More Obama Murder of America: The Pentagon Cuts

[CountDeMoney]

Absolutely appalling.   

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
FEB. 23, 2014

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

"You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war," a senior Pentagon official said.

Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.

For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.

Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel's proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.

The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel's budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.

Over all, Mr. Hagel's proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama's national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation's interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.

"We're still going to have a very significant-sized Army," the official said. "But it's going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained."

Mr. Hagel's plan would most significantly reshape America's land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel's proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary's aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.

The Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions. But the Guard would see its arsenal reshaped.

The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk — a workhorse transport helicopter — to use in domestic disaster relief.

The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.

The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel's full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.

The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans' organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.

Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.

The fiscal 2015 budget also calls for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.

The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel's proposals do not include any changes to retirement benefits for those currently serving.

Under Mr. Hagel's proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft would be eliminated.   :mad:The aircraft was designed to destroy Soviet tanks in case of an invasion of Western Europe, and the capabilities are deemed less relevant today. The budget plan does sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane, which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.

In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.

The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.

Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.

[garbon]

Bring on the drone army.

[Phillip V]

Cut the Officers.

[MadImmortalMan]

We should give the A-10s to someone who can do some good with them. That's my staple aircraft when playing pretty much any African nation in SR2020.

[Razgovory]

We could save some money by laying off soldiers who are on the muster roles of other countries.  That's just common sense.

[alfred russel]

Or we could drop the technology fetish and keep the soldiers. If we are going to waste money on a giant military I'd rather blow it on people rather than giving it to Lockheed Martin.

[Siege]

Or we could drop the technology fetish and keep the soldiers. If we are going to waste money on a giant military I'd rather blow it on people rather than giving it to Lockheed Martin.

We need to keep the technological edge.
Cutting personnel is better than lowering salary or benefits.

[Neil]

Eliminate the USAF and roll it back into the US Army.  It's only use is to support the Army anyways.  After that, slash the army.  It's easy to ramp up an army when you really need one.  The Navy and the Marines represent the real power projection capability of the United States, and should retain current levels of funding.

[Phillip V]

Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.

[jimmy olsen]

I think Congress won't go nearly as far.

[PJL]

Shrink the Active Army and somewhat enlarge the Army Reserve.

That's what we're doing.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Replace expensive carriers with battleships armed with drones and lot's and lot's of missiles.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.

[derspiess]

Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.

Surely our soldiers will become fat(ter).

[Richard Hakluyt]

Tax incorrectly used apostrophes and use the money raised to improve rations.

Surely our soldiers will become fat(ter).

A relatively cheap way of getting a larger army.