Skip to comments.Defense Sec Proposed Cutting Army
Posted on 02/24/2014 5:11:07 AM PST by RetiredArmy
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940 and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don’t see a problem. Pull the guys back to the US territory. Refuse to engage in any conflict that doesn’t directly affect us. And just tell the media we don’t humanitarian missions.
It is on Drudge as well.
Not surprised. The surrender admin wants to build up its civilian corps.
By “doesn’t directly affect us”, do you mean unless we are attacked on U.S. soil?
America has been strong because our military was strong. Obama doesn’t want a strong America. Sure, they can make spending cuts but not in benefits to our men and women in uniform. Why not just cut Obama’s vacations? That would be a good start.
I have no problem with pulling some of our military out of its overseas commitments but nothing this leftwing nut bar does with our military is going to be good.
Hagel is a disgusting Obama Butt-wiper.
He and Obama will have a place in history for gutting the military and screwing veterans.
We always hear from democrats and RINOs that there isn’t enough money for our own military.
But not once do we hear that there isn’t enough money to expand welfare, food stamps, free medical for illegals or money for Obama and Kerry to hand out a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there to foreigners.
> I dont see a problem. Pull the guys back to the US territory. Refuse to engage in any conflict that doesnt directly affect us. And just tell the media we dont humanitarian missions.
I think that alone would cut a lot of costs in itself. Thw world hates us so much except when it comes to that humanitarian aid. Then they love us. Now that they’ve gotten so used to it, they’ll act like a spoiled brat and scream if we don’t help. We did it to ourselves.
Rand Paul voted to confirm him.
No worries. I'm sure everything will end up just dandy.
It’s a huge problem. ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’. Obama is the anti-Reagan now revealing himself after getting reelected.
It is time to cut our defense secretary
USA to participate in KHagel exercises
Gotta pay for them social programs.
America doesn’t need to ‘be strong’ for the world, it needs to be strong for the Citizens of the U.S. That does not entail throwing our men/women into every damn conflict on the planet with some damn goofy RoE so that the fight can never be won.
Military does not ‘win hearts and minds’, it does not fight emotion (’War on Terror’); it is used to defend and, if needed, WIN the fights/battles and WIN peace. But should never be used on the weakest of pretense to shove the Federal leviathans nose into every country on the planet.
I’ll post the question, as I’m ignorant of the answer: In what post-conflict(s) has the U.S. pulled entirely from the region?
I dont see a problem. Pull the guys back to the US territory. Put the military on the southern border, give them ammo and shoot anyone trying to cross the border illegally.
>> that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Good! We’re great at waging war and we suck at being occupiers. It’s not the military that sucks at it, it’s the American people who are afraid to call for what is necessary to occupy hostile territory. Bring the troops home. Drill for oil here. Muzzies and ex-commies don’t want our brand of freedom anyway. They know that if they start moving that direction, then we’ll give them money and free stuff.
No, they will have a place in history for getting us killed. That’s the natural progression of what they are doing.
I agree, and what you’re saying would make tons of sense, but be prepared to be attacked for saying it. Even some so-called small government conservatives think we should police the world.
Great, then all future wars will be fought on U. S. soil. Wow, why didn’t I think of that?
For decades I have been a proponent of drawing down our troop strength in Germany, the Philippines , and Korea. But not for down sizing the military. Billy Jeff did that and it did not serve us well
Just out of curiosity, who do you think should police the world? China? Russia? Iran?
Please let me know. I’d like brush up on the specific language in preparation.
I do not agree with this policy concurrent with a reduction in
strategic arms. Having neither guarantees no deterrance.
Obama is the anti-Reagan now revealing himself after getting reelected.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
There really aren’t a whole lot of ways to interpret
‘Cool it Vlad, when I get reelected I will have more flexibility’.
That alone should have raised more eyebrows than the ‘this will be the most transparent administration in the history of the World’ - then shove a terrible act/bill/BS up where the sun don’t shine with a ‘head lacky’ stating ‘Pass the bill then you can read it’.
The amazing thing is that a definitely unqualified (??) person was elected, but we can use many excuses for that..
THE TRULY AMAZING THING
Was that he got reelected after not delivering in the first term, but he did spend 4 years campaigning and give aways, and with the help of the RNC and karl rove, strolled in for a 2nd term.
We should give him and Obama the same assurances they gave us: "If you like your current SECDEF and CINC, you can keep your SECDEF and SINC, period."
No one. Certainly not us. Until the fights come to us, we stay out of them. We should avoid entangling alliances.
I’m disgusted by the Fing load of idiots on here who think we can win a war with a further weakened army designed to be weak by communists. Yeah Obama and Hagel will cut everything and withdraw from everywhere but they’ll be “defending the homeland”.
Wake the hell up. The “hhomeland” will be a socialist hell hole and disastrous wars will be inevitable.
“America has been strong because our military was strong”
Ummmm, no. That is fascism defined.
We are strong because of our individual abilities and our collective ability to put those talents and resources to use if need be. We cannot, and never should, define our strength as our military. Our strength is ourselves and our resources.
We were “weak” by your standards prior to WWII but we were actually strong because we could assemble to fight and we did.
Anytime a nation defines herself by her military she is a fascist state.
They want the U. S. to be neutered. They see it as evil, the cause of all the world’s problems. This is a leftists dream come true, destroying the world’s protector.
Like it or not, some nation is going to fill this void. Either we do it, or another nation will do it. China wants the job very bad.
The ‘ignorance is bliss’ brigade thinks it’s ushering in peace. You get the idiot sticks in the Libertarian ranks to buy in as well. They haven’t a freakin clue.
Totally agree. ‘National building’ is a dangerous sport and not something in our Constitution. It is taxation without representation as we are being taxed to represent some other country.
Put the military on the southern border, give them ammo and shoot anyone trying to cross the border illegally.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What would you do with them after the 2nd week(takes a while for the ‘word’ to get out) and the Mexican Govt would use it as a propaganda piece and a means to ‘thin the herd’.
Much like the speed and red light cameras.
Once the motoring public gets a few tickets they start ‘obeying’ the posted speed limits etc...
Of course the reason they were put up was to ‘deter and discourage motorists’. BUT once they start obeying the law and all this equipment is just hanging around not generating any income and the contractor suing because he isn’t making the money they projected and were ‘promised’.
CodeToad off my list...
If your military isn't superior, what happens CodeToad?
Just curios if you can figure that one out on your own.
“If you want peace, prepare for war”
Our second amendment plus the fact that the constitution calls for a Navy says no one is going to attack us. We are prepared, but we don’t need to be prepared to fight everyone else’s battles too while running this country’s finances into the ground.
Once again, another self proclaiming patriot that can’t wait until all future wars are fought on our soil.
Was WWII fought on US soil? No. Were we prepared with a massive army and navy prior to WWII? No. So, what’s your point? That we need a massive military?
Our strength is our ability to produce at the time of need. No one is calling for no military, just not a military that is used to fight everyone else’s battles.
No one said we won’t have a superior military. Please show where someone said that. You can’t, so let’s not waste our time with your lies.
So, you are a fascist in that you believe a country’s strength should be defined by her military ant not defined by her people and her resources. Got it. 1984 for you, right? “We were always at war with...”
Exactly who are you expecting to fight as to maintain a trillion dollar military? Name the enemy that intends to or even could invade the US. Name it. The ragheads we are currently fighting? They’ve got massive navies to invade the US?
“Once again, another self proclaiming patriot that cant wait until all future wars are fought on our soil.”
Your comments about that are a non sequitur. Reducing our military to that needed to protect our country does not mean that any war must be fought on our soil. Where did you get that from? What is the converse, that we have our military all over the world? That we have global dominance and bully every other nation to allow in our military?
If you are that paranoid about an attack from an army you cannot name then you should just go live in a cave and hide.
Loooooooooooong before cutting any of our military, I suggest they look at all the “waste” in other areas of the gubmint including odumbo’s “zars”, mooooooochelles overfloated “personal staff” (including what they pay their daughters, all the odumbo family vacations, personal flights to hither and yon. I could go on and on and on. This country NEEDS its military, it DOES NOT NEED the odumbos.
So based on your chart, personnel costs in 1980 were $55.4 billion based on a $168 billion defense budget. In 2010 they were $280 billion based on an $847 billion defense budget.
Not that I trust Obama or his cronies to do it but I’m sure there is plenty of fat that could be trimmed off the military budget. I know I’ll get a lot of replies from “budget hawks” saying we need to spend trillions more on the military but at some point we have to look at places to cut. We are fighting against a foe that can only attack us if we let them into the country.
“Let me see, our Commanders in Chief are destroying our nuclear capabilities as I write this.”
Paranoia. We have plenty of nukes in silos, subs, and aircraft.
I agree with your points. Interesting that we have to debate the merits of a strong military at a site like Free Republic. Without a strong military and a free country itself then none of the other stuff we discuss at this site even matters. None of it.
I’ve got to disagree. A forward posture is necessary for our security.
Even more, you and I both know that the money spent on defense will not be cut from the budget.
It will then be redirected to entitlements.
And then when a war comes along we’ll have no military budget, an entitlement budget swollen by the former defense budget, and a necessity to recreate a defense budget purely on newly borrowed money. That will make the current debt look like a mole hill.
You really are a paranoid. Seriously, go hide in a cave someplace. The rest of us would prefer to have an adequate military for national defense but then get on with our civilian lives of building a nation and not just living to build a military.
Chicken Little is your new FReeper name in that you believe unless we spend money we don't even have to build a military we cannot afford to fight an enemy you cannot even name means we are all going to die is exactly the parable of Chicken Little.
You really think Hagel is the problem?
I would hope so. Keep the illegal invaders out of here leeching on our tax dollars.
You're spot on right. SOMEONE will step into the void left by our reduced military. Not sure who, but SOMEONE will.