Downsizing

[Gob]

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the US Army to its smallest size since before World War Two.

Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to 440,000-450,000 personnel, down from 520,000 currently.

Cold War-era Air Force fleets - the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack jet - will also be retired.

However, the plan requires approval from Congress, which could change it.

The US military is under pressure to downsize after two costly foreign wars.

Mr Hagel said at the Pentagon on Monday: "This is a time for reality.

"This is a budget that recognises the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."

He added: "There are difficult decisions ahead. That is the reality we're living with."

The number of active-duty US Army members was already expected to be pared down to 490,000, as the US prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan later this year.

Noting the current US Army strength, Mr Hagel added: "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defence strategy."

Mr Hagel said the administration would also recommend closing some domestic military bases in 2017, though such proposals have been rejected by Congress in recent years.

The Pentagon chief went on to unveil plans for changes to pay and benefits.

He recommended curbing housing allowances, limiting pay raises and increasing healthcare premiums.

However, the military cost-cutting drive could well cause ructions on Capitol Hill, which is gearing up for November's midterm elections.

Reaction to the proposal was swift, with Republican members warning such cuts could hurt military readiness.

"The world is not getting to be a safer place. This is not the time for us to begin to retreat, and certainly not the time to cut our military," Republican Representative Michael Turner told Bloomberg.

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Representatives Michael McCaul blamed US President Barack Obama's administration for the predicament, saying cuts were only necessary because they had not been made elsewhere.

"It's all being sacrificed... on the altar of entitlements," he told Fox News. "This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we've done in the Congress - and this president - is basically cut discretionary spending."

The proposed Army staffing levels would be the lowest since before the US entered World War Two in 1940, when 267,000 active-duty members were employed.

By the end of that conflict, there were 8.2 million active-duty US Army members, according to figures provided on Monday by the Pentagon.

The figure peaked at 1.6 million both during the Korean War, in 1952, and during the Vietnam War, in 1968.

The number was 482,000 in 2000, a year before the attacks of 11 September 2001.

After those attacks, the force peaked at 566,000 in 2010.

[Lord Jim]

I think this sends an absolutely terrible message...

I fear we will live to regret this...(assuming it isn't stopped)

[Jarlaxle]

It's a start. The money JUST IS NOT THERE!

[Econoline]

U.S. military expenditures are currently 39% of the entire world's military expenditures--about the same amount as the next 11 countries COMBINED (China + Russia + the U.K. + Japan + France + Saudi Arabia + India + Germany + Italy + Brazil + South Korea). It's ridiculous to believe that all that money is well-spent. I wonder if there can ever be enough of our national income devoted to the military in order to satisfy Republicans?

That said, I'll believe it if/when it happens. I remember the rosy prediction of an enormous "peace dividend" after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War...and I also remember Eisenhower's decidedly UN-rosy prediction of "unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex". One of those predictions came true, one didn't.

[rubato]

There was a substantial cut in defense in the 1990s which helped to move us to a budget surplus. For a few years.


If we have actually learned something from Iraq we should benefit from that education.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

As long as my boy still has a job - holding the line in South Korea - they can fire all the others

[dgs49]

Based on my 3 years in the Army and 5 years in DoD I have the distinct impression that the US Military is a huge, wasteful bureacracy that could be reduced dramatically without compromising our "readiness" to do anything important. I do not consider sabre-rattling to be important.

This is not to denigrate our troops or the work they have done in recent years, but the vast majority of our enlisted force should be three-years-and-out, to be replaced in turn by another army of single 19-year-olds.

The elimination of the military draft was one of our biggest mistakes, for too many reasons to articulate here.

And it goes without saying that all of our military services are grossly top-heavy.

A good manager from GE, given enough discretion, could chop 40% off the DoD budget within 24 months.

[Gob]

Here's a start..

President Barack Obama has warned his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai that the US may pull all of its troops out of his country by the year's end.

Mr Obama conveyed the message in a phone call to Mr Karzai, who has refused to sign a security agreement.

The US insists this agreement must be in place before it commits to leaving some troops behind for counter-insurgent operations and training.

"Specifically, President Obama has asked the Pentagon to ensure that it has adequate plans in place to accomplish an orderly withdrawal by the end of the year should the United States not keep any troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

"Furthermore, the longer we go without a BSA, the more likely it will be that any post-2014 US mission will be smaller in scale and ambition."

While Mr Karzai has refused to sign the BSA, some candidates in April's Afghan presidential elections have indicated they would.

Mr Karzai, who has served two terms as Afghanistan's first and only president since the Taliban were ousted from power in 2001, is obliged by law to stand down after the next election.

Analysts say the US statement clearly implies that Mr Karzai's stance will harm his country's security long after he leaves office.

The White House statement came as US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel flew to Brussels for a Nato meeting at which Afghanistan is due to be discussed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And it goes without saying that all of our military services are grossly top-heavy

You've seen my boy, then?