OUR VIEW: Cutting too much military strength

Sierra Vista Herald ^ | Staff/HERALD REVIEW

[SandRat]

Political reaction to the announcement that the Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers within the next two years was predictable in Arizona.

With Fort Huachuca scheduled to lose 114 soldiers by 2017, local Congresswoman Martha McSally issued a statement Thursday warning that the force reduction was “short-sighted,” and properly reminded people that the local post is conducting some of the military’s most important missions at a time when national security has never been more threatened.

Arizona Sen. John McCain said the aggression of ISIS in the Middle East and events in the Ukraine have “overturned” any conceivable strategic rationale for this cut to Army end-strength.

Compared to other Army installations, the force reduction will have a minor impact on Fort Huachuca. More than 3,400 soldiers will be removed from Fort Benning in Georgia and some 3,350 from Fort Hood, Texas, which represent the two largest cuts the Army is planning.

Though the drawdown is significant, it may not be over. Washington politicians are still trying to bargain an end to sequestration — a program that has mandatory spending limits — which if followed would reduce the U.S. force to just 420,000 soldiers, the lowest number since before World War II.

That total doesn’t compare favorably to other superpowers around the globe.

Russia, for example, boasts more than 766,000 troops and a reserve force that tops 2.4 million. China has an active force of 2.3 million and India weighs in at 1.3 million.

Granted, technology has changed the modern-day battlefield and unlike the wars of our past, today’s enemies don’t necessarily represent nations and the battles have less to do with territory and more to do with ideology.

But ground forces and Army strength still matters. As Sen. McCain has noted, the threat in Ukraine and its potential consequence in Europe represent very real threats to American interests, both at home and abroad.

Drawing down military strength — to some extent to control federal budget spending — is a dangerous game for America.

Our troop size was similarly small in the years leading up to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. After that attack, bringing the Army back to a force strength of 570,000 trained soldiers took years against an enemy who didn’t have the resources that Russia or China would put into a fight with the United States.

Federal budget cuts or finding new revenue sources for the U.S. government are necessary, but force reductions to the point that national security is threatened is not a responsible policy.

[2banana]

The military votes predominantly for republicans - so they will be cut.

Illegals vote predominately for democrats - so they will get funding increases.

[2CAVTrooper]

Bookmark

[2CAVTrooper]

Un freaking believable....

40,000 is the equivalent of two full strength divisions. There is no way that we can afford such cuts. But God forbid that we cut money going to illegals, or the predator producing welfare broodmares. How about cutting some of that trillion dollars that’s wasted by HHS each year. The department of education can not account for more than half of their budget each year. Better yet, end baseline budgeting and cut the executive branch’s amenities back to pre WW2 levels.