Posted on 02/24/2014 7:55:16 AM PST by bestintxas
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is due to decrease the size of the U.S. Army to its lowest levels since before World War II, The New York Times reported on Monday.
He’s due to unveil the new budget plan on Monday. Among his plans: Reduce the troop level in the Army from its high of 570,000 — the number recorded just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American soil — to 440,000 or 450,000, the smallest since 1940, The Hill reported.
“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,” one senior Pentagon official said to The New York Times.
The troop reduction comes as the White House is going forth with plans to withdraw most of the U.S. military presence from Afghanistan before year’s end.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
For another attack?
A repeat of Pearl Harbor?
“The only officers who make it through the promotion gauntlet will be the ones who are pure as the wind driven snow, having never stepped out of line or tested the system in any way. No risk takers need apply...just yes men/women.”
Been that way for decades, so what’s new?
“Shrinking the military makes it easier to identify and retain those who are loyal to the regime and head off a mutiny of Constitutionalists.”
No doubt that is part of the plan.
No, they are bowing at the feet of King Barry 1, and have voluntarily relinquished their rights and obligations.
Actually, the National Guard used carved pine. I have a collector friend who owns several of the original.
And the firepower they generate is probably increased on the order of 20x or more.
Putting explosives on target is what counts.
Besides, who needs mass armies when the military is being used to better corporate interests? That’s what SF and spy agencies are for.
I just happened to be reading that in May, 1949, our standing Army was down to 630,000 men. That was when Dwight Eisenhower turned down Truman's offer to make him head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because Ike didn't feel he could live with Truman's military budget cuts. Because of them the standing Army soon dwindled to 591,000 men -- still many more than Obama/Hagel's projected 440,000.
We all know what happened shortly afterward. Kim Il Sung's troops swept across the 38th parallel, taking advantage of our obvious weakness. The only questions now are when and where it will happen again, and how Obama's cuts will affect American citizens.
I read somewhere that Hagel and Brennan had become muslims like Barry and Jarrett, and Obama has six muslim advisors. And in a declassified FBI report in 2007 there were 22 muslim compounds across America, some near nuclear power plants. Any relevance to decreasing the military?
I read somewhere that Hagel and Brennan had become muslims like Barry and Jarrett, and Obama has six muslim advisors. And in a declassified FBI report in 2007 there were 22 muslim compounds across America, some near nuclear power plants. Any relevance to decreasing the military?
Yep, and the minions of Hitler were also just following orders. Don’t kid yourself. UpChuck is fully behind whatever the dictator tells him to do. He has no honor; if he did he would fight most of these cuts or resign in protest and come out against these cuts. Crappy senator, buttboy for a dictator and yes, Thank you Omaha World Herald and others in the state for pushing him for SofD.
Don’t come back to Nebraska UpChuck. We don’t want you back and you are not needed here.
Ya reckon?
“the smallest since 1940...............”
And what happened in 1941?
An important consideration is the effects of military spending on our economy. Most if not all technology has resulted from military spending.
This is about throwing money at the poor instead of investing in programs that will lead to advances in technology/jobs/the middle-class.
When the next war comes Hagel will blame Georg Bush.
The only enemy our military will be allowed to defeat is us.
“An important consideration is the effects of military spending on our economy. Most if not all technology has resulted from military spending.
This is about throwing money at the poor instead of investing in programs that will lead to advances in technology/jobs/the middle-class.”
Agreed. Not military per se that derive the technology, but in military-funded projects by contractors, I think.
Correction: this is not for the “poor”. It is for “VOTES”.
A democracy that chooses not to defend itself and to subsidize indolence by allowing citizens to vote themselves tax money, paid on the backs of the productive class, is a country that cannot survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.