5 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Be Scared by the Plan to Downsize the Army

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22267-5-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-be-scared-by-the-plan-to-downsize-the-army

1. The Army isn't really going to pre-World War II levels.

From the headlines, you might think that the American army is shrinking to the level it was at when post-World War I isolationism carried the day. Not so: in fact, we'd be returning to a troop level higher than it was in the early days of World War II.

The 440,000-450,000 number of troops on active duty Hagel proposes is above the 426,000 troops that were in the Army by the end of 1940 - and well above the 280,000 it began that year with. That matters because, by the end of 1940, President Roosevelt and the Pentagon had begun a significant ramp-up designed to prepare America for involvement in the European and/or Asian theaters of history's deadliest conflict. "By the time of Pearl Harbor," an official U.S. army publication explains, "Congress had spent more for Army procurement than it had for the Army and the Navy during all of World War I."


2. We need them less, because there's less war.


3. But also because the Cold War is over.

4. Don't forget science!

5. Finally, the things that are actually problems aren't really solveable with lots of troops.

[Hoyt]

1. Troop cuts sure don't scare me. I'm all for it.

[yeoman6987]

2. I am for cutting the army

However, I really hope they do it by having less recruitment every year and no replacements for those retiring and getting out after 4 years. The problem is that they always see to release those troops that have 15-18 years in so that they don't have to pay them their retirements. I would hope that they cut the troops by being smart AND fair…..I don't know how much hope I have for that though.

[madokie]

3. Knowing Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama

I feel they won't be throwing anyone to the wolves.
Hagel knows whats what and he's the man in all this

[NeoGreen]

4. While reducing active duty troop levels...

...is a good first step.

The real costs are the big ticket items (i.e. F35 & 12 active Carrier Groups and secret Black Project programs).

I am all in favor of a general reduction in active duty and active programs, if we simultaneously increase our reserve and guard components.

I would like to see major reductions in active Army, Navy and Air Force units/programs with slight reductions in the Marines, modest increases in the Coast Guard and modest increases in the Reserve/Guard for all branches.

And close half of those 800+ over seas installations.

(edited for spelling {as usual})
(good heavens, if I could only type it correctly the first time)

[Feral Child]

5. If history is any indicator

the one deleterious effect of this reduction is "job loss".

The military is a big employer, both of military personnel and civilian Civil Service support.

I hope there is consideration and a plan for replacing the jobs lost.

[RC]

6. There is. It is repairing and rebuilding our own infrastructure in this country.

Whether it is done or not, depends on if they can think of doing something like that. After all, the wrong people would be economically helped by this, namely us commoners.

[Feral Child]

8. Ah, excellent.

I read the "infrastructure" post headline but didn't open the thread. Never put the two together, but it would be an elegant solution to the problem.

Thanks for pointing this out!

[RC]

9. My pleasure.

Another convert!

[Javaman]

7. 1) I'm not scared and welcome it...

2) it will never happen sadly.

[Savannahmann]

10. Afraid?

I'd like to see the entire military cut in half, as a good place to start. From there, we should go totally overboard in our enthusiasm cutting the budgets.

[FreeJoe]

11. I agree

I'm more afraid of having a large standing army than not having one. We don't want to be so weak that we encourage attack, but being this strong makes solving our problems with violence too tempting.

[Savannahmann]

12. We spend more than the next eleven countries combined.

We could cut our spending in half, half mind you, and still spend more than the next five countries. So unless we're worried about a coalition of nations that are planning on attacking us, and I think there would be some press on that one giving us time, several months, to consider our options, we should be fine.

We have more aircraft carriers than everyone else combined. We have 19 including our Helicopter Assault ships, and the rest of the world has 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

We have more fighter aircraft than China, Russia, and India, combined. Are we expecting to be attacked by a Chinese, Russian, Indian alliance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

By any metric except number of people in active duty uniform, we are number one. That is an honor I don't want, and I think the first thing we need to do is slash everything by half. Half the Army. Half the Air Force. Half the Navy. Slash it and then start more considered approaches to what is left.

[eridani]

13. So were our founding fathers

What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.
—Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts during a debate in U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
—Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason

Whenever people entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
—“A Framer,” in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791

None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.
—Thomas Jefferson

—large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.
—James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812

A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.
—James Madison

Quotes from
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm
http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army


We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.
—Democratic Party platform, July 4, 1900 http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html