|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Sizing Is Biggest Challenge for US Army|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,179538,00.html
We have seen this before, remember the Peace Dividend? In the early 90s the Military was downsized to pay for increased social spending. The military came up with a planned cut that would require reducing deployment commitments. The Clinton administration increased the size of the force structure cuts AND increased the number of deployments. Also shot off a lot of Ordnance we stopped producing (like cruise missiles). Now we look at the 'change we can believe in' with the new Obama Administration which was talking program spending cuts of 8 - 10 percent. Now 2/3 to 3/4 of the appointments I have heard are from former Clinton administration members other washington insiders. And that does not even include and of the more radical changes/cuts being talked about in congress. |
||
|
|
Member |
Now hold it .... haven't repeated deployments been a constant complaint about the Bush administration? How does BO intend to solve this problem with a reduced force?  |
|||
|
|
Member |
It is not just sizing that's the problem. The bigger problem is with quality of personnel, training, standards of professionalism, and and effectiveness of the organization. See latest headline article at Military.com:
http://www.military.com/news/article/experts-say-army-in-crisis.html Perhaps the implementation of the program of mandatory national service, which Obama has mentioned from time to time, may solve the quantity and quality issues. I would rather see the U.S.Army at 680,000 full strength, equipped and trained to the same level it was at 1990, than an Army of 500,000 arrayed with gee-whiz equipment and distributed into hodge-podge collections of understrength special-purpose units. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yes, repeated deployments has been a complaint against the Bush administration.
But to paraphrase Rummy's infamous quote - You go to War with the Army have, not the Army you want (or need). Bush started with a downsized military that had been hit with years of Peace Keeping missions and other deployments (Somalia in 1993 and Yugoslavia are just two that come to mind). Somalia started as a UN Peace keeping mission and when for political reasons they were ordered to exceed mission parameters and apprehend a Warlord (not having the proper force structure or equipment on hand) it went to hell and we promptly pulled out. This is what lead OBL to declare the United States to be a ‘paper tiger’. There were multiple foreign adventures besides those two. Usually it consisted of firing cruise missiles at who ever we were mad at the moment. We shot Cruise Missiles at an Aspirin Factory in Sudan, at several terrorist camps in Afghanistan (they thought OBL might be in one of them), bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (by accident of course), supported the Kosovo Liberation Army which was committing atrocities against Serbians. Funny how several of those incidents just happened to go down as hearings were being held on Bill's legal problems. In fact, we went into Yugoslavia with no exit strategy, and just maybe we will get out of there next year. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I believe Rumsfeld spoke the truth. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I think the United States blew a golden opportunity to increase the size of its military and the veterans administration after 9/11. Our populations was then ready to give the administration anything it asked for, including reinstatement of the draft. Instead, we were told that the small all-voluntary military would handle all our problems and the rest of us could go shopping. A Global War on Terror was declared. Then a bunch of bean-counters were put in charge and everything needed to be done on the cheap. Consequently, it took much too long and way too many casualties to get anything done. We used 400,000 troops to kick Iraq out of Kuwait and only 140,000 to invade and occupy the entire country of Iraq.
This short-sightedness and penny-pinching has potentially cost us a victory in the GWOT. The worst thing we could do now is to hand to all those who have ever fought in the GWOT a defeat. We must do what it takes to win decisively in the shortest possible period. I hope the new administration does not commit the same mistakes that have been made over the past 16 years. |
|||
|
Member |
Did anyone read the article, it is about the Army being too small and needing to grow not downsizing it.
The comments are from the current Secretary of the Army, not from anyone from the new administration of the Clinton era. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I think this might be the answer!
  But seriously folks... This is not a joke and our military is stretched way to thin (no pun intended). The present administration put us into a major and most now agree unnecessary (Iraq) deployment in the GWOT. They did it without taking the advice of their senior military advisors (Gen. Eric K. Shinseki being one), then with ‘Chicken Hawks’ in second (Wolfowitz) and third (Feith) highest civilian control at the Pentagon we have had this total FUBAR called Iraqi Freedom. To quote that ******* Wolfowitz shortly after Gen Shinseki suggested at least 500,000 troops for Iraq. "We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion.” 'http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm' So now not only does the President Elect have to put the country to rights, he is also going to be expected to put the military to rights as well. This message has been edited. Last edited by: jdksfcret, |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Interesting considering Navy shipboard deployments in the 80s and before were 8 and 9 months long and they went to 6 months in the 90s. The only good thing I saw in the Navy in the 80s was a Reagan across the board wage increase. There was allot of waste in the 80s and before. When Clinton cracked down so did wasteful spending in the Navy. I remember my bosses telling me we had to "hide" spare parts. Seems to me that he did good unlike some would have the readers to believe. It could also be the "I want fiscal conservatism EXCEPT when it effects me" syndrome. |
|||
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
And the number of ships went from what to ... what? When your personnel to equipment ration exceeds 2:1, you can go to 6 and 6 ... but your overall combat power has decreased. ... a bit like two infantrymen sharing one rifle ... |
|||
|
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
Geren hits the nail on the head in my view:
Those that have bothered to look at the QDR's for the past 10-15 years haven't even read a good fairy tale. While I hate to admit it, the QDRs under Rumsfeld were a lot of pasta and little meat. I can think of a number of words to describe them but "realistic" isn't one of them. I have high hopes that Gates will oversee something that IS realistic ... and makes sense. It will be interesting to hear Obama announce his DoD team in full. I rather hope he keeps Geren ... and gives "Screw you" Chu the boot. {Sorry ... I had to throw in that shot at Chu. I found it rather ironic that at the same time as the Army was sending out new retiree lapel pins and asking retirees to do more to promote the Army, Chu was seeking to nail retirees with double and triple Tri-Care premiums and fees - among other things.} |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
There are so many aspects of the Army that affect other dimensions of the organization. Change the active end-strength too much and--presumably unlikely, but possible--some "dead" installations will be reactivated with civilian workforce levels increased or additional services contracted out. That is just one example of how what seems a simple statement can be fraught with all sorts of additional effects and impacts--usually very costly. The balance of many draws on the resources varies with strategy, and in this world, just nailing down a strategy, including the WOT of course, but other concerns like a reemerging Russia, ever-growing and modernizing China--heavens, it must keep the ARSTAF working long and hard.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
He (Reagan) almost made it to his goal of a 600 ship Navy. Which was even then, way to many for the reality of what the Soviet Navy really was which was broken in many areas. Politics and the desire to win the cold war was the goal which was indeed effective. But after that, the need for a Navy that big was not required. People do not look at the military in the long term. Each and every President has been down sizing it ever since the build up for WW II. Quality is always better than quanity. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Sizing Is Biggest Challenge for US Army
