via Defense One.
Consider the trajectory of the draw down. It hasn't been a ramp. Its been a cliff. Additionally they aren't going after leadership. They're going after future leaders or "seed corn". Many Soldiers will tell me that this is a natural part of Army life...after a war there is a draw down. I'm telling them that this is way too steep for the target numbers. Sequestration is being factored in as we talk. 420,000 is the new target that the Army is reaching ... they just haven't told the rank and file yet.
The Army will lay off about 500 majors as part of its ongoing downsizing effort, the service has announced.Read the whole story but the numbers don't lie. The US Army is going below 490,000.
The military branch used involuntary separation boards to determine to determine where the number of soldiers exceeded future force requirements. The Army announced earlier this yearit planned to select from a pool of 19,000 captains and majors to reduce the size of its force in the post-war era. The service laid off 1,100 captains earlier this summer.
Consider the trajectory of the draw down. It hasn't been a ramp. Its been a cliff. Additionally they aren't going after leadership. They're going after future leaders or "seed corn". Many Soldiers will tell me that this is a natural part of Army life...after a war there is a draw down. I'm telling them that this is way too steep for the target numbers. Sequestration is being factored in as we talk. 420,000 is the new target that the Army is reaching ... they just haven't told the rank and file yet.
Wow, I'm so glad we were able to afford $200,000,000.00 for the Isreali Iron Dome instead of employing Honorable Americans. I'm sure they are more valuable than us yanks anyway. I wonder how many years those combat experienced Majors and Captains could have been employed?
ReplyDeletethe Army started the drawdown planning in 2008, and started cutting BNs in FY11. It wasn't enough for Congress and this is the result. You'll end up with an Army that can fight, but not provide persistent presence through rotations. You'll end up with the "Interim" Strykers being the answer for medium brigades for the next three decades.
ReplyDeleteIt is the nature of the beast, and Congress holds the purse strings.
Big Army bears the responsibility for not being able to take long, hard looks at its formations and breaking the rice bowls of Flag Officers. When was the last time Army and Corps sized units actually deployed for operations? Desert Storm.
DeleteRight now the Army is in this hybrid mode of having BCTs as the main combat units but still has outdated Army, Corps and Division echelons that are left-overs from WWII. We're not going to fight WWII again thanks to nuclear weapons, but Big Army can't get that thru their skulls.
Any time it deploys something bigger than a BCT, it becomes a multi-service operation. Army needs to scrap Army, Corps and Division echelons and replace them with a Joint HQ that has plug and play capability for other service and allied units.
Does Big Army have the guts for this? No, when does management ever lay itself off? Why are we tolerating an Army that lays off junior officers and protects senior leadership? These guys have their 20 years in already...show them the door and thank them for the service, but keep as many good Captains as possible
The US doesn't need a big army to wage AirSea Battle anymore. Just big navy + air force + marines are enough.
ReplyDeleteI want to know how many Generals they are losing. And the USAF, Admirals from the navy etc. I see a lot of downsizing in the middle but the top seems relatively unscathed.
ReplyDeleteFor enlisted, more than 25 and you are out. For officers, more than 20 and you are out. Retire all O-7 and above.
ReplyDeleteThen promote all officers up one grade to fill the vacant slots. This should protect the hard-won lessons of the last conflicts. We don't need more than about a dozen flag officers in each service. Not at the present size. That should remove a lot of dross and save a ton of cash.