that it will bite us in the ass. Also, the special ops does seem more efficient than full blown evasions in recent decades.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote: We currently spend more the money in defense than the next 23 countries combine and 20 of those countries are our allies. It is extremely unlikely that it will bite us in the ass. Also, the special ops does seem more efficient than full blown evasions in recent decades.
    Yes this country has been on a ridiculous track; none of the wars after WWII changed this country for the better; only destruction and loss of life,while none of these countries attacked us. Jumping into any conflicts outside the US should stop; the UN was set up to deal with that , not us.

    I agree however that a task force of rapid deployment should be the main element of any force we retain. Of course we should retain our nuclear and other capabilities, just in case some "Hitler" type wants to concur the world. But it should be a structure which is efficient and not like now,spent like crazy on equipment which is more "hobby" like and is set up just to be able to satisfy the lobbyists of the war industry.

    The most ridiculous part is right now, that they spent our tax money on add's to join the Army, with false advertising. ( It paints this "job" as heaven on earth) Better advertise on how our people return from Afghanistan; no arms or legs or out of their minds, without finding a real job.!!

    The money which can be saved should be used for infrastructure and education, in order to put the veterans back to real work,which really benefits the country instead of useless wars.

    However I like to add,that old buzzerts like Mc Cain will object, because of his lobby friends at the industry. Also the stripes and sticker freaks who love uniforms and AK 47's; plenty of those war lovers around, so I would not jump of joy yet.