Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama plans to cut 10,000+ troops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama plans to cut 10,000+ troops

    I actually agree with the European movements. =/

    (Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

    The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.

    Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.

    The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

    The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing U.S. forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

    "As Libya showed, you don't necessarily have to have boots on the ground all the time," an official said, explaining the White House view.

    "We are refining our strategy to something that is more realistic," the official added.

    President Barack Obama will help launch the U.S. review at the Pentagon on Thursday, and is expected to emphasize that the size of the U.S. military budget has been growing and will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.

    Obama has moved to curtail U.S. ground commitments overseas, ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan and ruling out anything but air power and intelligence support for rebels who overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

    The number of U.S. military personnel formally assigned to bases in Europe - including many now deployed in Afghanistan - is also set to decline sharply, administration sources said, while stressing that the final numbers have not been set.

    'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'

    "When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.

    Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.

    The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight.

    White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the defense cuts stemming from an August debt ceiling deal - worth about $489 billion over 10 years - need to be enacted carefully.

    "The president made clear to his team that we need to take a hard look at all of our defense spending to ensure that spending cuts are surgical and that our top priorities are met," Carney told reporters this week.

    The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.

    Panetta spent much of Wednesday afternoon briefing key congressional leaders about the strategic review. Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said after speaking to Panetta that the review was an attempt to evaluate U.S. strategic priorities for the future rather than identify specific budget reductions.

    Maintaining a significant presence in the Middle East and Asia, especially to counter Iran and North Korea, was a leading priority in the review, Smith said. So was making sure that military personnel are sufficiently cared for to guarantee the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force. Reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere are a real possibility, he said.

    Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the role of U.S. forces abroad.

    "From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.

    "So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.
    Last edited by GhostTX; 01-05-2012, 10:38 AM.
    "Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey

  • #2
    id agree with the euro stuff as well but if SHF they're going to start drafting people. Cut your spending else where, not on our freaking military. HE wants to cut mil money but not all his stupid ass stimulus $$

    Comment


    • #3
      He has to pay for his healthcare bill somehow
      07 GT500
      05 SRT10
      88 turbocoupe T-bird
      93 Cobra
      86 coupe
      Ducati 848

      Comment


      • #4
        The military is part of big government too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Lucky for me though, we still need stragetic defense.
          Full time ninja editor.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Slowhand View Post
            The military is part of big government too.
            Yet is one of the few things it's constitutionally obligated to fund
            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
              Yet is one of the few things it's constitutionally obligated to fund
              The degree to which it is is not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Slowhand View Post
                The degree to which it is is not.
                Considering there are only 18 powers of the federal government, it's pretty simple to figure out the degree of protection demanded by our Founders.
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                  Considering there are only 18 powers of the federal government, it's pretty simple to figure out the degree of protection demanded by our Founders.
                  Thank god we were protected from Vietnam.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Slowhand View Post
                    Thank god we were protected from Vietnam.
                    You're making a false argument. I didn't say we should engage in every world problem out there. I said national defense is one of the VERY few things the government should do and should be HEAVILY funded
                    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Cuts to NATO should have been first but the jackass said Libya proved we needed NATO. For what?!?!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yep, cut NATO, cut the UN, cut foreign aid and hamstring welfare before you cut the constitutional obligation
                        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I say cut else where keep our nose out of other peoples business and keep the military funded.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We have a lot more countries that do not like us. And they are much better armed than they use to be. We need our military now more than ever before. Pull the welfare tit from the mouths before doing any military cuts.
                            http://DallasGunTrader.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One thing about the our military is you cannot stand up to us in a classic battle, you just can't. The only way to beat us is in the shadows and conventional troops are not trained to do this so.

                              Look at the past 40 years at the wars we have fought. Gulf War proved you cannot stand up to us. Special operation battles are the future of war. But do we cut troops? I don't know but this is purely a political move. Pull out of Iraq, pull our of Afghanistan, and make sure those who served come back without a job? That is a big F-you if I have ever seen one.

                              Now politics comes before the people of this country, that's a little ass backwards since people make this country. Let's cut military to pay for the hope that the little guy in the white house can give the money to the 15% that never work and expect to have everything paid for since they are "Americans" or they are owed it. The people who bitch about their food not covered by food stamps after they buy a 60" LCD in cash. Send the thousands of troops that are being cut to Washington to replace everyone there now and watch how quickly the country improves.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X