Skip to comments.As Army shrinks, young officers being pushed out
Posted on 04/21/2014 12:34:06 PM PDT by Olog-hai
After the 9/11 attacks, tens of thousands of young men and women joined the military, heading for the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and dusty deserts of Iraq.
Many of them now are officers in the Army with multiple combat deployments under their belts. But as the wars wind down and Pentagon budgets shrink, a lot of them are being told they have to leave. [ ]
Already down to about 522,000, the Army must shrink to 490,000 by October 2015, and then to 450,000 two years later. If automatic budget cuts resume, the Army will have to get down to 420,000a size service leaders say may not allow them to wage even one major, prolonged military campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
All part of the master plan.
Same ole same ole. When I joined the Navy in 1987, we had around 606,000. When I left, we had 325,000 (give or take). Throughout the entire time, they would bring a bunch in and then say, “Whoops...too many...need to cut”...then they would say, “Whoops...cut too many....need to strengthen the numbers...”. People who do personnel numbers must be the dumbest people on Earth.
That was over a 24-year period.
From Global Firepower:
Going beyond military equipment totals and perceived fighting strength is the actual manpower that drives a given military. Wars of attrition favor those with more.
Total Population: 1,349,585,838
Available Manpower: 749,610,775
Fit for Service: 618,588,627
Reaching Military Age Annually: 19,538,534]
Active Frontline Personnel: 2,285,000
Active Reserve Personnel: 2,300,000
Let’s see now....450,000 up against 2.3 MILLION.
Only outnumbered 5 to 1. With force multipliers on our side, should be no problem.
Least that’s what the powerpoint presentation sez...
“Many of them now are officers in the Army with multiple combat deployments under their belts.”
Translation, “a threat to the ambitious careerists and perfumed princes”
Why do I get the feeling that certain races, genders, sexual orientations and religions will be exempt from this.
Our next major war will be fought with drones, unmanned vehicles, guided missiles and people in bunkers pushing buttons. Hopefully I won't be alive to see it.
“Our next major war will be fought with drones, unmanned vehicles, guided missiles and people in bunkers pushing buttons. Hopefully I won’t be alive to see it. “
Also chemical and germ warfare.
I’m 99% sure I won’t be around to see it.
Don’t know about the Navy but the Army’s previous drawdowns occurred in only a few years. After Vietnam, the Army drew down from 1.3 million to 780,000 in 4 years. The drawdowns in the early 90s reduced the Army from 770,000 to 490,000 in a little over 5 years. This was despite a hold on force reductions put in place for the 91 Gulf War.
Democratic Presidents love to slash military forces.
Some of those with multiple deployments, say more than three, probably should be encouraged to leave, before becoming emotionally or professionally burnt out (Post-Traumatic -Stress-Related). I say this because the high rate of suicide amongst our active military is quite high, if statistics are to be believed. Something’s definitely askew and either being overlooked or purposely allowed to occur.
The only exceptions being Affirmative Action Ani. Captain? 10 years in? White? Adios, mi capitán.
The president determine what size military he wants to do what he considers "essential." That is what shapes his defense budget and personnel request, not some personnel guy somewhere.
Politicians change and along with that change comes a shift on national security posture and defense needs. . .hence fluctuating force numbers.
With the Big Zero, The Messiah, as long as one guy remains on active duty that is one too many for him.
1 fewer officer = food stamps for 3 Obama voters
Hands off senior NCOs.
No war has been fought with any of that so far, and our enemies are not substituting manpower for those either.
NCOs and enlisted folks are also being forced out via “Selective Early Release Program” and/or various other administrative “tools.” Same ones that were used after Vietnam and the end of the Cold War.
It’s a blessing in disguise... really.. If you’re a conservative, you don’t want any part of Obama’s military.
Well I imagine that would give us the advantage then. What good does it do them to march a conventional Army at us if we can so easily wipe them out remotely?
That’s pure victim mentality propaganda BS that has infected our military leadership and politicians trying to score anti-Bush points. That’s when the suicide “epidemic” stories began and now its a PC narrative.
Their suicide rate is actually no worse than the general population’s here. After multiple deployments, if they want to stay in, THAT is when you send them to a school, send them to an accompanied tour somewhere out of combat, develop them professionally, and then send them back to forming units as respected seasoned leaders.
Instead, we send them to guys like Major Hassan for mandatory counseling, isolate them by unceremoniously kicking them to the curb, and throwing them into civilian life that has no concept of what they have seen.
Isolating them by separating them involuntarily from the Army, bad. Giving them a quiet assignment, letting them grow, and showing them due earned respect, good.
Of course, that was when we had a peacetime Army. Now we are in constant war with Eurasia! Or was it Eastasia? I cant remember anymore,,,
Wars are fought for territory and resources. Those require boots on the ground to exploit.
What territory and resources are we looking to acquire (besides those of Canada)?
What is askew is that the stateside jobs that a returning combat vet might aspire to in the Army are filled with careerists, single moms, and officers who play the admin game and punch tickets.
They are very happy to flush away Officers who would bring good combat records and solid experience to the competition.
nom nom nom,,,good food.
Well duh...anytime you downsize you need to push people out. The issue isn’t people being pushed out...it’s what is the proper size of our military and how can we push out some of the civilians that sit around and collect a check.
There is really No loss. these Officers will be subject to involuntary recall should Obama’s Crap really hit the fan.
Of course by then these guys and gals will have moved on with their lives so they ‘ll only be screwed again.
For that to be true they’d have to have a plan to keep the Army top heavy. They could be doing that, but often times they first cut the junior ranks and then let the older ranks retire. The junior officers are more likely to get meaningful employment...the older officers not so much.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Once again the real question is what size should the army be.
Otherwise known as feather merchants.
“Not everything is a conspiracy”
Actually, lately it sure is. And it’s naïve to think that the senior leaders are thinking of the proper size force structure. I assure you that they are thinking only of structures that include them in it, and which position them to land in the defense industry afterwards.
They also like to make sure the officers that remain are loyal to them and not the Constitution.
During the Clinton reign of terror I watched as five different Air Force Majors were promoted and each one of them had "bad paper" in their jackets that should have precluded them from promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. At the same time I saw at least a dozen Majors who I knew to be some of the smartest and finest officers get passed over.
Promoting the bad seeds makes them loyal to the wrong thing. They do not care about the mission and war fighting but for their jobs and paycheck. They know where their bread is buttered and following the Oath of Office is not part of the equation.
I agree with you.
I’m in the military I know how it works. and Rule #1 is personnel/manpower is inept at managing the force. They always overcut then over-recruit.
But it’s not all the senior leaders that get to make this decision. The Tippy-Top brass sure they may be vying for a position but it’s not that many of them...the real issue is the field grade officers and they will be getting retired soon anyway. Then it’s easy to replace junior officers, but not so much field graders as when they are gone it takes years to replace them.
Trained, combat experienced officers being forced out.
Not stupid at all if one wants willing savages.
Judging by where we have had military resources (including me) fighting for the last 20+ years I would guess in the Middle East/Asia and oil. Maybe throw in some rare earths in re Afghanistan. Judging by the hamstringing of our troops and spooks we are sure not trying to stamp out terrorism so I can only guess it is for resources......
Army Aviation is being phased out. Kiowas are being replaced by drones and there is no airframe to replace Apaches- Again drones. Only thing remaining is Chinook and Blackhawk for transport dustoff/medevac and logisitical support
If you equate 3 BCTs to a division, the proposal is to go from 14 2/3 active duty division equivalents (44 BCT) down to 8 active duty division equivalents (24 BCT). Army leadership says it can't do the job with any less than 9 1/3 active duty division equivalents (28 BCT).
The report also notes that the Army wants to add a battalion to each one of the 24 reserve BCTs. 24 battalions is equivalent to the infantry strength of 2 2/3 divisions.
“...officers in the Army with multiple combat deployments under their belts.....a threat to the ambitious careerists and perfumed princes....”
And with combat arms skills and combat experience which will severely limit their ability to find civilian employment.
H/R departments are fond of getting nerds’ revenge on “you big war hero types.” Nowadays of course, the combat vet is also perceived as a danger to himself & others in the workplace.
That happened to a lot of us post-Vietnam. History repeats.
How are they going to get their army here?
And, they need most of theirs are home to keep the people calm.
China is not going to fight us. They are falling apart on the inside. They have no desire to have us wreck heir little navy.
Not trying to nitpick. But what job is it they are going to be having trouble doing?
Are we being invaded or are we planning a tank battle on the Steppes?
The world has changed. The Army needs to change with it.
We want the government to cut spending.
They cut spending.
People bitch because they don’t want spending cut.
Happens all of the time.
That's hilarious. Been to California lately?
They'll just sail into San Pedro or Oakland and offload.
They'll be welcomed with open arms by the millions of their countrymen who already dominate the landscape here.
Hard to lose when 1/3 of the population sympathizes with you. Ask the Ukrainians.
I take it you’re referring to military spending. Big government entitlement spending has continued unabated FWICS.
Did anyone expect that to go away?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.