Skip to comments.FRepp this Poll! Should the U.S. reduce the size of the Defense Department?
Posted on 01/07/2012 3:57:57 PM PST by Military family member
Yes, with the wars winding down it's time to turn the page
I'm ok with reducing the size of our military and increasing our weapons and unmanned vehicles
No, our security operations are already taxed to the limit
Don't want to, but we have to
I'm ok with it as long as the forces themselves are unaffected
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes. Let’s get rid of the Commander in Chief, until we can find someone better suited for the position.
We need to know what the people at the War College would say about this. We need to know what Petraeus thinks.
We are living in an extremely dangerous world at present.
I DO know that I would get rid of EVERY Obama appointee that has ANYTHING to do with the Pentagon or the military.
Now there’s ^ an idea! -—And let’s get a Patriot this time!
I FRepped it
Freped and bimped:
Thank you for voting!
No, our security operations are already taxed to the limit 57.62%
Yes, with the wars winding down it’s time to turn the page 12.49%
Don’t want to, but we have to 6.38%
I’m ok with it as long as the forces themselves are unaffected 10.52%
I’m ok with reducing the size of our military and increasing our weapons and unmanned vehicles 12.99%
Reducing the military this drastically cannot be a good thing. I don’t need the War College to tell me that.
I have a few common sense suggestions that would save a significant portion of the DoD budget.
Bring our soldiers home from Europe. We can further downsize our presence in Europe and leave our prepositioned equipment in place. This would save a huge amount of money and a large portion of that money should be invested in logistics assets such as fast sealift ships and air cargo platforms that would offset the argument that we must have a large forward presence.
Reduce the moves. I know this has already been partially implemented but each time you have the taxpayers move a military family it is very expensive and provides little benefit to the national defense. If there is a job available for any soldier at the same location it should be filled by them instead of paying to move them somewhere else and a new person to the old slot. The British have it right with unit continuity.
Push for regime change in North Korea. As long as Chia Pet Jr. remains in control of North Korea we will have to maintain a large troop presence there. I would also push for South Korea to help pay for their own defense. Their economy today is light years beyond their economy in 1960.
I would love to see the DoD continue to expand the reserves and National Guard into the support services role such as logistics. They could integrate these part-time soldiers into full time units.
I know it’s not popular with the local congressman or town but we need to close many more small bases and transition more of the DoD civilian workforce to contractors. This not only immediately saves money but it will save much more in government retirement costs.
Continue to integrate drone air platforms and naval assets into the military.
A few simple suggestions that probably won’t be popular with a few folks but it would save lots of money.
To answer your question, we would need to discuss and answer the following questions...
1. Do we need 175K troops in Europe? When will European nations take the burden off of the US for defending their borders? Suggestion, replace NATO with a real mutual defense pact.
2. What kind of conflicts are we expecting to fight in the next 20 years. I would suggest that we’ll see more intervening and leaving. Do I want to have a 1 million soldier occupation force? Maybe not. Do we need a larger Marine Corp (currently at 175K I believe) and more special operators? I believe we do
3. Do we need better protection of our borders? Absolutely. This is not just an immigration question anymore. Hizbollah and the Mexican cartels are operating on our southern border. The US armed forces need to stand opposed to this killers.
Answer these and other questions, and we’ll have the answer about what we need. This debate must happen on a needs basis, not a financial basis. Defense is the federal government’s primary job - it comes first. Other expenses are optional.
Hey, I’m with you. I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing for the last two years here on FR.
OK...but what is the overall effect on National Security?
OK...but what is the overall effect on National Security?
In my opinion, it makes us stronger to pull back and increase logistics assets to project force where it is needed. I think much of our forward force projection requirements are based on outdated ideas that it would take months to build up sufficient force in theater for combat operations.
I think we could realize enough savings to double or even triple our fast sealift and airlift capability. By placing most of those assets in the reserves and/or guard you further decrease the costs over the long term.
I thought the same things when I got out 10 years ago.
The operational costs to keep a soldier stationed in Germany are far higher than the costs to keep him on a large base here. Any benefit we might derive from having him in Germany is minimal and that benefit would be offset if we would increase our logistical capability and capacity.
The problem we had in the Army is that the Navy operates the fast sealift ships and the Air Force operates air cargo platforms. The Army needs those assets to move! Officers in the Navy want to command combat vessels and Officers in the Air Force want to fly fighters... neither of those can deliver boots on the ground with the necessary equipment.
The privatization of civilian functions on DoD installations would result in huge savings immediately and bigger savings in the future.
The military is going to have the same problem the government, postal service, and your local school and municipality have. Retirement costs are exceeding revenues and eating up an increased percentage of budgets each year.
If we did these things our military would be more viable from a cost standpoint and we would still have the ability to project force when needed. Considering the long term savings, I think it would actually improve our national security.
Will we see a headline “Defense cuts hurt women and minorities most’’?
The military should be reduced to one four=star general and a band.
The band can play the music while the general surrenders his sword to our enemies.
Regarding Unit Continuity: I’ve been on numerous British and other European navy ships while serving on five of our own. Underway on one German Frigate we asked a senior Petty Officer in the engine room about the strange squeal we heard. He replied ‘It’s always done that’, so we asked him how long he’d been on that ship; ‘16 years’ was his reply. Longevity breeds complacency which always leads to more blood when it comes to front-line units, especially those (such as ours) with incredibly high op-tempo.
The US Army has 10 divisions on active duty.
The IRS, just ONE government agency, has enough employees to create an additional 6 US Army divisions
But we are cutting military personnel and adding IRS personnel.