PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon May Oust Troops Involuntarily to Meet Reductions in Budget Plan



Rockntractor
02-13-2012, 09:24 PM
By Viola Gienger and Roxana Tiron - Feb 13, 2012 3:51 PM CT
The Defense Department may have to force soldiers, Marines or other members of the military out of the services for the first time since the aftermath of the Cold War to achieve the spending reductions in its budget proposal.

The Pentagon plans to cut 67,100 soldiers from active and reserve Army units and the Army National Guard in the five years starting Oct. 1, as well as 15,200 from the active and reserve ranks of the Marine Corps as part of an effort to save $487 billion over a decade, according to the budget sent to Congress today. The Navy and Air Force would lose fewer people -- 8,600 and 1,700 respectively -- because of their role in a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.

The military will first try buying out contracts or offering bonuses for people to leave, while working to keep those with valuable specialties such as cyber warfare and acquisitions, according to Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington policy group, who attended a Pentagon briefing for analysts last month.

“I was surprised that they were going to complete the reductions to the Army and the Marine Corps in just five years,” Sharp said in an interview before the budget was released. “What they told us is that they will try to use those types of positive incentives to the greatest extent possible, but that involuntary separations would probably still be necessary.”

The Pentagon has said it is aiming to a create a smaller, more agile military. Special operations forces, whose commandos killed Osama bin Laden last year, would be expanded.
Republican Opposition

Republicans in Congress already have signaled they will challenge the Pentagon reductions when lawmakers take up the proposed fiscal 2013 budget that President Barack Obama sent to Congress today.

Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cited a comment by White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the time for austerity is not today.”

“They’ll have a tough time explaining that to the 100,000 troops who will be forced from service under the president’s new budget plan,” McKeon of California said today in a statement.
Read More>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/pentagon-may-oust-troops-involuntarily-under-budget-reductions.html

AmPat
02-14-2012, 12:04 AM
May? No, I believe "will."

The O Bllah Blah doctrine toward the military is no different than any other DUmbo-Rat action. They'll gut the military without a second thought, but cutting one of their precious, decades-old, failed programs is out of the question.

Novaheart
02-14-2012, 12:18 AM
May? No, I believe "will."

The O Bllah Blah doctrine toward the military is no different than any other DUmbo-Rat action. They'll gut the military without a second thought, but cutting one of their precious, decades-old, failed programs is out of the question.


What are the rif stats for the last five presidents?

DumbAss Tanker
02-14-2012, 12:33 PM
Women, minorities least affected...

:popcorn:

djones520
02-14-2012, 10:58 PM
What are the rif stats for the last five presidents?

I can't find anything concrete. As far as I'm aware the worst culprit was Clinton.

G.H. Bush had to start the draw down with the end of the cold war. There was no reason to have as large a military as we did with the USSR now defunct. From what I understand of his plan, it was a measured draw down. Not a hack and slash.

Clinton took over, and accelerated it beyond was Bush intended, and eventually we ended up with the mess that we had at the beginning of the 2000's.

G. W. Bush saw an over all build up, but there was some RIF's that occured in the Air Force and Navy during his 8 years. Our branches grew over our congressionally mandated strength, and people had to be removed.

Now Obama is pretty much instituting a nearly 10% cut in manning. Not nearly Clinton level cuts, but give him another 4 years, and a withdrawel from Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure I may end up job hunting.

SaintLouieWoman
02-15-2012, 12:40 AM
I can't find anything concrete. As far as I'm aware the worst culprit was Clinton.

G.H. Bush had to start the draw down with the end of the cold war. There was no reason to have as large a military as we did with the USSR now defunct. From what I understand of his plan, it was a measured draw down. Not a hack and slash.

Clinton took over, and accelerated it beyond was Bush intended, and eventually we ended up with the mess that we had at the beginning of the 2000's.

G. W. Bush saw an over all build up, but there was some RIF's that occured in the Air Force and Navy during his 8 years. Our branches grew over our congressionally mandated strength, and people had to be removed.

Now Obama is pretty much instituting a nearly 10% cut in manning. Not nearly Clinton level cuts, but give him another 4 years, and a withdrawel from Afghanistan, and I'm pretty sure I may end up job hunting.

And God protect the rest of us. These are frightening times. He has to give the dependent classes bread and circus. The clowns can't see what's coming down the pike for all of us due to his desire to win above all---including the safety of our country.

AmPat
02-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Women, minorities least affected...

:popcorn:
More of those "typical white people" will be affected. Nothing to cry over.;)