Army to cut more Brigade Combat Teams, reorganization coming as it loses another 40K

[hog88]

When was the last time a soldier had BOTH competent leadership and a fighting chance?

Generals who are defacto politicians dont supply it.
DC politicians don't supply it.

Some armed service personnel joined with the best intentions. Feel badly for those guys.

80's and early 90's it wasn't bad. Downhill since then IMO.

 

[McDad]

That's why there is so much of a brotherhood within the military. After the recruiting posters have faded into distant memory, they all know who they can depend on, and that bond is deeper than non-military people will ever understand.

I can appreciate the soldiers experience something I never will. I admire their sacrifice, their heroism, their commitment.

The current system is not working. And it DAMN sure ISNT the fault of the men and women in harm's way.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Worn out equipment and exhausted soldiers will eventually led to less voluntary enlistment and fewer re enlistment.

A needed outcome because we do not have "leaders" willing to reduce spending and avoid deployments.

If the military does not deploy, then what is it's purpose? We do not need soldiers that are in it only to get a college education or GED. In a sense, I actually have no problem downsizing the military, and going to more special forces type of warfare anyway. But we have to have civilian leadership that is not afraid to have someone killed that is a legitimate threat. Send the SEALS or Rangers to N Korea and kill that little biyatch. Stop advertising what we are going to do, and when we are going to do it. Maybe a little "terrorism" directed at our enemies will have the same effect on them.

 

[n_huffhines]

That's just the 80,000 in the military.

What about spouses? Or the infrastructure surrounding the bases? There's a whole lot more to it than that.

I don't think the military is a jobs program for the record. It's way more than that.

What do you mean what about the spouses? Presumably the ones that are working will still be working and some of the ones who weren't, will be. The ones with spouses may be better off than the single guys.

What are the infrastructural consequences you speak of? I want to scale back, so I'm good with changing the infrastructure, broadly speaking.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I can appreciate the soldiers experience something I never will. I admire their sacrifice, their heroism, their commitment.

The current system is not working. And it DAMN sure ISNT the fault of the men and women in harm's way.

Absolutely.

 

[McDad]

80's and early 90's it wasn't bad. Downhill since then IMO.

Judging by results, downhill since 1945.

 

[hog88]

Judging by results, downhill since 1945.

There wasn't a force on the face of the earth who could have defeated the US Military in the mid to late 80's and early 90's. Still not but getting closer.

 

[McDad]

If the military does not deploy, then what is it's purpose? We do not need soldiers that are in it only to get a college education or GED. In a sense, I actually have no problem downsizing the military, and going to more special forces type of warfare anyway. But we have to have civilian leadership that is not afraid to have someone killed that is a legitimate threat. Send the SEALS or Rangers to N Korea and kill that little biyatch. Stop advertising what we are going to do, and when we are going to do it. Maybe a little "terrorism" directed at our enemies will have the same effect on them.

Protection should be the purpose. Deploy when aabsolutely necessary. And when deployed, fight to win with all our technological might. Then, bring our troops back home asap.

 

[hog88]

Protection should be the purpose. Deploy when aabsolutely necessary. And when deployed, fight to win with all our technological might. Then, bring our troops back home asap.

Troops need to train in the environments and with the people they may potentially fight in and with.

 

[McDad]

There wasn't a force on the face of the earth who could have defeated the US Military in the mid to late 80's and early 90's. Still not but getting closer.

Did we "win" Korea? Vietnam? And every other "war" since?

Your last sentence is absurd.

 

[McDad]

Troops need to train in the environments and with the people they may potentially fight in and with.

Really?

Good thing America has almost every imaginable terrain and environment known on our planet.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Generals who are defacto politicians dont supply it.

The military leadership quality is cyclical. The most recent hierarchy "grew up" in peacetime. That is why there are clowns out there like Wesley Clark. (I'll take 1 Schwarzkopf over a room full of Clarks any day) The future will consist of men who moved into their positions during wartime, and understand all of those concepts. When called upon as leaders, they will know how to lead. Of course what we have now is spineless civilian "leadership" during wartime that will never understand any of those concepts which makes it just that much harder for the military to succeed at their tasks when the time arises. Traditional military roles need to evolve as well to counter our enemies, and again, the civilian leaders have no desire to even think along those lines. Might kill an innocent. Couldn't have that even if it results in the killing of thousands of Americans.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Protection should be the purpose. Deploy when aabsolutely necessary. And when deployed, fight to win with all our technological might. Then, bring our troops back home asap.

That takes civilian leadership. We do not have anything resembling that at all right now.

 

[McDad]

The military leadership quality is cyclical. The most recent hierarchy "grew up" in peacetime. That is why there are clowns out there like Wesley Clark. (I'll take 1 Schwarzkopf over a room full of Clarks any day) The future will consist of men who moved into their positions during wartime, and understand all of those concepts. When called upon as leaders, they will know how to lead. Of course what we have now is spineless civilian "leadership" during wartime that will never understand any of those concepts which makes it just that much harder for the military to succeed at their tasks when the time arises. Traditional military roles need to evolve as well to counter our enemies, and again, the civilian leaders have no desire to even think along those lines. Might kill an innocent. Couldn't have that even if it results in the killing of thousands of Americans.

Precisely. For every Patton, Schwartzkopff, et al, there are hundreds of worthless, dead-weight bureaucrats.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Did we "win" Korea? Vietnam? And every other "war" since?

Your last sentence is absurd.

No it isn't. We were handcuffed yet again by a fearful leadership. When we make the decision to go to war, it should be no holds barred warfare. We elect ******* that won't allow that. No matter who wins in 2016, THAT will not change. Trump maybe, but nobody else has the courage to say '**** you' to the rest of the world when it comes to these things.

 

[McDad]

That takes civilian leadership. We do not have anything resembling that at all right now.

I agree. And you (military folk) haven't had it for decades. We (civilians) got caugh up in national pride and stopped demanding the civilian leaders actually lead.

 

[McDad]

No it isn't. We were handcuffed yet again by a fearful leadership. When we make the decision to go to war, it should be no holds barred warfare. We elect ******* that won't allow that. No matter who wins in 2016, THAT will not change. Trump maybe, but nobody else has the courage to say '**** you' to the rest of the world when it comes to these things.

Hog's last sentence is absurd based on our: current spending compared to every other country, our technological advantage (which we seem hesitant to use), and our ability to call up millions of people and manufacture war supplies (as we did in WW2) at an unprecedented scale.

 

[tumscalcium]

Did we "win" Korea? Vietnam? And every other "war" since?

Your last sentence is absurd.

Leadership cost us in all those. Going in and destroying or severely limiting the enemy can be done with relative ease. It's playing nice and rebuilding that gets us bogged down.

 

[volinbham]

Who voted for that?

Who's idea was it?

 

[hog88]

Did we "win" Korea? Vietnam? And every other "war" since?

Your last sentence is absurd.

The soldiers won every war they fought in since WWII. The politicians lost Vietnam, settled in Korea, gave back Iraq and giving back Afghanistan.

How was it absurd?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Leadership cost us in all those. Going in and destroying or severely limiting the enemy can be done with relative ease. It's playing nice and rebuilding that gets us bogged down.

Boy ain't that the truth. We pulled Kuwait's chestnuts out of the fire and we are still paying 20 times what they do for gas. Why is that? More thankful islamic governments that love us when they need us I guess.

 

[McDad]

You guys need to understand my indictment of the military has nothing to do with the folks who volunteer and serve. It has to do with the structure, the leadership, and the concept of what is required to keep America safe.

 

[hog88]

Hog's last sentence is absurd based on our: current spending compared to every other country, our technological advantage (which we seem hesitant to use), and our ability to call up millions of people and manufacture war supplies (as we did in WW2) at an unprecedented scale.

We don't have the abilities to manufacture war supplies on the scale we did for WWII nor the ability to call up the people. Just imagine the reaction to the draft being reinstated?

Spending does not equate smart spending, how much money are we spending on unneeded/unwanted weapons systems, women in combat, trans-gendered troops, ext?

 

[hog88]

You guys need to understand my indictment of the military has nothing to do with the folks who volunteer and serve. It has to do with the structure, the leadership, and the concept of what is required to keep America safe.

Understood, that's why I have been nice.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Of which I agree, however, there comes a point when enough was/is too much. And we've gone past that point IMO. I've seen the current state of the military and know what lies ahead. We limped into 9/11 because of the budgets under the Clinton Administration. And it's worse off now.

You can talk about social programs and whatnot, what's going to happen when you dump 80,000 more people into the workforce and try to find them jobs and there's nothing to be had? And that's just the Army's portion as I can guarantee you the USAF, Navy and Marines aren't far behind in cutting people.

Well, that is a rather weak argument. Even if it ends up being 80,000 X 4 = 320,000 more people looking for jobs, 320,000 jobs is what we've lost routinely over a given quarter/3 month period several times since 2008.