Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

As Army shrinks, young officers being pushed out
Associated Press ^ | Apr 21, 2014 2:46 PM EDT | Lolita C. Baldor

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 420,000—a size service leaders say may not allow them to wage even one major, prolonged military campaign. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: hagel; militarypurge; nationalsecurity; obama; pentagon

1 posted on 04/21/2014 12:34:06 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

All part of the master plan.


2 posted on 04/21/2014 12:38:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Somewhere the Grand Duchy of Fenwick is preparing its assault on a supine USA.
3 posted on 04/21/2014 12:42:19 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


4 posted on 04/21/2014 12:42:25 PM PDT by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

That was over a 24-year period.


5 posted on 04/21/2014 12:43:12 PM PDT by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

From Global Firepower:

China
Rank: 3

MANPOWER
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...


6 posted on 04/21/2014 12:45:58 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“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”


7 posted on 04/21/2014 12:47:47 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Why do I get the feeling that certain races, genders, sexual orientations and religions will be exempt from this.


8 posted on 04/21/2014 12:49:21 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be earned and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
In case you haven't noticed, wars are no longer fought by digging trench lines and lining up across from each other on a battlefield. China can have a hundred million soldiers in uniform and it will give them no tactical advantage - even if it was possible to keep that many soldiers supplied.

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.

9 posted on 04/21/2014 12:53:33 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

“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.

.


10 posted on 04/21/2014 12:56:01 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

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.


11 posted on 04/21/2014 12:56:29 PM PDT by Dogfaced Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


12 posted on 04/21/2014 12:57:26 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This has been going on for years.

The only exceptions being Affirmative Action Ani. Captain? 10 years in? White? Adios, mi capitán.

13 posted on 04/21/2014 12:57:34 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk ( The Republican Party is very sick . Hold all contributions until we see who picks up the patient..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
“People who do personnel numbers must be the dumbest people on Earth.”

Not exactly.

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.

14 posted on 04/21/2014 12:58:11 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

1 fewer officer = food stamps for 3 Obama voters


15 posted on 04/21/2014 12:59:01 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Hands off senior NCOs.


16 posted on 04/21/2014 12:59:43 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Winner winner!

17 posted on 04/21/2014 1:00:34 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

No war has been fought with any of that so far, and our enemies are not substituting manpower for those either.


18 posted on 04/21/2014 1:02:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Olog-hai

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.


19 posted on 04/21/2014 1:03:59 PM PDT by GreyFriar ( Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It’s a blessing in disguise... really.. If you’re a conservative, you don’t want any part of Obama’s military.


20 posted on 04/21/2014 1:06:15 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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?


21 posted on 04/21/2014 1:14:07 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

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,,,


22 posted on 04/21/2014 1:15:24 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Wars are fought for territory and resources. Those require boots on the ground to exploit.


23 posted on 04/21/2014 1:16:44 PM PDT by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

What territory and resources are we looking to acquire (besides those of Canada)?


24 posted on 04/21/2014 1:18:18 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

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.


25 posted on 04/21/2014 1:18:37 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

nom nom nom,,,good food.


26 posted on 04/21/2014 1:21:55 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


27 posted on 04/21/2014 1:24:20 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


28 posted on 04/21/2014 1:25:56 PM PDT by puppypusher ( The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Vlad Putin's “tanks” are rolling west.The Chinese military increases in size (one one would expect in capability as well) by 10% a year.Iran is within months of developing a nuke.North Korea spends 95% of its GDP on nukes.And Osama a Obama thinks we're too strong,too powerful.He thinks that money once sent to the DoD can now be better spent on helping NASA fight “global warming”,on “women's health clinics” and on “outreach” to “transgendered” 10 year olds.
29 posted on 04/21/2014 1:28:04 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


30 posted on 04/21/2014 1:28:05 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Otherwise known as feather merchants.


31 posted on 04/21/2014 1:34:29 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

“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.

Ask around,,


32 posted on 04/21/2014 1:38:08 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dogfaced Soldier
Democratic Presidents love to slash military forces.

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.

33 posted on 04/21/2014 1:40:51 PM PDT by OldMissileer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Is stupid.
Trained, combat experienced officers being forced out.
Beyond stupid.
34 posted on 04/21/2014 2:29:00 PM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer

I agree with you.


35 posted on 04/21/2014 2:29:05 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


36 posted on 04/21/2014 2:29:29 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

Is stupid.
Trained, combat experienced officers being forced out.
Beyond stupid.

_____________

Not stupid at all if one wants willing savages.


37 posted on 04/21/2014 2:30:36 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Leftist totalitarian fascism is on the move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

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......


38 posted on 04/21/2014 2:48:19 PM PDT by ExpatGator (I hate Illinois Nazis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

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


39 posted on 04/21/2014 2:51:45 PM PDT by slapshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Here is a 2014 Congressional Research Service paper on the proposed reductions:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42493.pdf

Interesting reading.

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.

40 posted on 04/21/2014 2:53:06 PM PDT by Captain Rhino (Determined effort today forges tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“...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.


41 posted on 04/21/2014 3:02:58 PM PDT by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

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.


42 posted on 04/21/2014 3:17:33 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Captain Rhino

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.


43 posted on 04/21/2014 3:19:58 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

We want the government to cut spending.

They cut spending.

People bitch because they don’t want spending cut.

Happens all of the time.


44 posted on 04/21/2014 3:21:12 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
How are they going to get their army here?

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.

45 posted on 04/21/2014 4:25:54 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

I take it you’re referring to military spending. Big government entitlement spending has continued unabated FWICS.


46 posted on 04/21/2014 5:31:07 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Did anyone expect that to go away?


47 posted on 04/21/2014 6:41:09 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson