Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Army 'to cut 40,000 troops by the end of 2017'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Army 'to cut 40,000 troops by the end of 2017'

    The US Army is planning to reduce the size of its force by 40,000 soldiers over the next two years, according to US media reports.

    The cost-cutting exercise will also see an additional 17,000 civilian employees cut from the army.

    The reported plan would see the US troop level drop to about 450,000 soldiers by the end of 2017.

    The US army had about 570,000 troops in 2012 at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The army would have to cut a further 30,000 troops if automatic budget cuts known as sequestration come into effect in October, according to USA Today.
    BBC - Full Article

  • #2
    If it's saving us money. I think we've been spending enough for now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Recycled news, we discussed this back in February 2014:

      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. Hagelís proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us...evel.html?_r=0
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        We will have the national police force that the Jackass in Chief is putting together to protect us soon, so we won't be needing that 40,000 anyway
        Don't waste your time always searching for those wasted years...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by drivin-fool View Post
          We will have the national police force that the Jackass in Chief is putting together to protect us soon, so we won't be needing that 40,000 anyway
          The FBI?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by drivin-fool View Post
            We will have the national police force that the Jackass in Chief is putting together to protect us soon, so we won't be needing that 40,000 anyway
            I don't know, I think our military is a little too overstaffed. The only two major powers that could pose a threat to us are a close trade partner and a pretty defensive Bear located on opposite sides of the world, and one of them doesn't even have a good navy; unless a surprise invasion from Canada or Mexico is coming, we don't need so many soldiers around. You'd think a reduction in troops would appease the "coming martial law" conspiracy theorists.

            Damn Canucks and Mexicanos. I knew we couldn't trust 'em.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
              I don't know, I think our military is a little too overstaffed.
              It isn't really a matter of being too overstaffed but over deployed. This is only Army stats from 2012:

              http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...ments-overseas

              From the USMC side, they have been told to reduce the force by roughly 30k yet the deployment tempo has increased with new deployments to Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Central America. The Embassy Guard has doubled in force because of Benghazi. An example of how this is screwing things up, when I was the Detachment Commander in Bangui I had myself and 5 Marines (1/5) present. The post was a high threat post yet that was enough to hold the door until the MEU arrived. I ended up closing down the post. Now they just reopened it with the same threat designation but it is a 1/12 manned post.

              I have no issues with the cuts except the priorities have to match the reality of the cuts.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #8
                I have seen how these cuts effect individuals who having dedicated their lives to defending the nation and are left with no marketable skills.

                Everyday I see vets living under bridges and I understand that they made bad choices but we don't need to compound the problem of lack of respect for the military by discarding people that have done everything we asked them to do.

                Military cuts need to be carefully considered in terms of the effect it will have on individuals not just the bottom line.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  At the rate we're going we'll all be banging our heads on the ground while mooning a rock in a box five times a day soon anyway...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    At the rate we're going we'll all be banging our heads on the ground while mooning a rock in a box five times a day soon anyway...
                    Why would you moon a rock?

                    Or do you mean the Rock?


                    I wouldn't recommend mooning him either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You have to watch the Pentagon carefully. They tend to cut enlisted men and add generals at the same time. The Air Force recently cut something like 30K to 40K maintenance workers and then went to Congress saying they had to cut A-10's because they did not have enough maintenance workers to cover the A-10 and F-35 Fleets. What they left out is they created 24 more generals while RIF'ing the enlisted men. My bet is the Army, Navy and Air Force could reduce the number of Generals by at least 50 each and still operate fine. You can also prune the Marines by 15 or so.

                      Another way to save money is to use Brevet Ranks. Once you make Colonel you spend some time as a Brevet Brigadier General before you make that rank permanent. Also, all three star and four star ranks should be brevets. The savings in retirement pay will add up quick. In my thinking, you address the man by his highest rank, but figure his retirement on permanent rank.

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                        You have to watch the Pentagon carefully. They tend to cut enlisted men and add generals at the same time. The Air Force recently cut something like 30K to 40K maintenance workers and then went to Congress saying they had to cut A-10's because they did not have enough maintenance workers to cover the A-10 and F-35 Fleets. What they left out is they created 24 more generals while RIF'ing the enlisted men. My bet is the Army, Navy and Air Force could reduce the number of Generals by at least 50 each and still operate fine. You can also prune the Marines by 15 or so.

                        Another way to save money is to use Brevet Ranks. Once you make Colonel you spend some time as a Brevet Brigadier General before you make that rank permanent. Also, all three star and four star ranks should be brevets. The savings in retirement pay will add up quick. In my thinking, you address the man by his highest rank, but figure his retirement on permanent rank.

                        Pruitt
                        True enough the one percent is always a problem as it is in the interest of the people who make decisions to reward their own social cadre before any other consideration. In the end it's the little people who have to do the paying, the fighting, and the dying. Since it isn't a problem just in the military I'm stumped as to what to do about it.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          Why would you moon a rock?

                          Or do you mean the Rock?


                          I wouldn't recommend mooning him either.



                          The one billions a day do...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            True enough the one percent is always a problem as it is in the interest of the people who make decisions to reward their own social cadre before any other consideration. In the end it's the little people who have to do the paying, the fighting, and the dying. Since it isn't a problem just in the military I'm stumped as to what to do about it.
                            Simple, don't vote for Hillary.
                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post



                              The one billions a day do...
                              I didn't know WWE was that popular!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X