U.S. Army Downsizes

NEWS FLASH! The Obama administration makes good on their “leading from behind” promise by announcing a Reduction In Force (RIF) of the U.S. Army of 40,000 soldiers and 17,000 civilian employees by the end of the 2017 budget year, i.e. by October 1, 2017. With 17,000 to 21,000 soldiers per division, this RIF means that approximately two full divisions will be taken out of the present force of ten active divisions.That is, the number of divisions will be reduced by about 20%!

All of this is happening in a backdrop of increasing military threats from ISIS and Iran in the Mideast, Russia in the Ukraine and in Eastern Europe, and China in the South China Sea. One could understand why Obama would want to do this because he wants:

  1. To reduce the footprint of the U.S. in world affairs.
  2. To reduce the economic burden of the military to free up economic resources for domestic programs.
  3. To politically satisfy the Left wing of the Democratic party.

Nevertheless, it is putting the United States in a great deal of danger, given the threats against us. ISIS is expanding in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and in Nigeria. At the same time, Putin of Russia is slowly absorbing the Ukraine and perhaps dreaming of putting Western Europe under his suzerainty, and China is pushing to take control of the entire South China Sea area. In addition, we can count Iran as a possible future nuclear antagonist. Never have we been in greater danger since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Views: 1,909

GO TO HOME

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Sharing is caring!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Martin

Wasn’t it after years of military spending cuts like these that the Second World War came about? Let’s not get caught with our pants down again.

blank

How short collective memory can be! Especially if education in history is not what it should be.

Mike Martin

Agreed, history education is lacking, but I would think that those calling the shots are well versed in history.

Mike Martin

To say “economic burden of the military” seems somewhat oximoronic. What would become of the economy without the military. I understand the intended meaning, cost vs. benefit, but I don’t think it’s valid. He’s only talking about the cost. Are those his words? … economic burden of the military …

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x