| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Force reductions coming at Pentagon |
| 2012-02-14 |
| Feb. 13 -- The Defense Department may have to force soldiers, Marines or other members of the military out of the services for the first time since the aftermath of the Cold War to achieve the spending reductions in its budget proposal. The Pentagon plans to cut 67,100 soldiers from active and reserve Army units and the Army National Guard in the five years starting Oct. 1, as well as 15,200 from the active and reserve ranks of the Marine Corps as part of an effort to save $487 billion over a decade, according to the budget sent to Congress today. The Navy and Air Force would lose fewer people -- 8,600 and 1,700 respectively -- because of their role in a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. The military will first try buying out contracts or offering bonuses for people to leave, while working to keep those with valuable specialties such as cyber warfare and acquisitions, according to Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington policy group, who attended a Pentagon briefing for analysts last month. “I was surprised that they were going to complete the reductions to the Army and the Marine Corps in just five years,” Sharp said in an interview before the budget was released. “What they told us is that they will try to use those types of positive incentives to the greatest extent possible, but that involuntary separations would probably still be necessary.” The Pentagon has said it is aiming to a create a smaller, more agile military. Special operations forces, whose commandos killed Osama bin Laden last year, would be expanded. Republicans in Congress already have signaled they will challenge the Pentagon reductions when lawmakers take up the proposed fiscal 2013 budget that President Barack Obama sent to Congress today. Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cited a comment by White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the time for austerity is not today.” “They’ll have a tough time explaining that to the 100,000 troops who will be forced from service under the president’s new budget plan,” McKeon of California said today in a statement. The cuts, spurred in part by plans to wind down the war in Afghanistan in the next three years, would mark the first time the U.S. military has forced personnel out of the services since the larger troop reduction after the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The military services, which decide how to achieve the cuts, may be able to tighten re-enlistment standards and offer incentives to leave, Defense Department Comptroller Robert Hale said. “I don’t think we can stand here and say there won’t be any involuntary separation,” Hale told reporters at the Pentagon today. “We have very high retention right now with the economy still fairly weak. If that changes, it will be easier. If it doesn’t, it will be harder.” The prospect of cutting the U.S. military to about 2.15 million people by October 2017, a reduction of 92,600 starting next year, creates political risks for Obama in an election year, and economic risks as military personnel enter the civilian workforce in coming years. The reductions would start with 31,300 uniformed positions, or 1.4 percent, eliminated in the 12 months starting Oct. 1, cutting the force size to 2,238,400 from 2,269,700 this year, according to the proposal. After the Cold War, the military pared its active-duty ranks by 494,000 from 1991 to 1995, according to the Defense Department comptroller’s office. That included 216,000 from the Army and 21,000 from the Marine Corps. Further cuts followed in the next few years, ending just before the Sept. 11 terror attacks by al-Qaeda. The Army’s budget director, Major General Phillip McGhee, told reporters at the Pentagon today that his service will rely first on on-time and early retirements, reducing recruitment and other steps before resorting to involuntary measures. “We really want to put minimum stress on the force as we do the rampdown,” McGhee said. The cuts in uniformed personnel are in keeping with proposed steps such as eliminating eight Army brigades, five Marine infantry battalions and four of the Corps’s tactical air squadrons. The Air Force would lose 303 aircraft and six fighter squadrons, while the Navy jettisons seven cruisers and 2 dock landing ships. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #13 OOPSIES, forgot LUCIANNE > RUSSIAN NUCLEAR SUBMARINES AS OMEN: WILL THE US CONTINUE TO DISARM? ARTIC = denotes that the Cold War US Pool of highly educated, highly skilled, veteran Weapons-SYS Designers etal. is steadily dwindling to age + mostly normal attrition towards a point where US National Security could be placed at risk; IT TAKES CIRCA 20 YEARS FOR A NEW US NUKE SUB TO GO FROM IDEA/DESIGN PHASE TO LAUNCH QUAY. IOW, US POOL = OLD GEEZERS = THEY'RE GOING DOWN, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!? RUSSIA + CHINA, ETC. POOLS = F *** NEW GUYS = GOING UP!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-02-14 22:34 |
| #12 Perhaps more succintly ....? * CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > US MILITARY TO CUT TROOP NUMBERS | [Bloomberg News] PENTAGON MAY OUST TROOPS INVOLUNTARILY [not-a-RIF?] TO MEET REDUCTIONS IN BUDGET PLAN. and * FREEREPUBLIC > [POTUS Bammer Admin] US WEIGHING STEEP NUCLEAR ARMS CUTS, perhaps up to 80% of deployed NucWeapons. USDOD devol into UK MoD - OOOOOO, you just know this is not gonna end well? The Irish armed forces is too small, so that leaves France + SIGHTED-PROPELLER-SANK-SAME HAPPY FNS CV CHARLES DE GAULLE to same America = Amerika. Espec given ... * PRAVDA.RU > MUSLISM TO CONQUER HEART AND SOUL OF EUROPE. * SAME > GERMANY WILL BE CONQUERED BY ISLAM. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-02-14 20:02 |
| #11 It's not clear from the article whether this is about reducing spending year over year to simply not increasing spending year over year by the usual and customary 7% or so. News articles always blur that distinction. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 17:31 |
| #10 At the moment to primary purpose of federal spending is to buy votes. Yes, of course. I knew that. whimper |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-02-14 17:26 |
| #9 one of the primary purposes of the federal government was to provide for the common defense. That was true once upon a time. At the moment to primary purpose of federal spending is to buy votes. Notice this issue diverts attention from the ongoing massively wasteful non-military expenditures. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 16:53 |
| #8 TSA is the model federal agency for the FEMA Region future of tomorrow. Never forget it! Check'em out, next time you're in Atlanta, Hartsfield, what'ya-call-it airport. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-02-14 14:12 |
| #7 Squandered money generates jobs. Lots of nice, clean, green regulatory jobs (the productive jobs that are destroyed in the process are the fault of the evil, greedy businesses, not government.) And for what it costs for every military job they make go away, they can hire at least twice as many TSA people. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-02-14 13:30 |
| #6 It isn't to the Democrats and Obumbles Ebbang - to them its all about spreading around the wealth (mainly to their cronies) and destroying the idea of 'America'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-02-14 13:03 |
| #5 All the money this government squanders and they choose to reduce spending on the military? Excuse me, but I thought one of the primary purposes of the federal government was to provide for the common defense. All the other crap is a bunch of crap. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-02-14 11:54 |
| #4 That is the valuable specialty that deserves "special" treatment? Let me answer your question with a question: Will you be STFU when there are cost overruns and weapons not meeting performance standards? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-02-14 11:05 |
| #3 "valuable specialties such as cyber warfare and acquisitions" ACQUISITIONS!!! That is the valuable specialty that deserves "special" treatment? Where will all the warriors go? |
| Posted by: Slindsey 2012-02-14 08:44 |
| #2 A Reduction in Force(RIF) will not solve the nation's budget ills. Those few who serve are NOT the problem. Yes, AR 600-9 (US Army Regulation Height and Weight Standards) will be good starting point if their must be a RIF. It's a bit embarrasing when crusty old contractors exhibit more military bearing than some of the rear echelon personnel in uniform. (combat arms units tend to police their ranks and enforce the standards) Unfortunately, the size of the initial cuts will mean we'll lose a significant amount of very fine soldiers at all levels. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-02-14 03:25 |
| #1 The ArmyÂ’s budget director, Major General Phillip McGhee, told reporters at the Pentagon today that his service will rely first on on-time and early retirements, reducing recruitment and other steps before resorting to involuntary measures. You know that the first round should be all those who fail to meet the long established and known height and weight standards. The second round should include every one of their raters who checked off the box that said servicemember meet height and weight standards. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-02-14 00:09 |