Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....

Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....]
FOX ^

Army Planning To Cut Number Of Combat Brigades, Officials Say | Fox News

Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say

Published January 25, 2012 | Associated Press

The U.S. Army plans to slash the number of combat brigades from 45 to as low as 32, and broadly restructure its fighting force to save money and cut the size of the service by about 80,000 soldiers, according to U.S. officials familiar with the plans.

Officials said the sweeping changes will likely increase the size of each combat brigade -- generally by adding another battalion -- in an effort to ensure that those remaining brigades have the fighting capabilities they need when they go to war. A brigade is usually about 3,500 soldiers, but can be as large as 5,000 for the heavily armored units. A battalion is usually between 600-800 soldiers.

Reducing the overall number of brigades will also eliminate the need for the headquarters units that command and oversee them.

Officials acknowledged that merging battalions together into larger brigades could shift some soldiers to different bases across the country, although that effort could be stymied by members of Congress who don't like to see the staffing decline at bases that feed the local economy. Officials said the Army will try to limit such shifts.

The cuts come as the Pentagon puts the finishing touches on its 2013 fiscal year budget, which must reflect about $260 billion in savings in its five-year plan. Congress has ordered the Defense Department to come up with a total of $487 billion over the next 10 years, and could face cuts of double that amount if Congress can't reach an agreement to avoid automatic across-the-board reductions mandated by lawmakers last year.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

 

What the fuck? how are we cutting combat brigades when we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan and on the fence with Iran, and possibly might have to go to war with them too?

 

Obama and SEAL Team 6. That's all we need.

 

By eliminating the troops in Europe where they are not needed. Supposedly 10,000 are leaving soon but 30,000 will still remain, but they may be part of the future reduction. So that's half of what is going to be eliminated. And we will still have more than we had on 9/11.

Occupation warfare is expensive and has become outdated as shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon is preparing, hopefully, for the future where drones and missiles will be the main projection of force. If ground troops are needed, get them in, do the job and then get the hell out of there.

 

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

 

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

 

If war breaks out with Russia or China we need twice the Army we have now. Doesn't mean we should maintain that strength now

 

If tensions between the US and either of those countries get to that point we will bring down a nuclear rainstorm instead of sending in a massive invading army.

Either way it's HIGHLY unlikely that it will get to that point.

 

I don't know a strong ground force is necessary if we want to maintain the worlds best Military, I'm not saying the Iraq war was right or wrong but we bombed the shit out of Iraq for years and had sanctions on them, Saddams regime was able to survive that, we sent in a ground force and the regime was toppled in less than 3 weeks. Air power is nice to have but its not the answer for every situation.

 

Oh I agree, but nobody knows what will happen in the future. Plus it makes no sense to me to shrink the Military now when we are still engaged in conflicts on the ground in places like Afghanistan and tensions with Iran are mounting.