Spend hundreds of billions fighting arab battles and now can not afford our own army.

Reports: Pentagon budget calls for cutting Army brigade




By Michael Winter, USA TODAY
Updated 16m ago

As part of a sweeping restructuring to cut costs, the U.S. Army is planning to slash between eight and 13 combat brigades and eliminate about 80,000 soldiers, officials tell news outlets.
Special operations forces would not be affected by the proposed cuts, which are included in the $525 billion Pentagon budget proposal for fiscal 2013, which will be unveiled Thursday.
The Associated Press, citing unnamed "U.S. officials familiar with the plans," says the brigade reductions will go from the current 45 to "as low as 32." The Wall Street Journal, also basing its report on unnamed officials, says the Army will cut "as many as eight" brigades.
AP explains the reductions:

Officials said the sweeping changes will likely increase the size of each combat brigade - generally by adding another battalion - in an effort to ensure that those remaining brigades have the fighting capabilities they need when they go to war. A brigade is usually about 3,500 soldiers, but can be as large as 5,000 for the heavily armored units. A battalion is usually between 600-800 soldiers.​

The brigade restructuring is intended to save money without eroding the military's ability to protect the country and wage war when needed. Army officials contend that while there would be fewer brigades, building them bigger will give them more capabilities and depth, and will reduce stress on the units.​

Reducing the overall number of brigades will also eliminate the need for the headquarters units that command and oversee them.​

Officials acknowledged that merging battalions together into larger brigades could shift some soldiers to different bases across the country.​

Over the next decade, the budget calls for reducing the active-duty Army from a high of about 570,000 to roughly 490,000. Currently, there are about 558,000 active-duty soldiers. In addition, there are nearly 205,000 in the Army Reserve and about 360,000 in the Army National Guard.
AP writes that the Army "plans to shed soldiers carefully, including through planned departures, separations for medical or behavioral problems, and by scaling back the number of people promoted or allowed to enlist and re-enlist." Retention will especially focus on midlevel officers.

 

When you put a story like this in context, it really only merits a mild shrugging of the shoulders. What kind of dent are our defense forces likely to suffer given that we still spend more on national defense than the next top 10 countries spend combined? I believe that return on investment for the money we throw into defense long ago stopped being of any consequence. We've wasted incredible amounts on treasure abroad in the last decade and our country, the land we fight for, has been sadly neglected. Maybe it’s time to only spend 9 times or maybe 8 times as much money on defense as the next 10 countries spend on defense combined. I know how the war junkies will view this and other military reductions and I can't help but remember what I always think of when people demand no limit to defense spending....

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war ~ Albert Einstein​

 

How much of our national "defense" is really national "offense"?

 

Pinkos.

 

Exactly. During the debate the other night, I remember (I think it was Newt) saying the US has warships off the shores of Iran to ensure peace in the region. Really!? I can't remember who said it but on the topic of "US peace-keepers" he said "Did you send over military and tanks or did you send over doctors and teachers?" Peacekeepers aren't people holding stop signs, waving their arms saying "stop the war!".. they're military!

There is NO doubt in my mind that the US is the aggressor here. We are in their waters. Iran is not in our waters near our shore. Can you imagine if they were? We need to end these wars ASAP. Personally I think the "War on Terror" is 100% BS - otherwise our border to the south would be 100% secure, instead of the porous joke that it is.

 

If we nuke Iran into the stoneage then we do not have to worry about them developing nuclear weapons and becoming a threat to the civilized world. Whats the point of having the biggest stick on a block if you don't use it.

 

I don't believe Iran has nukes. If they do, so what. Israel, Pakistan, and India all have them. Why can't Iran? Then, what if Iran actually uses a nuke? We'd nuke their country off the map. US/Israel is looking for a fight and they may ultimately get that when Iran finally has no choice but to retaliate against US/Israel's offenses.

 

How can the loss of 80,000 jobs--any jobs--be met with "a mild shrugging of the shoulders?"

 

Government jobs, Government jobs!

 

Hey! It's Commie Pinkos to you man!

 

Maybe the secret is to send our teachers and firefighters off to other countries to fight, kill, occupy, nation-build and protect corporate oil. Then the RW would give them at least verbal support. They'd be making more than the average military grunt, but they'd still be far less expensive than contractors. Parochial schools and for-profit fire companies could fill the resulting gap here on battlefield America.

 

Unless they were gay, then the Right would boo them publicly

 

Oh well that goes without saying. Being gay is a moral failing that until overcome pretty much trumps everything else and must be derided and condemned no matter what. The only other moral failing that even comes close is being poor.

 

Why does the Right even believe that morals can be legislated given all the proof against such an idea? Sure murder is immoral and we have legitimate laws that penalize people for crimes that adversely impact society such as murder, rape, robbery, etc., but when it comes to legislating behavior one group’s religion deems as immoral, the damage to society is actually done by those trying to prevent behaviors that actually aren't doing anywhere near the damage they themselves are inflicting by trying to legislate their beliefs.

 

For every job cut there is a person affected, regardless of from where that job is cut.

 

I completely agree but that hasn't stopped Midwestern Republican Governors from slashing teachers, firemen, police, nurses, etc., all in the name of saving money. The military budget has tripled since 1996. I think a few less soldiers is a cut we just have to make.

 

You fall back on the inane and irrelevant partisanship argument every time. Ignoring that, I hope that you are personally responsible for telling those "few less soldiers" and their families that they no longer have jobs. It should be easy--it's just money and statistics, right?

 

Regardless of who they are they will still feel the same pain on loosing a job be they soldier/fireman/teacher/nurse etc

Now this is the painful bit of trying to balance your budget and hoping to reduce the deficit as the armed forces is one of the largest goverment services they have to make cuts and they will hurt

Do you want the services to be exempt from number reduction? if yes then you have to foot the bill

 

You are simply looking at this in the wrong way. It isn't a matter of firing current soldiers, like the current teachers etc. are being fired, the military will simply shift current personnel around and decrease numbers through attrition and less recruiting. Now you go explain to the teacher next door that they are losing their jobs because the states needed to save money. Why is that anymore excusable?

 

Military troops are nothing more than federal workers and federal workers are the enemy. Off with their jobs!