- House passes VA reform compromise
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
Army strong? Pentagon looks to field 50,000 fewer soldiers
Question of the Day
The Obama administration is taking another huge chunk out of the soldier force just a few months after Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, presented a carefully planned three-year drawdown that called for 50,000 more troops.
“In the end, the bottom line is, we want to make sure we sustain enough capability to deter,” he told reporters. “We want to make sure we sustain enough capability to be able to conduct our contingency operations.”
Of the 490,000 number, he said, “It’ll maintain that balance that I think we need in order to maintain an Army that can respond quickly, but also have the depth of response, if necessary, from the Guard and Reserve.”
How the Army, which just months ago said it needs 490,000 soldiers, can meet its commitments with 50,000 fewer will be the gist of budget hearings as several Republicans say President Obama’s budget cuts too much Army muscle.
Gen. Odierno had to eliminate 12 combat brigade teams, the Army’s basic fighting force, to go from 570,000 soldiers at the war’s peak to 490,000 by 2017. Another 50,000-soldier reduction as called for by Mr. Hagel could mean losing five more brigade teams or more.
The Army today has an active force of 520,000.
“While this smaller capacity entails some additional risk, even if execute extended or simultaneous ground operations our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater, as it must be, while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary,” the defense secretary said.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- Afghan who killed three U.S. Marines in 2012 to serve over 7-year prison sentence
- State Department indicates Nouri al-Maliki's days numbered as Iraq prime minister
- Marine Corps whistleblower lands new Pentagon position
- Elusive target: U.S. believed Iraq terror mastermind al-Baghdadi killed 3 times
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- MSNBC's Ronan Farrow questions lack of racial diversity in emoji characters
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama vows veto of House border bill
- ISTOOK: Get ready for super-priced burgers due to NLRB decree
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world