Future of our Military

[Modbert]

In the future, where do you think our Military will be fighting? Not only that, but whom and for how long.

Let's try to keep this thread about policy issues while keeping out things such as politics, partisanship, etc.

Let's say, a year down the road, three years, and five years for example.

Some background information for those who haven't seen yet:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lt-on-terrorism-widens-on-two-continents.html

Thoughts USMB?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We hopefully will not have abandoned Afghanistan. It takes 15 to 20 years of sustained effort to wipe out insurgency. In the case of Iraq hopefully our 8 years on the ground and training of the new Iraqi Army and police will sustain the drive in that Country. Terrorism is just another form of Insurgency.

How does one leave politics out of military discussions? The Military is RUN by politicians and even the Great military authors of the past and present all admit war and the use of the military are just extensions of Foreign policy.

Under Obama I do not see us attacking anyone else. In fact until a lot of Americans wake up to the fact that Islam is the enemy I do not see us accomplishing much even in this Country.

 

[zzzz]

I think that China will attempt to take over Taiwan in the next 10 years. They see the wars we are in and the drain on our economy and armed forces. The army is sustaining a lot of wear on tear on material and the men fighting are getting tired of fighting wars that have no end. Sure we have victory in Iraq but Afghanistan has no end as long as the insurgents have a safe base of operations in Pakistan. We are doomed to follow the Russian experience there. But it is the overall status of our military that the Chinese are looking at. They are rebuilding their armed forces into a modern force.

They want Taiwan back and they have been willing to wait until the right time to seize it and that time is sometime in the next 10 years. Will we decide to interfere, I think we will not. The cost of a war with China would be enormous. The Chinese would be fighting in their own yard and we would have to move carriers and fly our planes enormous distances to get to the fight. We would probably lose some carriers not to mention our expensive planes. The fight would have to be contained over Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. If we bombed the mainland we would be inviting attacks on California, or Hawaii or other states and territories. Non-nuclear ballistic missiles could reach anywhere in the US and that isn’t even taking into account nuclear forces. I don’t think the American people want to go through that fear again (Cold War and MAD) especially for someplace that we have no real reason for defending.

For those of you who think the US military is untouchable here is a link

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

to a RAND study about a possible war with China over Taiwan. It deals primarily with the air war and how the US would have to have everything go right. Even then after the first wave we lose a significant amount of our AWACS and refueling tankers. Without those tankers our fighters are worthless because they cannot get to fight. It is an interesting study and it is 2 years old.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Iran Vs. Israel?

That seems the most realistic for now.

 

[zzzz]

Iran Vs. Israel?

That seems the most realistic for now.

Could be the worlds first nuclear war! The Israelis might have to use nukes to get to the underground nuclear sites. And they don't have to worry about fallout because the winds will take it east into Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[Modbert]

We hopefully will not have abandoned Afghanistan. It takes 15 to 20 years of sustained effort to wipe out insurgency. In the case of Iraq hopefully our 8 years on the ground and training of the new Iraqi Army and police will sustain the drive in that Country. Terrorism is just another form of Insurgency.

How does one leave politics out of military discussions? The Military is RUN by politicians and even the Great military authors of the past and present all admit war and the use of the military are just extensions of Foreign policy.

Under Obama I do not see us attacking anyone else. In fact until a lot of Americans wake up to the fact that Islam is the enemy I do not see us accomplishing much even in this Country.

Well what I meant was I don't want us to turn into a "OMG OBAMA or OMG REPUBLICANS!" thread. Wanted to have a discussion.

How many troops do you think we'll need to fight in Afghanistan in the coming years? I'm not going to bother with your last paragraph because there are already plenty of threads about that.

 

[Modbert]

Iran Vs. Israel?

That seems the most realistic for now.

Israel will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. They won't let them get to completion. The way I see it right now, Saudi Arabia has given the go ahead to Israel. Israel will end up going through Saudi Arabia to take out what Iran is doing. At that point, anything goes as to what happens. A thousand different things.

 

[Madeline]

It is 6 Minutes to Midnight | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We hopefully will not have abandoned Afghanistan. It takes 15 to 20 years of sustained effort to wipe out insurgency. In the case of Iraq hopefully our 8 years on the ground and training of the new Iraqi Army and police will sustain the drive in that Country. Terrorism is just another form of Insurgency.

How does one leave politics out of military discussions? The Military is RUN by politicians and even the Great military authors of the past and present all admit war and the use of the military are just extensions of Foreign policy.

Under Obama I do not see us attacking anyone else. In fact until a lot of Americans wake up to the fact that Islam is the enemy I do not see us accomplishing much even in this Country.

Well what I meant was I don't want us to turn into a "OMG OBAMA or OMG REPUBLICANS!" thread. Wanted to have a discussion.

How many troops do you think we'll need to fight in Afghanistan in the coming years? I'm not going to bother with your last paragraph because there are already plenty of threads about that.

We need to put more pressure on Europe to provide combat troops. The current administration makes that nearly impossible with the constant " we are leaving " comments.

Such comments, including the now infamous " we are not fighting to win" statement embolden our enemies, weaken any bargaining chips or control we may have over allies and generally are ignorant ways to run ones Foreign policy.

130000 to 150000 with Allied help should be enough. The problem with Afghanistan is that we do not have a reliable base from which to make a rapid expansion of military and police indigenous to the Country.

 

[zzzz]

Afghanistan is a lost cause as long as the Taliban can run across the border with Pakistan. It’s the same scenario as Vietnam. We proved that when the Russians were there. Why do we not learn from history? We need to withdraw and let the native forces fight it out. If the Taliban resumes control of the country which is not a foregone conclusion then we can keep an eye on them. If we see terror camps being reformed, bomb them without warning. It is not a good solution but it is the best solution and no matter how long we stay there we will have the same result.

Our military needs time to recoup. The tanks and vehicles need to be overhauled and replaced and the troops need to rest and recover from 8 years of continuous combat. The country is becoming war weary and if something else pops up we have a hard time responding effectively.

 

[Militants]

Navy - 300.000
Coast Guard - 28.000
Air Force - 250.000
Marin Corps - 172.000
Army - 450.000

Total: 1.200.000 professionel Armed. Maybe this is true in futures race.

NATO include alliance between USA, Canada, Marocco, Turkey and Europe ?!?!?! No Georgia.

The queiston is which year this sum in alert in America. 2018-2022 this trueless ?

 

[whitehall]

My guess is that future administrations will continue to build toys for big boys for a Navy war that we will never see. The Army will downgrade it's training to the point that any fat babe off the street will be able to wear the Green Beret. The Marines will be fighting for survival as usual, the Air Force will have developed a new generation of drones so sophisticated that it will make manned planes all but obsolete.

 

[Militants]

I think my arms is correkt. Other says ?

 

[longknife]

As someone posted, it is impossible to keep politics out of a discussion like this. Who said something like "war is just an extension of diplomacy?"

What I think the American people want is for us to have a strong, well-trained, and organized military with equipment equal to the task.

I also think a lot of Americans want us to get the hell out of places we have no business being. Many are - as the leftists and progs would call them - isolationists and want us to stop our foreign aid and military programs.

Bring 'em home and defend our own borders first!

I honestly think this might be the trend if Trump is elected president. Things like rescinding the Posse Comitatus Act and allowing our military to actively patrol the border. Withdrawing forces from overseas while maintaining foreign staging/supply areas.

Having personally been involved in foreign military sales and training, I think we could free up billions for things desperately needed here at home!

 

[Militants]

The Military should cost U.S. ->->-> 450 billion euro after America gets down with 190.000 soldier.

 

[Militants]

Or Military will bee 1,306,000 with Cruz or Clinton some US president i'm wondering ....

25,000 under with Army is truely with plan are in 2018. From 475,000 to 450,000 Soldier ....

 

[Militants]

Army to realign brigades, cut 40,000 Soldiers, 17,000 civilians | Article | The United States Army

Army to realign brigades, cut 40,000 Soldiers, 17,000 civilians
July 9, 2015

By C. Todd Lopez



The "Stone Gate" is shown on Benning Road on Fort Benning, Georgia. During a July 9, 2015 news conference, the Army announced that by the end of fiscal year 2018, the active Army expects to have drawn down in size from 490,000 to 450,000. Army officials also said the service will shrink the size of several brigade combat teams and will cut 17,000 civilian employees. At Fort Benning Ga., the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, will convert to a maneuver battalion task force by fiscal 2017.

Related Links

• Army.mil: Inside the Army News
• Army.mil: Ready and Resilient
• STAND-TO!: Ready and Resilient
• STAND-TO!: The U.S. Army Operating Concept
• STAND-TO!: Force 2025 and Beyond
• Army News Service
• ARNEWS on Facebook

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, July 9, 2015) -- By the end of fiscal 2018, the active Army expects to have drawn down in size from 490,000 to 450,000, said Army officials during a press conference at the Pentagon, July 9. The service will also shrink the size of several brigade combat teams and will cut 17,000 civilian employees.

"These are incredibly difficult choices," said Brig. Gen. Randy George, director of force management for the Army. "The Army followed a long and deliberate process that included utilization of a [Government Accountability Office]-endorsed military value analysis process, and an inclusive total Army analysis, in order to determine the best construct for the Army, based on the threats we face and the current fiscal environment we must operate in."

The most-recently announced cuts will heavily affect six installations, where more than 1,000 Soldiers will be cut. These locations include 3,402 Soldiers on Fort Benning, Georgia; 3,350 Soldiers on Fort Hood, Texas; 2,631 Soldiers on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska; 1,251 Soldiers on Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; 1,214 Soldiers on Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and 1,219 Soldiers on Fort Bliss, Texas.

During the press conference, the Army provided a list of 30 installations - including those six - where changes would be made. Communities outside those installations will regrettably be affected, by the changes, George said, but "the Army has to operate within the budget provided. Part of doing that is restructuring and reorganizing to be able to accomplish the Army's mission in the best manner possible."

Cuts to the force will come from reductions of headquarters - focusing on two-star and above headquarters; the reduction of brigade combat teams; the Aviation Restructure Initiative; operational force design changes; and reduction to enabler and generating forces.

George said that the Army will try to draw down the active force end strength gradually in order to "minimize the turbulence we have with Soldiers and their Families."

By the end of fiscal 2015, the force will be at 490,000 Soldiers; at the end of FY16, 475,000; at the end of FY17, 460,000; and at the end of FY17, 450,000.

In 2012, the regular Army had an end strength of about 570,000 Soldiers, during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In 2013, the Army announced a drawdown of 80,000, to be completed by the end of FY17, that would bring the size of the Army to 490,000 Soldiers. The newest reductions of 40,000, in support of the president's budget, will further reduce the force to 450,000 by the end of 2018.

Much of the initial 80,000-Soldier reduction was achieved by elimination of temporary end-strength increases, wartime allowance and reductions in Europe.

With the latest reductions, the Army will try to use attrition as well, George said, and the slope of the drawdown will help with that. But with this drawdown, not all Soldier cuts will be able to come through attrition. Instead, the Army will need to continue officer and enlisted involuntary separations to meet the end-strength target of 450,000 Soldiers. There will also be early retirement boards. "We do expect that will happen."

Among civilians, there will be a 17,000-person reduction in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The Army has said that these reductions can be achieved through attrition and by not filling currently unfilled positions. The Army has already cut the civilian workforce by 8,000. The additional 17,000 cuts will mean a total loss of 25,000 Army civilians by FY17.

Three of the affected Army installations will see changes to some of their largest operational units, called brigade combat teams, which typically involve about 4,000 Soldiers.

At Fort Benning, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, or BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, will convert to a maneuver battalion task force by FY17. A maneuver battalion task force includes about 1,050 Soldiers rather than the 4,000 in a full BCT. The change on Fort Benning means it no longer needs to expand its training area. The change will also reduce the competition on Fort Benning for ranges and training areas that exist now between the 3rd BCT, the Armor and the Infantry School. About 3,402 Soldiers will be cut on Fort Benning.

The Army has said that Fort Benning scored in the bottom third of a military value assessment, or MVA, which is largely related to the quality and availability of its training spaces.

The Army also said that despite the temporary nature commonly associated with "task forces," a maneuver battalion task force is actually a permanent part of Army force structure. Such task forces offer commanders the option to grow rapidly to create a BCT, if needed. The task force allows the Army to maintain some combat power capability and also allows "reversibility" within a force size of 450,000 Soldiers - versus completely eliminating a BCT.

In January, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno had said the Army would achieve the 450,000 end strength though the elimination of four BCTs. This is no longer the plan. Instead, the Army will convert some BCTs to maneuver battalion task forces, as it will in Georgia.

At Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, or JBER, the Army will also convert the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, to a maneuver battalion task force by FY17. The unit will continue to support the U.S. Army Pacific Command rapid reaction capability with an airborne capability. The reduction will also reduce training complications at JBER, which also scored in the bottom third of the MVA - due primarily to availability of quality training ranges. About 2,631 Soldiers will be cut from Alaska.

In Hawaii, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, on Schofield Barracks, will convert from a Stryker BCT to a two-maneuver-battalion infantry brigade combat team.

The conversion in Hawaii maximizes collective training for both BCTs there, which can now train with existing units from the 3rd BCT. Additionally, the change streamlines logistics support, and reduces costs associated with training at a training centers, because the unit will no longer need to ship Stryker vehicles. Schofield Barracks, like JBER and Fort Benning, ranked in the bottom third of the MVA as well.

The Strykers from 2-25 are expected to move to support the Army National Guard's, or ARNG's, 81st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 40th Infantry Division, in Washington, Oregon, and California. The equipment from that heavy unit will move to the active Army to establish pre-positioned stock in Europe to bolster the ongoing commitment to the European Reassurance Initiative.

Officials expect it could take two years to establish the pre-positioned stocks - about one year for the ARNG to divest its heavy equipment, and one year to reset the gear and get it in place in Europe.

The Army also plans to reduce the size of two-star-and-above headquarters by some 25 percent. For divisions, this means a reduction of about 225 Soldiers. For a corps-sized headquarters, this means about 222 Soldiers.

Additional changes involve the 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command relocating from Fort Knox, Kentucky, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, no later than the end of the year. The 3rd ESC would then be able to co-locate with its corps headquarters, the XVIII Airborne Corps.

Additionally, the 1st Theater Sustainment Command will relocate from Fort Bragg to Fort Knox. According to the Army, there are adequate facilities on both Fort Knox and Fort Bragg to support the moves, without the need for additional construction.

When determining which cuts to make, and where, the Army conducted environmental and socioeconomic analysis of reductions at the Army's 30 largest installations. Additionally, the Army received more than 111,000 public comments on the force structure changes. The Army also conducted "community listening" sessions at those 30 installations to receive input from residents and civic leaders. More than 22,000 attended the listening sessions to provide input.

SEQUESTRATION

If sequestration continues, the Army is expected to shrink further to about 420,000 Soldiers - a loss of an additional 30,000 Soldiers. George said that would happen after the recently-announced cuts were completed, so they would begin sometime in 2019.

Citing earlier comments by the Army's chief of staff, George said that cuts below 450,000 Soldiers "would be significant risk" for the Army, in terms of meeting current combatant commander requirements and also "being ready for the unknowns."

"Certainly it's about choices, about where you apply forces and what you want those forces to do," George said.

The Army is able to now, and has been able in the past, to respond to a variety of scenarios, and multiple scenarios, at the same time. An end strength of 420,000 will mean this is no longer possible.

"The resulting force would be incapable of simultaneously meeting current deployment requirements and responding to the overseas contingency requirements of the combatant commanders," George said.

Under current reduction plans, the "Total Army," which includes the active force, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, will drop to 980,000 Soldiers. That includes 450,000 active Soldiers, 335,000 Army National Guard Soldiers, and 195,000 Army Reserve Soldiers.

Were sequestration to continue unabated, the total Army end strength will drop by an additional 60,000 Soldiers. The Total Army would then stand at 420,000 active-duty Soldiers, 315,000 Army National Guard Soldiers, and 185,000 Army Reserve Soldiers.

Down and down again if not Trump will fixed this plan in 2017 if he was president.

Donald Trump will go up with 125,000 soldiers.

Are maybe 785,000 or only Army or only National Guard some body can tell us ?!?!

 

[Militants]

I might hope to double down from 1.8 million professionals or close to double under from the right plans 2018. The National Guard will be over 300,000 soldiers. It is enough that scale then Navy / Marines perhaps with the Air Force Pentagon retains the Air Force and Marine Corps will then be 172,000 soldiers in the southern United States. Marines in the western United States and perhaps Alaska. The National Guard in the middle and eastern United States is enough for United States I easily say.

 

[Bleipriester]

What exactly are you talking about? Are you figuring out, if ISIS can attack America and seize US soil?

 

[Milam]

we need more discipline in our military
we have too many dumbass in uniform...
we should imitate Chinese and Russians: they have harsh discipline in their armies