Thread: Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
FEB. 23, 2014

Video at the Page Link:

Play Video

Video|2:46 Credit Bob Landry/Time Life Pictures, via Getty Images

Think Back: The Military Budget

United States military spending has ballooned since World War II, although Americans have historically been reluctant to go to war. The Times’s Sam Tanenhaus explains why.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

Photo Launch media viewer

A spending plan that will be released Monday will be the first sweeping initiative set forth by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press “You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.
Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.
For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.
Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.
Continue reading the main story
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.
“We’re still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said. “But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained.”
Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
Continue reading the main story
6 million

Downsizing DefenseCuts proposed by the Obama administration would result in the smallest Army since just before the World War II buildup.

5 Active duty military personnel, U.S. Army

4 1945, World War II 6.0 million

3 1952, Korean War 1.6 million

1968, Vietnam War 1.6 million

2 Proposed for the future 440,000-450,000

2011 566,000

1
’40
’50
’60
’70
’80
’90
’00
’10
Source: Department of Defense

The Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions. But the Guard would see its arsenal reshaped.
The Guard’s Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk — a workhorse transport helicopter — to use in domestic disaster relief.
The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.
The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel’s full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans’ organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.
Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.
The fiscal 2015 budget also calls for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.
The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel’s proposals do not include any changes to retirement benefits for those currently serving.
Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft would be eliminated. The aircraft was designed to destroy Soviet tanks in case of an invasion of Western Europe, and the capabilities are deemed less relevant today. The budget plan does sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane, which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.
Continue reading the main story Write A Comment In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.
The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.
Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.

A version of this article appears in print on February 24, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Prewar Level. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us...-ii-level.html

Pentagon Officials Say They’re Willing to Assume Risks of a Reduced Army

By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER
FEB. 24, 2014



“You have fewer troops, fewer ships, fewer planes,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday as he formally unveiled the

WASHINGTON — In shrinking the United States Army to its smallest size since 1940, Pentagon officials said Monday that they were willing to assume more risk the next time troops are called to war.
But assuming more risk, they acknowledged, meant that more of those troops would probably die.
“You have fewer troops, fewer ships, fewer planes,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said at a Pentagon news conference on Monday as he formally unveiled the department’s $496 billion budget for the 2015 fiscal year. “Readiness is not the same standard. Of course there’s going to be risk.”
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also warned of higher risks during a news conference on Monday. He said that if additional cuts are imposed under the across-the-board mandatory reductions known as sequestration, “the risks grow, and the options we can provide the nation dramatically shrink.”

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level FEB. 23, 2014

He said a smaller Army must not only serve the needs of the country but also provide battlefield support to other segments of the military.
“At the end of the day, it’s our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen — America’s sons and daughters — who will face tomorrow’s challenges with the strategy, structure and resources that we develop today,” General Dempsey said.
Under Mr. Hagel’s proposed budget, the Army would drop to 440,000 to 450,000 troops by 2019, down from a peak of 570,000 during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army, which bore the brunt of the fighting and casualties in the wars, was already scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops.
The National Guard and reserves, which were costly to train for Iraq and Afghanistan to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions, although the Guard’s arsenal would change to focus more on domestic disaster relief.
Many defense experts interviewed Monday said that given the budget realities, the decision to cut back on the Army made sense, even with the increased risk. One goal of reducing personnel costs, for example, is to find more money for training and weapons. Given that President Obama has said he wants to move away from a permanent war footing, budgetary gains would come from not having to carry a large land-war invasion army when the country is no longer engaged in such invasions.
“You can’t buy perfect security,” said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and a defense expert at the Center for American Progress. “How many tank battalions do you want to have? When do you expect to be using them?”
Michèle Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration, said the country was unlikely to find itself engaged in two large simultaneous ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan anytime soon.
“If we got that prediction wrong, there would be some risk in terms of needing to grow the force quickly to try to cope with a second large and sustained ground campaign,” she said. “It’s a calculated risk, but one that I think is reasonable.”
Other military experts said a smaller Pentagon budget would mean cutting back on training and forgoing repairs for some equipment. If a crisis erupts, they said, the military could still mobilize troops, but they might not be as prepared, at least not initially.
“The Army won’t say, ‘You haven’t given us any money to train these guys — we need six months to get there,’ ” if American troops were suddenly called up, said Maren Leed, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former adviser to Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff. “They’ll send them anyway, and then more of them are going to die. The military will always respond to the need.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Hagel is to visit Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia and discuss the future of the Army.
A version of this article appears in print on February 25, 2014, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Pentagon Officials Say They’re Willing to Assume Risks of a Reduced Army. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us...army.html?_r=0

GOP Slams Obama Plan to Cut Military to 'Pre-World War II Level'



Monday, 24 Feb 2014 12:05 PM
By Newsmax Wires

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will propose on Monday a reduction in the size of the U.S. military to its smallest size since before World War II and scrapping a class of Air Force attack jets, The New York Times reported late Sunday.
The plans, which the paper said were outlined by several Pentagon officials on condition of anonymity, would be aimed at reducing defense spending in the face of government austerity after a pledge by President Barack Obama to end U.S. involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would leave the military capable of defeating any enemy but too small for long foreign occupations, and would involve greater risk if U.S. forces were asked to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

Specifically, officials acknowledged that winning such a war would take longer, and there would be a larger number of casualties.

The plan also would:

• Transfer the National Guard's Apache attack helicopters to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the National Guard;
• Create an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen;
• Call for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries;
• Eliminate the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft;
• Retire the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.

Overall, the Army, which currently has about 540,000 troops, will drop by about 20 percent to 440,000 troops over the next several years.
"You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war," the Times quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying.
The Times added that some of the plans may face political opposition in Congress, but quoted the officials as saying that they had the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But details of the proposal met immediate resistance Monday.
"It's going to be the job of Congress to step in and move those numbers up," Republican Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said on Bloomberg TV's "In the Loop" program. "The world is not getting to be a safer place. This is not the time for us to begin to retreat, and certainly not the time to cut our military."
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News the cuts would hurt military readiness. The nation is only in this position because the Obama administration and Congress will not seriously take on cuts to entitlements, he said.

"It's all being sacrificed ... on the altar of entitlements. This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we've done in the Congress — and this president — is basically cut discretionary spending," McCaul said.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane told Fox News the proposed budget cuts by the Pentagon would "cut into the bone and the capabilities of the Army."

Keane said this move reflected a poor understanding of the last century of U.S. military history.

"The assumption that's being made in the Pentagon, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so serious, is they don't believe the United States will involve itself in a ground war of any consequence again," Keane said. "The fact of the matter is, those assumptions have been made after World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War, and every single time they have been proven wrong. Here we are making that same assumption again."

And Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, whose husband was an A-10 pilot, has already vowed to fight plans to retire that aircraft.

But the libertarian Cato Institute said on its blog that the cuts sound "like the kind of force that Americans want and expect. Given rapidly rising personnel costs, and the great political difficulty of reining them in, the only way to achieve actual savings may be a smaller active-duty force."

Cato added that reaction from military contractors and Beltway insiders was "predictably apoplectic, but one doubts that the American public are terribly worried about a military that might be slightly less likely to get involved in unnecessary and counterproductive nation-building missions in distant lands."

Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, has said recently that whatever the future size of the Army, it must adapt to conditions that are different from what many soldiers have become accustomed to during more than a decade of war. He said many have the misperception that the Army is no longer busy.

"People tend to think that the Army is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is not much going on," he said Jan. 23 at an Army forum. "The Army is not standing still. The Army is doing many, many, many things in order for us to shape the future environment and prevent conflict around the world."

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hagel is seeking a limit on both military pay raises and healthcare benefits.

He also is looking at much less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.

"Personnel costs reflect some 50 percent of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," Defense Department spokesman Adm. John Kirby told the Journal. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation."

"This is a real uphill battle with Congress," Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank in Washington, told the Journal

"God bless [Hagel] for trying to get a handle on these costs," she said. "But in this political environment, in an election year, it's going to be hard for members of Congress to accept anything that's viewed as taking benefits away from troops."

Hagel's preview echoes proposals by predecessors Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, who showcased parts of their respective budgets before formal release. The deepest cuts were announced by Gates in April 2009 with the termination or truncation of numerous programs, including the manned vehicle portion of Boeing's then-$159 billion Future Combat System for the Army.
Hagel's proposal won't include termination of any major weapons programs for next year, although he'll announce the Army won't continue funding beyond the current technology demonstration phase for the Ground Combat Vehicle, said an official. General Dynamics Corp. and BAE Systems Plc are developing competing versions of the system.
The weapons-buying request for 2015 will be about $91 billion, or $15.2 billion less than the $106.2 billion the Pentagon estimated last year; and $64 billion for research and development, or $8.8 billion less than forecast, according to internal budget figures provided by a defense official.
Hagel's most controversial proposals instead may be to reduce the rate of compensation increases and housing allowances, according to officials.
The political resistance to any cuts in pay for active-duty military or benefits for veterans was demonstrated this month: Congress partially reversed its own decision in December's budget agreement to restrain cost-of- living adjustments for working-age military retirees.
Hagel faces a tighter budget environment than either Panetta or Gates because his plan was required under the Bipartisan Budget Act to cut as much as $43 billion from the year-ago level envisioned for fiscal 2015.
That's in addition to a $25 billion reduction for this fiscal year mandated by the budget plan lawmakers crafted, and $37 billion eliminated in fiscal 2013 under the automatic cuts known as sequestration.
The budget agreement delayed sequestration cuts until 2016, allowing congressional appropriators and the military to select this year and next how to apportion the reductions.
Among the most closely watched figures when Obama releases the budget March 4 will be the nonwartime annual spending for fiscal years 2016-2019.
The administration in January gave the Pentagon guidance through 2019 that calls for spending after 2015 that would exceed congressional budget caps, according to officials.
A defense official today said the new five-year plan will push spending to about $115 billion beyond the limits.
The planned Army force cuts were reported last night by Defense News.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pen...o_code=12BDE-1