Post: #1

Americans and others what's your take on this? Particularly if they were to close Guantanamo Bay? Your thoughts.....

WASHINGTON - Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday proposed shrinking the U.S. Army to its smallest size in 74 years, closing military bases and making other military-wide savings as part of a broad reshaping after more than a decade of war.

Hagel outlined his vision in a speech at the Pentagon, a week before President Barack Obama is to submit his 2015 budget plan to Congress.

Hagel said that U.S. forces must adjust to the reality of smaller budgets, even as he asserted that the United States faces a more volatile, more unpredictable world that requires a more nimble military.

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centres of power and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and in some instances more threatening to the United States," he said.

Under the Hagel plan, which Congress could change, the active-duty Army would shrink from its current 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would make it the smallest since just before the U.S. entered World War II.

Hagel said Obama's budget proposal will include a government-wide "Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative" that would provide the Pentagon with $26 billion on top of the $496 billion it is due to receive in 2015 under terms of the budget deal passed by the Congress two months ago.

Among the bolder moves in Hagel's proposal is the elimination of the Air Force's fleet of A-10 aircraft as well as its venerable U-2 spy planes, as well as reductions in the size of the Army National Guard. Those moves are expected to draw some opposition in Congress.

Hagel said the administration will propose a new round of domestic military base closings in 2017, while noting that Congress has rejected such requests in recent years.

Army leaders have been saying for months that they expect their service to shrink as the nation prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan this year.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said recently that whatever the future size of the Army, it must adapt to conditions that are different from what many soldiers have become accustomed to during more than a decade of war. He said many have the misperception that the Army is no longer busy.

"People tend to think that the Army is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is not much going on," he said Jan. 23 at an Army forum. "The Army is not standing still. The Army is doing many, many, many things in order for us to shape the future environment and prevent conflict around the world."

The last time the active-duty Army was below 500,000 was in 2005, when it stood at 492,000. Its post-World War II low was 480,000 in 2001, according to historical tables provided by the Army on Monday. In 1940 the Army had 267,000 active-duty members, and it surged to 1.46 million the following year as the U.S. approached entry into World War II.

Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said Monday that Hagel consulted closely with the military service chiefs on how to balance defence and budget-saving requirements.

"He has worked hard with the services to ensure that we continue to stand for the defence of our national interests — that whatever budget priorities we establish, we do so in keeping with our defence strategy and with a strong commitment to the men and women in uniform and to their families, Kirby said.

"But he has also said that we have to face the realities of our time. We must be pragmatic. We can't escape tough choices. He and the chiefs are willing to make those choices," Kirby said.

Post: #2

I agree with the founding fathers that huge standing armies are dangerous to a country's own citizenry.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison

Post: #3

There are a whole lot of shitbags in the Armed Forces. Cut the fat please. My unit has kicked out 30 in the last four months. DUIs, wife beaters, NCOs who have been at that rank for ten plus years. The Navy and Air Force always had it right. If you can't cut it they will kick you out. The Army has been bloated and is finally trimming. Long time coming.

Post: #4

I still think that's a lot of soldiers for a volunteer army.

Post: #5

It's a pretty small number considering the Army has actually been in constant action the past 10+ years. Especially considering the population of the country.

Depends on what sort of actions they plan on using the military for in the future if this move is wise. If they do not plan on holding ground a small army is fine. Thing is, as they found in Iraq, you can blast the fuck out of the enemy with technological superiority.

However, you need boots on the ground to hold that territory you just cleared of the enemy, otherwise he'll just come back. See Falujah as an example.

As far as closing OVERSEAS bases? I have no problem with that. Supporting other countries economies isn't a business we need to be in.

Post: #6

It is a step in the right direction, but it may be too little, too late.

Post: #7

I think they under estimate that A-10's just terrify people regardless of their effectiveness. "We will send this jet with a giant gun that sounds like a satanic buzz saw to get you if you attack" would make agressors think twice. Likely just shooting missiles from a drone is cheaper but that doesn't provide any visible intimidation.

Shrinking the army is one thing (I support that as it seems like conventional warfare vs. another big army isn't likely anymore) but shrinking overall budgets...I don't know if I'm behind that. Maybe one last campaign to annex Canada, the oil sands and the arctic?

Post: #8

I wonder if scraping the F-35 at an early stage would have saved some army bases.

Post: #9

This won't get through the House or Representatives. The Federal Budget exploded with ripoffs like Solyndra, and green energy garbage that was never supposed to work. Why is it that the military and NASA take the hit every time leftists take over? Ask a liberal where budget cuts should come from and they say the military. Then ask them about the National Endowment for the arts and they go ape-shit defending it. Nothing we cut will save us without entitlement reform. Look at the number of people on disability. I was at Wal-Mart a few months back and the EBT system (welfare) was down and you'd have thought the world was about to explode. I was literally surrounded by panicking angry welfare recipients. Troubling...

Post: #10

(02-25-2014 08:48 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  This won't get through the House or Representatives. The Federal Budget exploded with ripoffs like Solyndra, and green energy garbage that was never supposed to work. Why is it that the military and NASA take the hit every time leftists take over? Ask a liberal where budget cuts should come from and they say the military. Then ask them about the National Endowment for the arts and they go ape-shit defending it. Nothing we cut will save us without entitlement reform. Look at the number of people on disability. I was at Wal-Mart a few months back and the EBT system (welfare) was down and you'd have thought the world was about to explode. I was literally surrounded by panicking angry welfare recipients. Troubling...

What's a bigger rip off: Solyndra or the F-35 or the "thousands-of-shelved-military-projects?

I don't know what Walmart has "angry" welfare recipients but if one is doing well...one is not living with those people.

Random comment, I love going to whole foods because I see less fat people. Seeing less fat people makes me feel more "comfortable" and happy.

Post: #11

(02-25-2014 08:48 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  This won't get through the House or Representatives. The Federal Budget exploded with ripoffs like Solyndra, and green energy garbage that was never supposed to work. Why is it that the military and NASA take the hit every time leftists take over? Ask a liberal where budget cuts should come from and they say the military. Then ask them about the National Endowment for the arts and they go ape-shit defending it. Nothing we cut will save us without entitlement reform. Look at the number of people on disability. I was at Wal-Mart a few months back and the EBT system (welfare) was down and you'd have thought the world was about to explode. I was literally surrounded by panicking angry welfare recipients. Troubling...

The left is always yapping about the military. The right is always yapping about welfare.

Fact is we need to (if we want to avoid driving this country off the cliff) shrink federal government massively ACROSS THE BOARD. No sacred cows of the Demorats or Republicons should be spared.

Post: #12

Defense is the only thing the Federal Government is to "provide" for under the Constitution. Welfare should be handled by the states. One day when our country meets a substantial armed threat from overseas from multiple theaters I will look to the U.S. military and not the local food bank for support. We should always err on the side of safety with regards to defending our nation. Increased domestic spending is why this is happening. The U.S. Military isn't the only area of government waste, it's across the board. There's plenty of blame to go around and oversight is always needed. But I'd rather over spend on national security than the Dept. of Education. There's no reason to cut defense when spending is un-paralleled in every other aspect of our budget in the history of the United States.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/...bo-report/
Uzi

Post: #13

From a strategic perspective, consider the following:

The US spends nearly 5% of GDP on defense and veterans benefits every year. China, our nearest competitor, spends roughly 3% of GDP on defense. In a few years, with most of the world's shipbuilding capacity and new technologies at their fingertips, China will be able to build a navy of equal or larger size to America's overnight for a fraction of the cost.

The US has increasingly little in the way of financial maneuverability due to bloated entitlement spending and government's control of economic activity through taxes and regulation.

If a major war happens, and the US needs to issue massive amounts of debt to fund it, we will be hard pressed to do so. When WW1 started, Great Britain was virtually debt free, and even with France and Russia to absorb the brunt of German resistance, she still almost bankrupted herself in the process. WW2 the US took over, and again - debt levels over 120% of GDP.

In my opinion, the only time a government should be allowed to run ANY deficit is during a time congress has declared the country to be in a state of war with another state. No. Other. Reason.

A proper distinction between war and peace has disappeared from our political tool-box since the Korean War. We need to bring it back.

As for closing bases - abroad, yes, absolutely. The US should also pull out of NATO immediately. No need to make the EU feel more empowered than it really is. America should also go for a detente with Russia and China, and split them apart. Russia is a natural American ally. It's only because of our man-boob Presidents and greedy plutocrats that they're not.

As far as military size is concerned, I am in favor of national service. In a time when our society is cracking at the seams, it would serve several important purposes: youth unemployment and it would help socialize young men, instilling in them values and beliefs important for the moral and social cohesion of the country. This might seem far-fetched, but as large parts of the US become Balkanized, like California, it's also important the military is able to deal with simultaneous domestic and foreign enemies swiftly. Because the pool of men is so large, I would limit the draft to men with IQs at 110 or above. This would also ensure mostly non-criminals and low-lifes are not given military training. A military of 25 full-strength divisions (not incl. Marines), 15 carrier battlegroups and several hundred surfarce ships and submarines, as well as thousands of fighter aircraft and enough nukes to ensure even a full-scale Sino-Russian attack would not save them from retribution, and several smaller formations that can be augmented rapidly would be a very effective deterrent if used sparingly, but with all the ferocity that war merits once war is declared. It goes without saying that missile defense should be expanded as rapidly as possible to render China's nuclear armament redundant. Countries who wish to be included under the umbrella should of course pay ample tribute to do so. The EU might as well abolish their armed forces anyways, and pay that 1% of GDP to the US instead.

For the rest, I think everyone should be involved in some kind of national service or charity or peace corps. Even if it's wiping some old hag's butt. Committing yourself, your time is something very different than committing money, and it opens your eyes to many important realities.

Mark Helprin is one of my favorite fiction writers, and also writes very itneresting columns for the Claremont Review of Books (which is one level more intellectual than NR). He gives a very interesting talk about War here.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...elprin.php