Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/army-cut-40000-soldiers-years-150708005037637.html

The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.

40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?

Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?

I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Here is an article from 2014 talking about it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hagel-propose-downsizing-army-smallest-size-decades/

And another:

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

And it was started earlier:

Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno said the downsizing of the Army's active end strength is being accelerated, with plans to drop from 532,530 to 490,000 moved up to 2015 instead of 2017.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/09/army_speeds_up_plans_for_reduc.html

That increase in pace was designed to set up further cuts by 2017.

I suspect this 'news' is being put out yet again as an attempt to rile up the masses and get them to influence their congress critters as they finalize budgets.

Officials warned that if sequestration-level cuts remain in place as of 2016, the Army would be forced to trim down to 420,000 — a level they called unacceptable.

(again from 2014) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-blueprint-would-cut-army-size-as-military-adjusts-to-leaner-budgets/2014/02/24/c029e2b4-9d8d-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

Looks like their simply winding down after Iraq/Afghanistan. As the technology improves less soldiers are neccesary.

Although honestly in all mllitaries simply culling the fairly useless members would be more efficient IMO so your crusty old guys who arent relevant and all the fatties etc.

 CptJake wrote:
Here is an article from 2014 talking about it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hagel-propose-downsizing-army-smallest-size-decades/

And another:

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

And it was started earlier:

Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno said the downsizing of the Army's active end strength is being accelerated, with plans to drop from 532,530 to 490,000 moved up to 2015 instead of 2017.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/09/army_speeds_up_plans_for_reduc.html

That increase in pace was designed to set up further cuts by 2017.

I suspect this 'news' is being put out yet again as an attempt to rile up the masses and get them to influence their congress critters as they finalize budgets.

Officials warned that if sequestration-level cuts remain in place as of 2016, the Army would be forced to trim down to 420,000 — a level they called unacceptable.

(again from 2014) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-blueprint-would-cut-army-size-as-military-adjusts-to-leaner-budgets/2014/02/24/c029e2b4-9d8d-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

Fair points, but given that Russia seems to be up to its old tricks again, China's flexing its muscles, and of course, the ME never seems to go away, is it wise for the US army to lose 4 divisions worth of troops?

Personally, I don't blame the Americans for pulling the plug on the Middle East, and my own country, alongside France and Germany, should shoulder the burden of defence in Europe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Looks like their simply winding down after Iraq/Afghanistan. As the technology improves less soldiers are neccesary.

Although honestly in all mllitaries simply culling the fairly useless members would be more efficient IMO so your crusty old guys who arent relevant and all the fatties etc.

That's not a new problem for the US military, or any military. I read that during the Vietnam war, only around 1 in 10 American troops were frontline soldiers. The rest were cooks, mechanics, etc etc

Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.

China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.

Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.

China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.

Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).

A reasoned assessment, but as you know, a presidential election is coming up, and candidates tend to say all sorts of wild and crazy things in order to gain votes, including daft things about foreign policy.

Even WITH China and Russia becoming more belligerent, the USA NEEDS to recognize that it is over-spending on our Military for a Military that is not actively engaged in an actual war.

Our previous deployments in the 00s were ridiculously inefficient (using far too many Reserves), and pandered a little too heavily to the Private Sector.

We just do not need a military budget that is larger than the seven largest military budgets beneath us combined.

Getting rid of two Carrier Strike Groups would also be an excellent cost-savings, given developing drone technologies that can be deployed from Submarines, Frigates, or Destroyers.

Also, even though it has been hugely criticized for its expense to date, the F-35 will see decreasing military costs as we get into the 20s, as our aging fleet of current aircraft are retired, and the smaller fleet of F-35s will be capable of fulfilling their roles at a lower cost (and this does not include the savings from AACAV drones that will be entering service in the 20s as well, which will be able to carry out missions impossible with a piloted craft at a fraction of the cost).

We need to start streamlining our Military.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, what little else I agree with him on, Dreadclaw is correct regarding the role of these soldiers, and the various actors we face (or supposed allies, such as Turkey - although Saudi Arabia is a far bigger problem than Turkey).

MB

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.

indeed.

China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.

The US has no interest here other than trade. The chickenhawks are pushing us towards a confrontation.

Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).

I think "GET TO DA CHOPPA!" is the best policy here. revisit the issue in 250 years.

Not to mention that with the very idea of invading mainland China utterly ludicrous, the Army is not the most important branch of the armed forces in the power struggle with China. It is in fact the Navy, followed closely by the Air Force.

well since america is outspending the next 10 country in military spending, they could cut back a bit.

But like america they start at the bottom, instead of not building more tanks just to store in the desert

Given your not currently at war, there is no need to maintain a wartime scale force, and units can be reactivated and trained in times there needed.

Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.

HAHAHAHAH no Bureaucracy ever voluntarily gave up power. Have faith.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.

HAHAHAHAH no Bureaucracy ever voluntarily gave up power. Have faith.

I know it. Bet dollars to donuts most of these cuts do not affect anyone in the Pentagon.

In contrast, the Pentagon is going to build a new wing. How you ask? Well they'll just have to rebuild the whole thing....

Hey whats a few $500 hammers between friends.

The US's role as hegemon is going to be less powerful as time goes by, which is inevitable given China's ascension to global great power status, and other regional powers. That won't change our status as global hegemon.

Industrialized powers just don't engage in all out shooting wars any more. Nuclear weapons are a deterrant, as is the sheer destructive power of the conventional weapons. Even without nukes, there is no scenario for total war between industrialized powers that does not leave both ravaged by bombings. As hegemon, the US still prevents those all out wars, at least not involving any of our allies. (I'm aware this is a slipperty definition, as African wars are quite nasty, and India/Pakistan have fought numerous border wars)

Much of the remaining conflict is not the wars of conquest and imperialism that dominated from the 30 years war through World War II. This is admittedly eurocentric, but increasingly States are not engaging in war with States.

The future of war is States vs. non-States, or even Non-State vs. Non-state. It's civil wars, revoluationay wars, and wars of resistence. It's freedom fighters and terrorists. No Hegemony on earth has put down a resistance without engaging in whole sale slaughter.

The role of the US is changing, but it's not a decline. Sure, other actors are catching up, at least economically, but no nation has the web of alliances and the projection power to actually influence events gobally.

A US Army division is between 10,000 and 18,000 soldiers. So technically they won't lose ANY divisions, they will just downsize subordinate units to meet the manpower goals.

Anyone who thinks you don't need an army and can rely on airpower (Drones and Airplanes) has never studied military history. Boots on the ground win wars, not airplanes.

As far as is this a sign of the US losing power? no. After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.

If you really think that industrialized countries won't fight a "Shooting" war against one another then again, you need to read more history.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.

Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

 Ghazkuul wrote:
A US Army division is between 10,000 and 18,000 soldiers. So technically they won't lose ANY divisions, they will just downsize subordinate units to meet the manpower goals.

Anyone who thinks you don't need an army and can rely on airpower (Drones and Airplanes) has never studied military history. Boots on the ground win wars, not airplanes.

How many wars have boots on the ground won for the US since World War II? It wasn't a lack of manpower that prevented us from succeeding in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It was the nature of the war. Infantry will do better, but nothing is going to end tribal/religious violence from the outside.

If you really think that industrialized countries won't fight a "Shooting" war against one another then again, you need to read more history.

The nature of mutual destruction makes that increasingly unlikely though, right? How does any war between, say, the US and China end? We bomb their means of production and C&C. We gain air superiority as far as our carrer groups can reach, and probably capture a coastal city or two. Partisans alone make venturing into the country side untenable, much less the People's Army. The more China industrializes, the more they have targets we can destroy that actually hurt them. Even if we agreed to some lukewarm armistace, our populace and infrastructure would be unaffected, and they'd have a ruined infrastructure and crazy domestic strife. And that's before you start thinking about nuclear weapons!

Having a military is wise, and there may come a day when there are major wars between industrial powers. It's tough to see it happening in the next decade though.

Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.

Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

US ARMY SIZE BY YEAR

1996 491,103
1997 491,707
1998 483,880
1999 479,426
2000 482,170
2001 480,801
2002 486,542
2003 499,301

So PRIOR to 9/11 the US military was DOWNSIZING and their was a flux by year but if you look overall the numbers were decreasing. AFTER 9/11 the numbers spiked pretty rapidly. And at its peak in 2010 the US army alone was at 566,045.

If you look at military size throughout those same years I posted you can see the downsizing even more noticeably

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.

Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

US ARMY SIZE BY YEAR

1996 491,103
1997 491,707
1998 483,880
1999 479,426
2000 482,170
2001 480,801
2002 486,542
2003 499,301

So PRIOR to 9/11 the US military was DOWNSIZING and their was a flux by year but if you look overall the numbers were decreasing. AFTER 9/11 the numbers spiked pretty rapidly. And at its peak in 2010 the US army alone was at 566,045.

If you look at military size throughout those same years I posted you can see the downsizing even more noticeably

Yes, but there was never even intent to go down to 450-440k at that point. In fact 1999 was when they realized they had cut a bit too deeply and revamped a few things as a result.

So, even using your numbers, we are not " downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11. " We are going quite a bit below that.

Can you post a source for your information that the Military was going to stop downsizing? because it was my understanding that they were still in the process of downsizing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
regardless I think the numbers going down even further are a result of recent advances in the military technology and the fact that we pulled HUGE numbers of soldiers back from foreign bases and we just don't need 500k soldiers. I believe the USMC is even thinking of dropping as low as 150,000

In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780,000 to 480,000 active duty end strength. Many in Congress wanted to increase the Army's end strength by as much as 40,000 troops in order to ease the strain of deployments. But the Army's top general, Peter Schoomaker, adamantly opposed adding end strength. Army planners believe the service can gain 10,000 spaces from military to civilian conversions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

January 4, 1999

ARMY ANNOUNCES FINAL DOWNSIZE PHASE PLAN

The Army today announced the final phase of the Active Component downsizing program to meet the goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panel recommendations. These final active duty reductions will reduce the force to an end-strength of 480,000 soldiers.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/docs/r19990104texton~1.htm

By March 1994 the Bottom Up Review had taken effect, and the Army accepted the loss of two of twelve divisions with an end-strength target of 495,000.

...

Changes in unit MTOEs were expected to offset the reductions, however, since mission requirements remained the same units began doing more with less. The Army began to resemble the hollow force of the 1970s.
Army recruiters began to feel the pinch of the rapid downsizing effort. In 1999 Army recruiters were tasked with recruiting 90,000 new soldiers. The total was 20,000 more than the previous year, an overall increase of 28.6 percent.35 However, the Army fell nearly 1,000 recruits short of its goal in Fiscal Year 1998 and over 6,000 short in Fiscal Year 1999.

dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415899

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Army once again reduced its size during the early 1990s, going from 780,000 soldiers to 480,000.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Downsizing-the-Army-Profession/2013/05/08

Some good replies there from people in the know. I've been on Wikipedia looking at the US army (not exactly an authority, I know )

According to Wikipedia, the US army has 10 active divisions, a heap of command organisations, and a lot of bloated departments by the look of things. Maybe some of that could be cut back.

Wikipedia also lists 335,000 National Guard, and 195,000 in army reserve.

How good are these reserve troops and guard units?

I read a book about the 101st in Iraq, and they were scathing about the national guard units they replaced. Is this criticism justified, or are they generally effective for what they do.

In the UK, we had a problem with reserve troops at the front line in Afghanistan, for a few years. They didn't get enough time to train properly.

And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

 CptJake wrote:
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself

As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself

As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

Perhaps you could save money by making the guards and reserves better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

Wouldn't it be better to have fewer, but better trained troops?

For example, the 101st, 82nd, Rangers etc al, are obviously Crack infantry troops. Wouldn't it be better to have more of them?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself

As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

Perhaps you could save money by making the guards and reserves better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.

The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.

Wouldn't it be better to have fewer, but better trained troops?

For example, the 101st, 82nd, Rangers etc al, are obviously Crack infantry troops. Wouldn't it be better to have more of them?

Guard and Reserve units get a bum rap. Not all are bad, some are darned good, especially many of the NG units which have deployed multiple times in the last 20 years or so (with Kosovo/Baltic deployments, Sinai peace keeping missions, and deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan). Not all are ( or realistically can) be as good as full time troops, but they have done decently given the resources allocated and the demands put upon them.

As for 'better trained troops'. Great idea, and one being done. Every unit (including the ones you mention) go through cycles. Prep to deploy, deploy, recovery from deployment. Units in 'recovery' don;t get a lot of training resources. Units prepping to deploy work up from individual/small unit (squad/platoon) through collective/big unit training events (through at least BCT though there have been several Division exercises lately). Training is aligned with their projected mission set AND the specific AO they will be going to. So, Arty and Armor units for example have not been getting a lot of large scale Typical War/Decisive Action training, but that has begun to change over the last couple of years (see the current heavy and Stryker rotations to EUCOM AO for example, and both NTC and JRTC have been refocussing rotational units on decisive action phases lately).

For a while the cycle was so fast and vicious that anything other than COIN type training (be it counter insurgency/nation building/advise and assist) just didn't happen. We've gotten back on track, but big unit training, especially for mechanized units is expensive. A lot of simulation and confederated simulations are on line which help to mitigate cost to some extent. For example, Son2's BCT recently took part in a division level exercise. Most of the units were nothing but bits/bytes in sim world, but there was interaction with the live units and to the trained staffs it was pretty invisible which were which.

When you look at the military's budge though, you have to remember all the armed forces is just 20% of the budget.

construction is 30%, weather the armed forces asked for new equipment or not, as seen here:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/
" It includes $181 million for tanks the Army doesn't want or need now"

Think if they sent that money to the VA instead.