Budget cuts to slash U.S. Army to smallest since before World War Two

[arikara]

Source: Reuters

The Pentagon said on Monday it would shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War Two levels, eliminate the popular A-10 aircraft and reduce military benefits in order to meet 2015 spending caps, setting up an election-year fight with the Congress over national defence priorities.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, previewing the Pentagon's ideas on how to adapt to government belt-tightening, said the defense budget due out next week would be the first to look beyond 13 years of conflict, shifting away from long-term ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

He cautioned, however, that the country needed to be clear-eyed about the risks posed by lower budget levels, which would challenge the Pentagon to field a smaller yet well-trained force that could cope with any adversary, but might not be able to respond simultaneously to multiple conflicts.

"We ... face the risk of uncertainty in a dynamic and increasingly dangerous security environment," Hagel said. "Budget reductions inevitably reduce the military's margin of error in dealing with these risks, as other powers are continuing to modernize their weapons portfolios."

snip

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/uk-usa-budget-defense-idUKBREA1N1JQ20140225

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[Jake Stern]

2. Wouldn't have to cut bennies

if they would close just half of the bases we have overseas. World War II ended 69 years ago it's time to end the occupation and bring our troops home from Germany and Japan.

[Recursion]

4. The bases in Germany and Japan are about Russia, China, and Korea

They're not about WWII, that just happens to have been where the armies stopped in 1945.

[Jake Stern]

15. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to let South Korea defend South Korea

They're said to have a highly trained, highly disciplined military. One of the toughest in the world.

Despite China's bluster, most analysts believe they're unlikely to make a serious strike on their neighbors.

The mighty Red Army is long gone. Russians can't even defeat a low level insurgency on their home turf. The Bundeswehr, the Austrian Armed Forces and the armies of Eastern European nations in NATO are strong. We can pull back a little.

[Recursion]

16. I'm all for that

I just meant the problem is not a world war 2 mentality but an almost-as-defunct cold war mentality.

These things have all kinds of implications, though; Germany and Japan do like the money that comes from hosting bases (while hating the drunken assaults servicemen commit).

But, yeah, we really need to re-think where (and more importantly why) we deploy troops.

[amandabeech]

22. China seems to be more active than it has been with respect to

declaring the ID zone in the East China Sea. There has been some chest thumping there between China and Japan and China and S. Korea.

There is concern in the South China Sea as well.

Currently, we are obliged by treaty to defend Japan, South Korea and the Philippines if attacked.

Do the analysts that you site contemplate any naval or air problems there?

[Jake Stern]

23. Treaty or no treaty we need to close most of these bases abroad.

The US can fulfill it's obligations while rotating troops back to CONUS.

The military brags it can have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 18 hours. ROK forces are strong enough to hold off a North Korean/Chinese offensive until we arrive.

We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (where the holiest city in Islam is located) for the Gulf War. Twenty four years later we're still in Saudi Arabia propping up a thoroughly corrupt and despotic regime. That causes considerable friction with Muslims. In fact that was one of OBL's biggest beefs with the US.

Why is it we have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and elsewhere in the Middle East? Saddam is gone and we're supposedly out of Iraq. Exactly what mission are they fulfilling? Keeping an eye on Iran? The mullahs aren't stupid. They know we can make it rain fire in Tehran. Hell, we have the technology to do that from a climate controlled building in Nevada or even closer to their front door by ships patrolling the gulf.

Why do we have Incirlik Air Base in Turkey? Most of the time the Turks won't let us use the base for missions in the Middle East, we have to do that from Germany and Italy or bases in Central Asia.

We have a glorified listening post and space tracking station on Diego Garcia. Why can't we do it from Peterson AFB in Colorado Springs instead with the advanced technology we have? A little side note: we got the British to kick all the natives of Diego Garcia out so we could build our Naval Station there.

In the 21st Century there are few things our military can't do from stateside. The only countries besides the US that could launch an all out blitzkrieg like invasion have shown little inclination to do so making the immediate need for a massive ground force virtually nil in today's environment.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Afghanistan quagmire is 2 billion/week....

[aggiesal]

3. But you'll notice that the budget doesn't shirnk, . . .

only the number of soldiers is decreased.

The money will now go to private militaries like
Blackwater or KBR.

Are they going to rake it in.

Base idea!

[YOHABLO]

8. You are exactly right ... the numbers of troops remaining is ambiguous as well.

We're talking about boots on the ground .. ready for combat (or whatever) not reserve .. or those in training. The drone ''program" will take more precedence .. nothing mentioned about the F35s at $181 million each .. and building 19 of those suckers .. you do the math.

[merrily]

13. Picky, picky, picky.

Just clap louder.

[JackRiddler]

24. Also not the capacity for mass murder globally

This is disgusting spin, unchallenged by the media. The imperialist death machine is 57% of the discretionary budget.

[2naSalit]

5. Clarification of the actual situation

According to Ms. Maddow it's not really a cut when compared to current times, it's an increase instead.

Long set up on this but she gets around to the point, with graphs, eventually.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/size-of-military-questioned-in-new-budget-169019971999

[bkanderson76]

6. Surely you jest....An "Election-year fight with Congress over national defense prorities"?..It is

absolutely obscene that this country has been 'fighting' now for 5 years with Congress over simple 'national priorities'.
"Slashing" this national defense is long overdue. We should be in the 'shredding' stage to save our ass.
And as for this 'defunct' Congress....This Congress sure couldn't show up to work for America in regards to Unemployment Extensions and Social Security but you can sure bet your ass they will be up before dawn, frothing at the mouth for the pile of gold at stake in this debate.
Gonna be a lot of fat cigars and back-rubbin when they are done screwing us on this one.

[Jake Stern]

18. That's because the president and Democrats in congress are afraid of being labeled unpatriotic

by instituting much needed fat trimming from the DOD budget.

It's not quite as patriotic to save Social Security and Emergency Unemployment.

[Demeter]

7. That's a Piecrust Promise

Easily made, easily broken

[merrily]

12. Mmmmm, pie!

?itok=hoB3z3X9

[another_liberal]

9. He should have started by retiring two thirds of our Generals . . .

And three quarters of our admirals.

[FairWinds]

10. You can totally bet . .

that the "slash" does NOT count
mercenaries or contractors.
NOBODY in the army peels potatoes anymore
like I did as a grunt in the 1960s.
Support Veterans for Peace and the
Golden Rule Project

[Jake Stern]

19. My father would talk about his time in the Navy in the early 1960's.

He told me that the guy dishing up your food at the chow hall was a sailor. The guy running the hobby shop was a sailor. The bartender at the NCO club was a sailor. Tasks like mowing lawns and raking leaves were done by sailors.

Maybe it's a shot in the dark but couldn't we go back to that way? It might just save us a few buck to have personnel already on hand to do the tasks that contractors are doing.

[unhappycamper]

14. It's a start towards getting out of the war-making business.

BUT you can bet your sweet ass these guys need to replace all the expensive equipment they wore out during 12 years of occupations. And the plan is to replace all that expensive worn out equipment with more expensive new equipment.

Cutting manpower: good start
Cutting equipment dollars: will actually start to reduce the annual $$$ we spend on this crap.

[JackRiddler]

17. Media flawlessly reproducing Pentagon spin

Yeah, they're really suffering. They're sacrificing so much. It's sad, but so very brave of them. Let's hope it doesn't go wrong!

Fuck that sinkhole. Fuck that mafioso racket. It's still eating most of the discretionary budget, maintaining 800 bases and waging covert wars around the world, creating the enemies it pretends to defend against. And all the hypocrites thank them for fucking up the world and murdering all those people for nothing.

[rgbecker]

20. More bull shit from the Military Industrial Complex

Total US troops, Army, Navy and Marines 1940 = 458,000

Hagel says Army alone would have 440,000 when he's done.

We'll see how that goes.

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

[dipsydoodle]

21. Counter balanced by an increase in private contractors no doubt.

.