Breaking: Panetta To Seek Army Of 490,000; Marine Corps Of 182,000

[30 cal slut]

i don't have any articles to post, but this is coming off my bloomberg headlines.

doesn't sound good.

[The_War_Wagon]

We'll just outsource American security to the Chinese as well.

KLIN - TON I already gave 'em nuclear missile & computer guidance technology 16 years ago - what do WE need missiles or soldiers for anymore? :rolleyes:

[kmrtnsn]

i don't have any articles to post, but this is coming off my bloomberg headlines.

doesn't sound good.

180,000+/- has been the Corps' staffing ideal since the end of the Vietnam war. Not DOD's idea of what is best for the Corp, not the Navy's idea of what is best for the Corp but staffing levels direct from HMC itself.

[theblackknight]

I'll hopfully be crossing over to the CG, so I'll help get those numbers down:p

[a0cake]

As long as the smaller force equates to higher quality, I have no issue. PT failures, urinalysis failures, neck tattoos, etc...see ya'. However, if the "good guys" start leaving and the substandard soldiers are allowed to stay, there is going to be a serious problem.

Same goes for the defense budget. We simply can't afford for it to continue to grow and grow unchecked. Why do cooks need ACOGS? Why are people that never leave the FOB or COP getting entire Multicam TA-50 issues? Why do I have 10 Gerber "Battle Axes?" Who thought that was a good idea in the first place? Obviously this is micro-level stuff and insignificant in the context of the entire defense budget, but it serves to prove that A LOT of money can and should be saved before cutting vital programs.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

BREAKING NEWS!?!?! The USMC has been trimming the fat since 09, trying to get to the 189,000 mark. Weve been told for a few years now about this. I dont know about the Army, but this is old news to just about every Marine. Personally, I think a smaller force with a focus on better training is more efficient than a bigger force with a focus on more gear. I came in during the Surge Era, and my bootcamp platoon started with over 100 recruits for 4 DI's to manage. My Brother In Law came in about a year after I did when things had slowed down, and his platoon size shrunk to 40 recruits for 4 DI's.

[montanadave]

Setting aside the obvious budgetary constraints and federal deficit issues which demand reductions in the "Big Three" components of federal spending comprised of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the defense budget, I would prefer a smaller, better trained, better equipped, and more efficient standing military force.

I am reminded of the quote from the Roman general Hericletus: “Of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters… We are lucky to have them… They make the battle. Ah, but the one, one of them is a Warrior… and he will bring the others back.” (one forum member has this quote as a sig line)

I'm OK with our military spending being concentrated on training and equipping those "real fighters" while simultaneously identifying and retaining those "Warriors" within the ranks of non-commissioned and commissioned officers. Such a force would prove more than adequate to respond to most circumstances which might require military intervention.

More importantly, should a political leader decide he/she wants to commit the United States to a major ground war requiring a substantially larger force, let that leader go to Congress and request a declaration of war. And should Congress grant that declaration of war, let them institute a draft to fill the ranks. As callous as it sounds, let these conscripts serve as the "targets" who can be trained by the professional soldiers.

Perhaps if our leaders had to answer to a broader public forced to share the sacrifices now borne by our military families, they would be more circumspect when they put American troops in harm's way.

[CarlosDJackal]

...Personally, I think a smaller force with a focus on better training is more efficient than a bigger force with a focus on more gear...

Unfortunately, this is never the way it is. Based on my experiences with the Klinton draw down, training is going to be taking the worse hits. I had Army National Guard Soldiers who had to perform their duties without pay because of the cutbacks. While the duty they had to perform were considered "optional"; the resulting loss of flight status was mandatory if they could not meet the mandated minimums.

The next on the chopping block will be the so-called "low budget" items that are issued to those who goes in harms way. So what if your SAW is older than you are, bailing wire and duct tape is cheap. Ammo for training? Nah, as long as you get your 52-rounds to zero and qualify with every six months you will be just fine. Oh by the way, the Tricare coverage for your loved ones will not cost more than before and no, we don't accept food stamps as payment.

If the idiots running this country and our military would get their heads out of their fourth-point-of-contact they would just cut back on all the waste AND facilitate the separation of all the deadwood we have in the military. This way we do end up with a sustainable force that can be based on quality and not quantity.

Currently, I have two Soldiers that we have been trying to get rid of for more than a year!! But because of the red tape we face, we can't just get rid of them regardless of how much documentation we have on them. It's all driven by numbers because those at the top only see RED, YELLOW or GREEN.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Unfortunately, this is never the way it is.....

I totally agree. I guess my post was more theoretical than based in reality. The cuts in funding we will see will not stop stupidity-spending, but rather will cause us to save and scrounge for every paper clip and brass link, all the while the fat cats will continue to dump money into the IC program and Future Soldier etc.

I think everyone here can agree that if our gov stopped wasteful spending and stuck to its obligations, then we would be the best country ever. Unfortunately, it doesnt like to do that, and the general pop. doesnt like when it does that either. So, down the drain we all go, as long as they keep promising free stuff.

[CarlosDJackal]

...I think everyone here can agree that if our gov stopped wasteful spending and stuck to its obligations, then we would be the best country ever...

While I agree with what you are saying I just have to point out that we do live in the best country ever. I can say this as fact for someone who has lived in three different countries.

Everywhere else you have to be well connected or belong to a particular clan to achieve any kind of success. Despite anything anyone says about the US, any individual who works hard and is willing to make sacrifices along the way can make a decent living here. The opportunities to grow and make good are out there. JM2CW.

[Armati]

As long as the smaller force equates to higher quality, I have no issue. PT failures, urinalysis failures, neck tattoos, etc...see ya'. However, if the "good guys" start leaving and the substandard soldiers are allowed to stay, there is going to be a serious problem.

Same goes for the defense budget. We simply can't afford for it to continue to grow and grow unchecked. Why do cooks need ACOGS? Why are people that never leave the FOB or COP getting entire Multicam TA-50 issues? Why do I have 10 Gerber "Battle Axes?" Who thought that was a good idea in the first place? Obviously this is micro-level stuff and insignificant in the context of the entire defense budget, but it serves to prove that A LOT of money can and should be saved before cutting vital programs.

Preach it from the mountain top!

If DoD (or congress) was serious, they would set up a sort of internet suggestion box. Maybe three boxes - one SIPR, one NIPR CAC enabled, one open to the public to view but must be CAC enabled to post. Everyone knows where the waste, redundancy, and inefficiency is in their little sphere of influence.

Remember the good 'ol days when every service used BDUs or DCUs? Now every service has their own flavor of the month uniform and special pattern. I am pretty sure the entire force would buy in on the Crye Combat and Field uniform in Multicam. It just goes on and on like this in every area of the military.

All the same, it seems like Obama is talking out of both sides of his neck. How can you saber rattle for attacking Iran and in the same breath talk about cutting troops? If you attack Iran you cannot cut troops and if you cut troops you cannot attack Iran.

[kmrtnsn]

The good old days when everyone wore the same BDU or DCU uniform? That period in time lasted less than ten years and ended when the Corp listened to Marines and decided BDUs and DCUs sucked.

I guess I'm old, I remember back in the day when the only people wearing camouflage at all were the Corps (ERDL) and in the army, SF and some Ranger units. Big army was wearing OD green satines, as was the air force, except in the tropics, where big army was wearing OD "jungles". By my math, that is three different uniforms for the army alone. The world didn't end because of it. In WWII, the army and the Corps wore different uniforms, as they did in every conflict since each branch was formed. Why? Because they have different needs, they always have had different needs and the always will and the cost of uniforms as a line item in a budget is so small it makes no difference what anyone wears.

In addition, after initial issue, Marines buy their uniforms from an annual allowance. Uniform cost falls on the individual and not on the service budget.

[Armati]

Uniform cost falls on the individual and not on the service budget.

?

Ah, the most expensive cost of the force is the force it's self - individuals. Getting rid of people will substantially shrink the budget. That is why they are looking at that route.

[kmrtnsn]

As mentioned earlier, the Corps isn't really shrinking, merely returning to their post Vietnam "traditional" strength levels. A comparison of the army's strength goals versus post Desert Storm/Cold War drawdown levels (think 1999) doesn't show that huge a difference. Force levels always shrink after a conflict. As far as uniform costs go, just a drop in the bucket which should be left to the individual services to choose what suits them.


---

[variablebinary]

Anyone that thinks "trimming the fat" results in better soldiering and training is on drugs.

All that will happen is people will get screwed with shit worn out gear, crappier versions of training, more powerpoint bullshit, and wasting of time with stupid shit like detail on every little thing.

Enlisted Man: Sir, are we doing an FTX and learning to dish out kick ass.

Officer: No, we need to paint the company area, and detail the vehicles.

Enlisted Man: But Sir, we did that yesterday.

Officer: And we do it again tomorrow.

That's all that will happen.