LINK HERE The Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers from its ranks over the next two years, a reduction that will affect virtually all of its domestic and foreign posts, the service asserts in a document obtained by USA TODAY. The potential troop cut comes as the Obama administration is pondering its next moves against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria. President Obama said Monday he and military leaders had not discussed sending additional troops to Iraq to fight the Islamic State. There are about 3,500 troops in Iraq. "This will not be quick — this is a long-term campaign," Obama said at the Pentagon after meeting top military brass in the wake of setbacks that have prompted critics to call for a more robust U.S. response against the Islamic State. An additional 17,000 Army civilian employees would also be laid off under the plan officials intend to announce this week. Under the plan, the Army would have 450,000 soldiers by the end of the 2017 budget year. The reduction in troops and civilians is due to budget constraints, the document says. ----------------------------- 57,000 more people will need jobs, plus the nation's security will be reduced significantly. I am all for Defense Cuts, as are most TEA Party members. But, we would like to see intelligent cuts. Reduce foreign presence on secure ally lands like Germany. Stop weapons programs that are not wanted. Stop weapons purchases that are not needed (like the recent tank purchase). Eliminate redundancy of weapons and defense programs across Military Branches. There is plenty of ways to cut intelligently. This is not one of them.
Well, maybe this will have a good effect. It's like smaller classroom sizes. Personnel will have more personal attention and chance to succeed.
Budget constraints? Our commander in chief goes through money like it was toilet paper and he cuts our military? Why can he cut global warming research, the EPA, DOE, green loan guarantees, AF-1, or his miserable vacations? How much money has this turd pledged to help foreign countries fight global warming?
Cut? heck no! put them on the Southern Border. Relocate overseas bases to TX, Arizona, NM, CA and bring those dollars home
That is a drastic reduction. We have over 2 million people in the military if you add in the reserves.
You've got to be kidding me. Our enemies are growing all around us and in some cases Obama is the one supplying them.
I read somewhere that people think we're opening ourselves up to an invasion. I honestly doubt someone would successfully pull off a military invasion of the U.S., even now.
I'm glad I'm retiring in a few years. I'd be afraid of getting a pink slip if I wasn't, lol. Yeah, this seems to me like a very bad time to be reducing our military. This world is not getting any safer for Americans.
You do know you would far more than 40,000 troops to secure the southern border yes? - - - Updated - - - And with those numbers, leave massive gaps in coverage that would still allow illegals to get through.
Yeah and people think that right up until the moment that an actual attempt is made. Any student of military warfare can think of many scenarios in which just that happens. It was unlikely that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon would be struck by passenger jets on the same day . . . and yet it happened.
That's not the same as a foreign invasion and tons of Americans already have guns as it is, but I see your point.
I find this thread to be highly amusing. Republicans want to "cut spending" in the worst way, but they also want a strong military. Their solution? Easy - do not raise taxes, just spend the money and pretend they didn't, then continue to rant about how the deficit keeps increasing. And their faithful still haven't caught on to the scam.
The fiscal solution? Deport ALL the illegals Obama encouraged to flood this nation since he became president. Their fates? Not . . . our . . . problem. If conditions in their nations stink that much then they can form rebel groups and fight to change the nature of their native pig pens.
"This will not be quick this is a long-term campaign," Obama said at the Pentagon after meeting top military brass in the wake of setbacks that have prompted critics to call for a more robust U.S. response against the Islamic State." Funny, I recall Bush making a similar statement, but the librobots do nothing but chide him and call them unnecessary wars...even though their own vaunted democrat politicians were leading the charge and signed off on them. Amazing so many people have been duped like that.
Agreed because a large portion of our population is armed, much to the chagrin of the hoplophobes. Red Dawn, while obviously a typical hollyweird fantasy flick, does illustrate the issues any invading force would have.
Because finding and deporting every illegal is easy, practical, and cheap. It certainly wouldn't be insanely expensive or require a vast increase in government power via policing or anything.
Pay now or pay later. Not everything should be kicked down the road for others to tackle when the problem has become essentially insurmountable. Considering that MAKING it financially very difficult to fix was part of Obama's plan just means that GOPer politicians should make it a priority to fix what the Left's Political Messiah very deliberately . . . broke. Or not. After all I firmly believe that the Left has effectively already destroyed this nation and that people are now simply waiting (without realizing it) for the corpse to begin stinking. So . . . meh . . . whatever.
You make it sound as if there were zero illegals in America before Obama. Your God Reagan passed the first Amnesty, you know.
The solution is to cut the unnecessary, wasteful spending on bogus boondoggles and hand outs (both domestic and foreign), but your ilk are too caught up in gender identity, class and identity politics and worrying about whether little jimmy thinks he's a girl or not. You should leave the real decisions and real issues to adults.
