Army to Cut Brigades at 10 US Bases......

[MMC]

The Army will eliminate at least 12 combat brigades, relocate thousands of soldiers and cancel $400 million in construction projects as the first wave of federal budget cuts takes aim at military communities around the country.

In a massive restructuring, Army leaders said Tuesday that they will slash the number of active duty combat brigades from 45 to 33, as the service moves forward with a longtime plan to cut the size of the service by 80,000. And they warned that more cuts — of as many as 100,000 more active duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers — could be coming if Congress allows billions of dollars in automatic budget cuts to continue next year.

The sweeping changes would eliminate brigades — which number from 3,500 to 5,000 troops — at 10 Army bases in the U.S. by 2017, including those in Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, New York, Kansas and Washington. The Army will also cut thousands of other jobs across the service, including soldiers in units that support the brigades, and two brigades in Germany have already been scheduled for elimination.

Gen. Ray Odierno, Army chief of staff, said one additional brigade will likely be cut, but no final decisions have been made.

The Army is being reduced in size from a high of about 570,000 during the peak of the Iraq war to 490,000 as part of efforts to cut the budget and reflect the country's military needs as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end. Odierno said that the potential 100,000 more would be spread out across the active duty, Guard and Reserves, and that there also could be reductions in the Army's 13 aviation brigades.

While the personnel cuts may have less impact at some of the Army's larger bases such as Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Bragg in North Carolina, they could be more painful for communities around some of the smaller installations such as Fort Knox, where currently only one brigade is based.

The other seven U.S. bases that will lose a brigade are: Fort Bliss in Texas, Fort Campbell in Kentucky, Fort Carson in Colorado, Fort Drum in New York, Fort Riley in Kansas, Fort Stewart in Georgia, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington. Soldiers in the deactivated brigades would be transferred to other units.....snip~

Army to cut brigades at 10 US bases

General Odierno said they tried to disperse these Cuts evenly. Tried, which they are saying more cuts are coming. Plus for all units attached to these ones. This is not good. We are doing this over all Armed Services. So it's not just the Army.

Moreover those little towns around some of those bases will be affected. Its not that they MIGHT or COULD be affected. Which they know this from the last time when Bilbo Clinton started all his sweeping Cuts. As well as when Carter did his. It immediately impacted the surrounding areas.

 

[fmw]

It's a start.

 

[MMC]

It's a start.

Heya FMW. :2wave: The Start of What?

 

[beerftw]

cutting personel is the dumbest idea practiced.

every time we have reductions in force,we have another war,which requires buying new gear to replace all the gear we auctioned off forsoldiers we booted out,and retraining new soldiers at a high expense.

it would be better fiscally to try and keep long term soldiers and current force levels,but instead cutting down on wastefull spending and not buying new unessecary gear to fuel contractors.heck the military in the last few years has bought numerous uparmored trucks,problem is no unit needs them stateside,and they ditch them when they deploy for trucks already in country,yet these trucks aremore important than personel numbers.

 

[Grand Mal]

Heya FMW. :2wave: The Start of What?

Getting spending under control?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the US accounts for over 1/3 of the world's military spending. Might be overkill.
I mean, you did it! You spent the USSR into oblivion in the arms race, brought down the 'Evil Empire'. You could knock it back a notch or two, now.

 

[Wiseone]

cutting personel is the dumbest idea practiced.

every time we have reductions in force,we have another war,which requires buying new gear to replace all the gear we auctioned off forsoldiers we booted out,and retraining new soldiers at a high expense.

it would be better fiscally to try and keep long term soldiers and current force levels,but instead cutting down on wastefull spending and not buying new unessecary gear to fuel contractors.heck the military in the last few years has bought numerous uparmored trucks,problem is no unit needs them stateside,and they ditch them when they deploy for trucks already in country,yet these trucks aremore important than personel numbers.

They already do that, its called Army Prepositioned Stock, the other services do it as well. Basically the theory came out of the Cold War where it was recognized that if war were to occur in Europe that it would be far easier and cheaper to move just Soldiers from the US instead of both Soldiers and their equipment, so massive stockyards were established that could provide equipment for entire division and could be maintained by a much smaller amount of Soldiers. Now instead of moving Soldiers and equipment, Soldiers could be flown to Europe, fall in on their equipment and go to war.

The concept has been updated since then and made global, although now the stockyards are much smaller than they used to be in the past.

Here's the Field Manual on the subject

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_35x1.pdf

 

[MMC]

Getting spending under control?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the US accounts for over 1/3 of the world's military spending. Might be overkill.
I mean, you did it! You spent the USSR into oblivion in the arms race, brought down the 'Evil Empire'. You could knock it back a notch or two, now.

Heya GM :2wave: .....Getting Spending Under Control? In what way would could you see this being done? How many are actual Soldiers and not National Guard and reserves should be considered into that equation don't ya think? Do you think there is a way to reign in spending that all know to be the cause of Cost to the Country? Why do those so called experts at economics state if we are not looking at Entitlements, then we are not looking at the real problem?

Also No I didn't spend the USSR into Oblivion, nor did I bring down the Evil Empire. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn express.....once. :lol: :2razz:

 

[fmw]

Heya FMW. :2wave: The Start of What?

We need to reduce the size and cost of government. This action is a start.

 

[MMC]

We need to reduce the size and cost of government. This action is a start.

How about we start with the Politicians? Depts of the Federal Government that are not needed. Then efficient handling of resources. Entitlements. All before reducing that which is needed to protect the interests, security, and the Sovereignty of the country.

Which this is not to say that sending the Guard back to their Normal status shouldn't be done. As the same with those in the Reserves.

Another angle is to look at who comes to our assistance when it concerns those other Countries.

 

[fmw]

How about we start with the Politicians? Depts of the Federal Government that are not needed. Then efficient handling of resources. Entitlements. All before reducing that which is needed to protect the interests, security, and the Sovereignty of the country.

Which this is not to say that sending the Guard back to their Normal status shouldn't be done. As the same with those in the Reserves.

Another angle is to look at who comes to our assistance when it concerns those other Countries.

I agree. We have an education department that doesn't educate anybody. We have an agriculture department that doesn't engage in agriculture. We have too much government everywhere. No argument at all.

 

[MMC]

I agree. We have an education department that doesn't educate anybody. We have an agriculture department that doesn't engage in agriculture. We have too much government everywhere. No argument at all.

Yeah, and two others would be the Dept of Homeland Security and the US Marshals Office. We don't need US Marshals to transport Federal Criminals nor hunt down escapees.

 

[apdst]

Getting spending under control?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the US accounts for over 1/3 of the world's military spending. Might be overkill.
I mean, you did it! You spent the USSR into oblivion in the arms race, brought down the 'Evil Empire'. You could knock it back a notch or two, now.

A good start would be halting green energy subsidies and put an end to government waste, like what we're seeing in the IRS.

A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.

 

[fmw]

Yeah, and two others would be the Dept of Homeland Security and the US Marshals Office. We don't need US Marshals to transport Federal Criminals nor hunt down escapees.

The only four cabinet departments we need are Defense, State, Treasury and Justice. All the others engage in activities that I view as being outside the role of government. If there are critical activites they can be put in one of those departments. For instance, I like the concept of the CDC. While it isn't really a role of government, its value is enough that we should make an exception. We don't need to be a memeber of the UN which is a fairly anti American organization. We could cut the government in half and not miss anything for very long. Even if we organized the government as it was in 1955 we would be miles ahead of what we have now. Understand that I'm not suggesting that society should get rid of all this overhead. I'm suggesting that the parts of it we need should go to state government and the private sector for the most part.

 

[MMC]

The only four cabinet departments we need are Defense, State, Treasury and Justice. All the others engage in activities that I view as being outside the role of government. If there are critical activites they can be put in one of those departments. For instance, I like the concept of the CDC. While it isn't really a role of government, its value is enough that we should make an exception. We don't need to be a memeber of the UN which is a fairly anti American organization. We could cut the government in half and not miss anything for very long. Even if we organized the government as it was in 1955 we would be miles ahead of what we have now. Understand that I'm not suggesting that society should get rid of all this overhead. I'm suggesting that the parts of it we need should go to state government and the private sector for the most part.

Excellent Post Fmw.....you hit that on the mark, dead center!

 

[fmw]

A good start would be halting green energy subsidies and put an end to government waste, like what we're seeing in the IRS.

A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.

Most of the federal government is waste. Energy is and should be something society puts in the private sector. When green energy is necessary and/or economically viable, the private sector will bring it on line without any help from government. Prior to that happening, it is just politics.

 

[notquiteright]

A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.

And a tad more expensive as well....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

A good start would be halting green energy subsidies and put an end to government waste, like what we're seeing in the IRS.

A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.

And each of those additional M1A1 tanks that Congress insisted that the Army buy even though the Army doesn't want and doesn't need them...they each cost more than that IRS convention.

 

[MMC]

And each of those additional M1A1 tanks that Congress insisted that the Army buy even though the Army doesn't want and doesn't need them...they each cost more than that IRS convention.

Now.....how does that compare to Federal Government Union Employees and their benefits? Who did you say was responsible for that cost that doubles or even triples any order for tanks?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Now.....how does that compare to Federal Government Union Employees and their benefits? Who did you say was responsible for that cost that doubles or even triples any order for tanks?

Chief - assuming that's what you're referring to - I think you need to take a deeper look. The cost all too often comes from shareholders demanding higher profits, and from subcontractors jacking up their prices too.

Think about it - if unions were so bad for the economy, why is it that non-union states are among the poorest, least educated states? I'm a retired flangehead up here in Washington, and this is a pretty heavily unionized state - but we're doing quite nicely compared to most "right-to-work" states. Scott Walker took over as Wisconsin's governor a few years back - the state's economy wasn't that bad off, but he went and attacked the unions, and now they're 47th in the nation in job growth.

If you'll think about it, the only - the only - tax dollars that are truly wasted...are those that are sent outside our nation's borders or - to a lesser extent - those that sit in bank accounts doing nothing. Tax dollars that are spent within our borders are not wasted - even those spent in the form of food stamps go towards a store's income, which goes towards the owner's and the workers' incomes, and to utilities and suppliers...and to taxes. If higher taxes and unions were always bad, and if lower taxes and "right to work" were always good, then blue states wouldn't generally be better off economically than red states.

 

[beerftw]

They already do that, its called Army Prepositioned Stock, the other services do it as well. Basically the theory came out of the Cold War where it was recognized that if war were to occur in Europe that it would be far easier and cheaper to move just Soldiers from the US instead of both Soldiers and their equipment, so massive stockyards were established that could provide equipment for entire division and could be maintained by a much smaller amount of Soldiers. Now instead of moving Soldiers and equipment, Soldiers could be flown to Europe, fall in on their equipment and go to war.

The concept has been updated since then and made global, although now the stockyards are much smaller than they used to be in the past.

Here's the Field Manual on the subject

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_35x1.pdf

im quite aware that we supply equipment in other countries for quick deployment.

my point though is more of lost equipment overall,like lets say multiple brigades are eliminated,some of their vehicles are transfered and many destroyed or decomissioned,but war breaks out again,thos vehicles have to be replaced to accomidate a growing force.

just for an example look at clintons cuts that were supposed to save money,the military was scaled back,then afghanistan and iraq happened,whether or not people agree with their legitimacy they happened.we had to spend billions in training new recruits,buyingmore equipment to handle a military expansion etc,overall it cost more than it would have to have kept existing forces levels and equipment.heck if they wanted their moneys worth for peacetime soldiers,they even could have used them for natural disasters or security,rather than hiring security guards for government buildings.

 

[MMC]

Chief - assuming that's what you're referring to - I think you need to take a deeper look. The cost all too often comes from shareholders demanding higher profits, and from subcontractors jacking up their prices too.

Think about it - if unions were so bad for the economy, why is it that non-union states are among the poorest, least educated states? I'm a retired flangehead up here in Washington, and this is a pretty heavily unionized state - but we're doing quite nicely compared to most "right-to-work" states. Scott Walker took over as Wisconsin's governor a few years back - the state's economy wasn't that bad off, but he went and attacked the unions, and now they're 47th in the nation in job growth.

If you'll think about it, the only - the only - tax dollars that are truly wasted...are those that are sent outside our nation's borders or - to a lesser extent - those that sit in bank accounts doing nothing. Tax dollars that are spent within our borders are not wasted - even those spent in the form of food stamps go towards a store's income, which goes towards the owner's and the workers' incomes, and to utilities and suppliers...and to taxes. If higher taxes and unions were always bad, and if lower taxes and "right to work" were always good, then blue states wouldn't generally be better off economically than red states.

I think you need to take a look at the stats on Red states vs Blue States. Moreover.....doesn't seem to be working out so well for Chicago and Illinois, nor California and L.A. Not so great for NY either.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I think you need to take a look at the stats on Red states vs Blue States. Moreover.....doesn't seem to be working out so well for Chicago and Illinois, nor California and L.A. Not so great for NY either.

Hm. I know that red states generally (but not always) have:

- lower average incomes
- lower average levels of education
- higher homicide rates
- higher divorce rates
- higher teen pregnancy rates
- lower rates of health insurance, and
- lower life expectancies

And you know what? NONE of the above are because of conservative governance or the lack thereof. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why I said that.

And speaking of California, if you'll check, now that they've got a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in California, they've finally balanced the budget. It wasn't painless, but now that they were able to deep-six that hideous Prop. 13 that did so much damage to their economy over almost 30 years, they're finally on the way to real economic recovery.

And if you really want to speak about New York, go look up any of the above stats and compare them to your Southern states, then get back to me.

 

[MMC]

Hm. I know that red states generally (but not always) have:

- lower average incomes
- lower average levels of education
- higher homicide rates
- higher divorce rates
- higher teen pregnancy rates
- lower rates of health insurance, and
- lower life expectancies

And you know what? NONE of the above are because of conservative governance or the lack thereof. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why I said that.

And speaking of California, if you'll check, now that they've got a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in California, they've finally balanced the budget. It wasn't painless, but now that they were able to deep-six that hideous Prop. 13 that did so much damage to their economy over almost 30 years, they're finally on the way to real economic recovery.

And if you really want to speak about New York, go look up any of the above stats and compare them to your Southern states, then get back to me.

Not even close.....the only thing Blue states have is they are holding 42% of the Nations Income. Due to more population. That's is all. Perhaps you should revisit that history. As it isn't panning out like you say. Homicides, Suicides, Higher Teen Pregnancies, Lower life expectancies. Lower average levels of education. Are all part of the Blue State Failed Ideology and Concept.

Growth higher in red states than blue, swing states.....

Red states' income growing faster than blue states'

Key swing state findings:

•Declines. Four of the 10 slowest growing are swing states: New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and Nevada. The Silver State's income plunge is in a class of its own, down 10.8% because of its real estate collapse.

•Gains. Eight of the top 10 states in income growth lean Republican.

•Working. Compensation has fallen 2.1% in swing states and 1.8% in blue states since December 2007. It's up 1.7% in red states. Keeping income afloat everywhere: a 25%

Red states' income growing faster than blue states'

Illinois is ready to file bankruptcy and has the Lowest Credit rating in the Country. That's with Chicago Leading the Way. California if failing economically as is NY and Most other Blue States with their Major Cities.

Which none from the Right has ever controlled those failing cities and states. All of these are because of Liberal/Progressive governance. 75 years of failed leadership Speaks in volumes. After you revisit that History. Then get back to me on those so called successes of the alleged Blue states.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Not even close.....the only thing Blue states have is they are holding 42% of the Nations Income. Due to more population. That's is all. Perhaps you should revisit that history. As it isn't panning out like you say. Homicides, Suicides, Higher Teen Pregnancies, Lower life expectancies. Lower average levels of education. Are all part of the Blue State Failed Ideology and Concept.

Growth higher in red states than blue, swing states.....

Red states' income growing faster than blue states'

Key swing state findings:

•Declines. Four of the 10 slowest growing are swing states: New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and Nevada. The Silver State's income plunge is in a class of its own, down 10.8% because of its real estate collapse.

•Gains. Eight of the top 10 states in income growth lean Republican.

•Working. Compensation has fallen 2.1% in swing states and 1.8% in blue states since December 2007. It's up 1.7% in red states. Keeping income afloat everywhere: a 25%

Red states' income growing faster than blue states'

Illinois is ready to file bankruptcy and has the Lowest Credit rating in the Country. That's with Chicago Leading the Way. California if failing economically as is NY and Most other Blue States with their Major Cities.

Which none from the Right has ever controlled those failing cities and states. All of these are because of Liberal/Progressive governance. 75 years of failed leadership Speaks in volumes. After you revisit that History. Then get back to me on those so called successes of the alleged Blue states.

Okay, chief, I got something going on today, but I'll get back to you late tonight. But just to let you know - I can back up all my claims with hard-and-fast numbers...

...and I'll leave you with this one really troubling fact: Texas is one of the few Southern states that seems to be doing really well, but 41% of teachers in Texas have second jobs just to make ends meet (and yes, I can back up that one, too). Instead of going the extra mile to teach kids, instead of working on lesson plans and grading tests and homework, they're off to their second job. Welcome to life in the Republican paradise!

 

[MMC]

Okay, chief, I got something going on today, but I'll get back to you late tonight. But just to let you know - I can back up all my claims with hard-and-fast numbers...

...and I'll leave you with this one really troubling fact: Texas is one of the few Southern states that seems to be doing really well, but 41% of teachers in Texas have second jobs just to make ends meet (and yes, I can back up that one, too). Instead of going the extra mile to teach kids, instead of working on lesson plans and grading tests and homework, they're off to their second job. Welcome to life in the Republican paradise!

I'm not worried.....You can note my location and that Democratic Bastion of Liberaldom. Wherein I doubt there is much you can show in comparison with that Democratic Utopia and their spending.