February 24th, 2014
10:00 AM ET

Defense Department to cut Army to pre-WW II size

By Halimah Abdullah

The Department of Defense plans to scale down the nation's Army to its pre-World War II size and do away with an entire class of Air Force attack jets in an attempt to cut military spending, which mushroomed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to reports.

The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad. The dwindled budget also reflects the current political climate, with a President who has pledged to pull back from extended and expensive wars abroad in an era of federal funding cutbacks.

The budget is to be presented Monday.

Hagel proposes cutting the Army to 440,000-450,000 troops, according to the Times. Army troop levels already were supposed to go down to 490,000, from their height of 570,000 after the 9/11 attacks.

The budget, does, however, protect funding for cyberwarfare and special operations, a reflection of the evolving way in which the U.S. has approached fighting overseas, using tactics that don't necessarily rely so heavily on land fighters. The proposal also preserves money for controversial and costly F-35 fighter planes.

The proposed cuts will probably draw sharp criticism from some members of Congress, especially those with large Army bases in their states and districts, or whose economies depend on building and servicing parts for the Air Force planes that will be eliminated.

Post by:
Filed under: Army • Pentagon
soundoff (1,714 Responses)
  1. SnafuBob

    Anyone else find it comical that the article was written by an individual named Halimah Abdullah?

    February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      No

      February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Reply
    • Abdul

      So what is ur point? she cant be allowed to that job because she has a Muslim name? maybe she is Muslim and black too.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Reply
      • SnafuBob

        No I can honestly care less of color, creed, or religious affiliation; just thought it was comical...people are so sensitive. If you feel offended please accept my heart felt apologies; that goes to everyone.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • jimbob

      I see no problem with the name
      the name is as american as yours or mine.
      this country is made up of immigrants with the exception of the native americans.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Reply
      • SnafuBob

        Fair point, maybe I should have said irony...

        February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
  2. aao

    I am not an expert in military aircraft , but I am pretty familiar with automated systems. Retiring A10 seems to be a huge waist of resources , contrary to the claim. The reason I am thinking that is that A10 is an incredibly reliable aircraft and it is very easy to fly, which makes it a prime candidate to be a drone. I would think retrofitting existing A-10s and turning them into drones would save a lot of money. It seems that people making decisions are technologically and financially challenged .

    February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • emsmithro

      Interesting idea. I think the reason they are letting the A-10 go is precisely because this has effectively happened. The MQ-8 Predator and other droves are effectively a replacement for the A-10 if you think about how they are used – pounding ground targets. They don't have the gun though. Sigh.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Reply
    • Lord of Time

      It is often the case that we have the wrong people making technical decisions, e.g., "business school" types who don't know hard-world science or sensibilities. They don't "get" what a fight is about, neither do they "get" what preparedness is about. We've got too many bean counters and lawyers running things at high levels. IMHO, the office of POTUS should require a prior military officer/command role. No mil service, no candidate for POTUS/Commander-in-Chief. COMMANDER in Chief . . .

      February 24, 2014 at 1:31 pm | Reply
  3. Irobot

    Uhhh we are buying Robots cause people need to eat and die. We can make millions of robots and deploy them to do our will by command and will be cheaper cause they dont get medical benefits for PTSD for the rest of their lives plus a slew of other issues. GO robots GO! Btw we will have them in America soon enjoy!

    February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
  4. Dan

    As long as we are not in the nation building business we do not need a overwhelming force of troops and hardware, being that nation building never works (Iraq, Afghanistan, ect, ect, ect). With US technology the cold war tactics are not needed. Just the idea that our nukes can take turn any country into a parking lot if we are attacked within our boarders, will give most countries pause, before trying to attack us. The US just needs to stop this nation building crap if people want to kill themselves let them...just dont mess with the old USA

    February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
  5. OnTheRoad

    Can't happen soon enough! If he would just fire 50% of the generals (they don't do anything anyway) he would/could save even more money!

    February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
  6. luis c.

    Obama spent and spent trillions of our money then he wants us to pay for their spendings, while they continue printing money.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
    • Starman

      Economic reality. Bush blew 10 trillion in his 8 years which one would think would have sent us into some kind of glorious golden erra however it ended in the worst recession in history. Obama has to *spend* to pull us out and literally save you from starving in the streets.... however at the same time cut gov spending at decades old record levels, yet you are so blinded by your bubbles that you cant fathom this reality. Sorry bud, this is the reality.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Reply
  7. Dan

    Good luck. The military has become a huge moneypot for politicians to create jobs in their state, thus winning elections. They won't go out without a fight.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • robt55

      Yeah-way different than handouts to welfare leeches who contribute soooooooooooo much to society.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm | Reply
    • Dan

      Rob, you make it sound as if there are only 2 options. Many will do this thing you may have heard of, it's called Moving.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Reply
  8. Topher

    GOOD. Total waste of money.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Reply
    • Common Sense

      About time...trying to police the world is a suicide mission

      February 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm | Reply
  9. Jonus Grumby

    We saw how that worked out on December 7, 1941 didn't we?

    February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
  10. Corey

    Lets see how many people can be out of work in this country! I am all for cutting parts of the military but if you want to cut all these troops and you don't have a plan to put them to work when they get out....BAD IDEA!!! Its called a welfare state. Uneployment will go up, welfare will go up and we will have a weak military. Second anybody on here who says that we don't need troop or the A-10 (best airplane in the inventory) is a crock of bull. We have enemies that are larger and stronger that will include ground wars. Worst president ever and he will continue till ruin our country till you sheeple wake up and see it.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
    • mb2010a

      Wrong again, bucko...congress (namely the Republican controlled House) is the one cutting the defense budget, not the President.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      • Corey

        Yeah cause this isn't coming from the president telling the DOD to cut spending.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Brad

      Wait, I thought it was the government mantra that government spending never created one job. Let's let the private sector take care of it.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      • Corey

        But wait didn't our president create "shovel read jobs" and hasn't he created so many jobs since he has been in office? Don't think so! Private sector is a joke for veterans trying to get jobs. Even with a degree companies do not want vets because they don't have the experiece of his civilain counterpart. I know I am I vet and I have a degree and companies keep telling me I don't have the experiece they are looking for. Real training and real jobs that aren't in china are needed before more people are added to unemployment line and welfare!

        February 24, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Pliny

      Give it a rest.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Reply
      • Corey

        Give what a rest? The Truth? Give yourself a brain and learn something!

        February 24, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
    • TheZel

      Congress makes the budgets, not the President.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm | Reply
      • Corey

        Yeah cause the president is not a democrat and doesn't tell his dogs (dems) what to do! haha SHEEPLE!

        February 24, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
    • Irobot

      Id rather have a welfare state then having people act like army men and not actually fighting anything. There are millions of troops that have never been deployed and we are basically doing the same thing but they get a uniform and respect. They are not earning us money either way. Want to have an economy? bring back manufacturing and pay the people to work regardless if you can get it cheaper elsewhere its call pride in your country not getting work done for the lowest wage in the world.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Reply
      • Corey

        Your already on welfare aren't you? So you would rather pay lazy people to do nothing with our tax dollars than to pay hard working service members to do a job that protects your ignorant lazy self? Get a job and get off of CNN!

        February 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
    • Jim

      In my day, when we had a bad war to fight, we drafted everyone-including me, a dropped out college student. Now we put it all on the economic underclass. A smaller Army and smarter weapons means fewer blown up guys. If we need a larger Army to fight a good war, let's draft again, but let's give people a chance to say "Hell No I Won't Go" if its a bad war like Iraq or Viet Nam again. Let's use the money saved to EDUCATE our people to think, speak and solve problems without always killing the "bad" guys. One mans terrorist may be another mans patriot. Remember our American revolution?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  11. Commonsense

    We field like 10 divisions today. In world war 2 it was in the hundreds. Our military was damn ginormous in WW2. They act like we have kept the military the same size as it was in WW2. While there was defiantly a large jump before and after. Its important to note the difference.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
  12. Paul White

    All you Liberal Statists seeking a utopian world will be the first to cry when we can't fully defend ourselves against rising China. No, you would rather have more welfare for the 45+ of eligible workers who don't work and 49% who don't pay any Federal taxes.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Reply
    • Topher

      Moronic post.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Reply
      • Paul White

        No value added.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Dan

      Yeah last I cheched, we had bases surrounding China, not the other way around.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      • Paul White

        I guess you haven't been reading the news on the rising China threat and the paper tiger we've become.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
      • Dan

        I'm talking facts. We have them surrounded, they're hesitant to back N Korea, they won't do anything to jeapordize their rising economy, and even The President hangs out with the Dali Lama, despite China's rhetoric. You on the other hand are buying into the paranoia that many puppet masters use to dupe the public into supporting bigger spending.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • Starman

      3 trillion on wars using military hardware did nothing to kill Osama after 911. However, a few billion in server hardware (aka computers) did. Think about that, unless you still live in some magical bubble that its 1950 still.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Reply
      • Paul White

        And you believe computer hardware will defeat a rising China threat or other more conventional threats? You are forgetting all the military infrastructure that enabled killing OBL.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
    • 062014

      the biggest offenders of the non taxpaying class are the wealthiest.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Reply
      • Paul White

        Another useless Liberal who himself/herself is a failure blaming others for the loser you likely are.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • Stan Carey

      DO ANYONE SEEM TO THINK THAT BARACK OBAMA Is a SOCIALIST LEADER, TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING FREE FOR ALL OF HIS FOLLOWERS ?????? At the EXPENSE OF MIDDLE CLASS JOB CUTS and SKY HIGH FEDERAL INCOME TAXES , hurting CORPORATIONS – SMALL BUSINESSES ????

      February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm | Reply
  13. Independent

    Cuts to this, cuts to that, everything cut-cut. Again, NO mention of $100 Billion annually in corporate subsidies. When corporations and governments are combined, it's called fascism.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Reply
    • BB

      That's what they are doing... cutting corporate subsidies to the defense industries.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Reply
      • Independent

        They need to cut from corporate banks and petroleum corporations.

        February 24, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
  14. Stan Carey

    We REALLY don't need a FULL ARMY NOW, as we have the GREAT :UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS , as well mostly our
    NAVAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS , such as BATTLE SHIPS w/TOMAHAWK MISSLES & other essential weapons. Including our
    AIRCRAFT CARRIERS , especially the SUPER CARRIERS ,as which where we have F-14 TOMCATS , FA-22 RAPTORS, A-10
    WARHOGS (RADAR & COMMUNICATION JAMMERS ) etc. . .

    And also we have TRIDENT – NUCLEAR SUBS that have CAPABILITIES TO LAUNCH POWERFUL NUCLEAR WARHEADS
    Which can 've fired from underwater 400 FEET , to LAND about 500 miles or less. As well we have SONAR SYSTEMS as well.

    We have a STRONG AIR FORCE with ALL THE STRONG TECHNOLOGY & EQUIPMENT , We can LAUNCH LONG RANGE NUCLEAR & BIOLOGICAL / CHEMICALS from anywhere on GLOBE , with several MISSLE BASES IN EUROPE, as well over here in MIDWESTERN & WESTERN STATES , we can LAUNCH over 2,000 MISSLES at any given time etc in a COUNTER STRIKE VS ENEMY, which we be at DEFCON 1 LEVEL. Also the various STRONG FIGHTER JETS , such as F-16 FALCON and various BOMBERS , as B-52, B-2 and B-15 STEALTH , will be STRONG etc . . .

    As we have a GREAT COAST GUARD ON DUTY SEVEN DAYS /24 HOURS A DAY CAN REALLY MAKE AMERICA SAFE ALL
    AROUND THE WATERWAYS etc . . .

    We can cut the ARMY , but we still need some ARMY TROOPS on STANDBY as well move ALOT OF ACTIVE ARMY into ARMY RESERVES UNIT, which needs to be CALLED UPON DUTY , whenever we ever get into TROUBLE, ENEMY ATTACK, CIVIL UNREST and etc . . . .

    So, I think cutting back on ARMY is okay , as LONG as we HAVE GREAT STRENGTH of our NAVY- MARINES , AIR FORCE
    as well our USCG !!!! The MARINES are the BEST OF BEST IN MANPOWER FIGHTING GROUND BATTLES , along with AIR SUPPORT CAMPAIGNS (MARINE CHOPPERS, F-18 JETS, as well NAVY FIGHTERS as well) with USAF also AIR CAMPAIGN
    SUPPORT VIA F-16 FALCONS , utilizing SIDEWINDERS etc . . .

    Today's GLOBAL MILITARY is more TECHNOLOGY WARFARE than ACTUAL GROUND WAR BATTLES etc . . . .

    February 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Reply
    • Manchu2

      Stan, you have no clue, do you? We don't need an Army because we have a Marine Corps? Your reasoning is very upside down. By the way, we also don't have any battleships anymore, and the Navy is getting ready to eliminate more carriers. Back to the drawing board for you.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • Ahmed

      Thank YOU for REPLYING.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • Dingo

      wow.. lots of caps and rah rah rah but, you need to pay attention to reality.
      china isn't looking to build a similar number of air craft carriers. for literally less than a couple billion dollars they can develop and build missiles we can't defend against and will drop straight down on our carriers. so we spend trillions, they spend a billion, and our trillions are on the ocean floor and still costing us interest 😦 and by a couple billion I don't mean per missile.. I mean *total*.
      the most likely place we're going to see real naval combat is not around China but in the north where there are large undersea oil reserves and we need ice breaking capability (or we would have to leave as soon as winter hits). how much of that do we have? zero.. because we want to rah rah rah about what we have rather than what we *need*.
      it's cool but.. we can't afford to keep it all and eventually it will turn into a crappy armed forces because we'll be buried in debt.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Reply
      • Stan Carey

        Maybe . . . . . BARACK OBAMA wants AMERICA to LOSE EVERYTHING ????
        Is that possible , as what is going on ????

        February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • Big John

      It's plain to see you read the first line but missed the part about loosing an entire class of fighter. That by the way includes a cut of all A-10 aircraft. You know, the best ground support plane in the invertory and world.
      Libs win, America looses.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • John

      You say that we don't need a large army anymore, that we have the marines, navy, air force, and coast guard to do their job. That has been proven false time and time and time again. We couldn't bomb the Germans in to submission during WW2, nor could we bomb Iraq into submission. All those fights where won with boots on the ground. Army boots. It took trained men and women to do that job, men and women who's job was to train to make war with everything they had at their disposal. They had to train everyday, they trained their minds, bodies, and souls for the nasty business that is war.

      And let me ask you this question, when we get down to a small army again, who is going to employ all those that where in the army before?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Reply
    • suzie669

      I like your comments. But, I just wonder in term of economy what would happen to those newly graduated soldiers. How those "many pilots and soldiers" will find jobs once the cutback starts? What about those small businesses who contracted with Government to do spare parts (tires, radios, all the gadgets, etc)

      There is something that many of us forgot to mention. The 1% that do not pay tax!!! They are GE, Verizon, FaceBook, Google, Comcast, Pfizer, etc. Multi-Corporations do not pay tax, For example, I believe Verizon tax is -0.1% and I guess GE was the one did have tax refund for more than 400 million dollars.

      Anyway, my point is big guys used American systems (police, fire departments, clean water, court systems, highways and railroads, schools, national security without shedding their children lives) without paying a dime. Now, US Government cut military budgets. How does the country survive?

      Anyone has any answer? Seriously, please don't feel offended. Big guys don't pay tax (the 1%, they all save their stashes off shore) and Government cut budgets that affect military and social services. How does this country survive?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:32 pm | Reply
    • Donna Moran

      From my understanding the Army basically trains the marines ,they all have there specialties one is no better than the other.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm | Reply
    • jim d

      I agree with the "idea" in theory; But: Why, for example and if you noticed, keep an unnecessary, "porked out" budget for the already controversial F-35 fighter planes(which do nothing more than our current aircraft) and scrap multi-million dollar planes we already have while considering cutting support for our veterans who have already sacrificed?! The latter I am against with every fiber of my being while thinking of ALL who protected our Freedoms in the past; like my son, also a US Marine, who "laid it on the line" for you and I during three tours in Iraq.
      Did you notice one of the Aircraft they are going to scrap is none other than the A-10 "Warthog" mentioned? Now this is to my point Which is: Yes, the Idea is great but the people responsible for formulating and implementing it are, well, to put it lightly...totally incompetent! Example:It would stand to reason not a single one of them understand or even know this "slow, lumbering" plane is not only excellent for the tasks like being our best platform for radar, jamming, etc. It proved itself invaluable as a workhorse/beast that struck terror in the hearts of and brought destruction to the enemy, saved a countless number of our own troops lives. This was also the only platform that could circle high above out of sight and range also staying on target day or night, laying down suppressive fire or or taking out targets with 50cal (or other weapons) seemingly forever.

      See, the group of people we need to figure this out need to think critically with our best interests in mind and not owe or own part of corporate america, or be serving themselves and political "machine" interests of either party! So...we're screwed! Just Sayin'

      February 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Reply
    • jim d

      I agree with the "idea" in theory; But: Why, for example and if you noticed, keep an unnecessary, "porked out" budget for the already controversial F-35 fighter planes(which do nothing more than our current aircraft and I agree we do not need) and scrap multi-million dollar planes we already have while considering cutting support for our veterans who have already sacrificed?! The latter I am against with every fiber of my being while thinking of ALL who protected our Freedoms in the past; like my son, also a US Marine, who "laid it on the line" for you and I during three tours in Iraq.
      Did you notice one of the Aircraft they are going to scrap is none other than the A-10 "Warthog" you mentioned? Now this is to my point Which is: Yes, the Idea is great but the people responsible for formulating and implementing it are, well, to put it lightly...totally incompetent! It would stand to reason not a single one of them understand or even know this "slow, lumbering" plane is not only excellent for the tasks you mentioned. It proved itself invaluable as a workhorse/beast that struck terror in the hearts of and brought destruction to the enemy, saved a countless number of our own troops lives. This was also the only platform that could circle high above out of sight and range also staying on target day or night, laying down suppressive fire or or taking out targets with 50cal (or other weapons) seemingly forever.

      See, the group of people we need to figure this out need to think critically with our best interests in mind and not owe or own part of corporate america, or be serving themselves and political "machine" interests of either party! So...we're screwed! Just Sayin'

      February 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Reply
  15. EvinAR

    MORE MONEY SPENT ON SCIENCE = LESS MONEY SPENT ON MILITARY + BETTER TECHNOLOGY FOR A BETTER ECONOMY

    MORE MONEY SPENT ON OBSOLETE SHOW OF STRENGTH = PEOPLE HATE US + WE LOOK LIKE NORTH KOREA

    February 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Reply
    • Addie

      I agree with a reduction in the military. My questions is what do we do with all the returning soldiers? Many of our enlisted men and women enlisted because they could not find jobs in their communities. We don't want another Vietnam where those who served become homeless. Many in the military will not transfer will to the "new" economy. They were not the scholars in their class. They are not going to become computer engineers or technicians. Our returning soldiers are hard working young people who will have difficulty finding jobs in their profession (Humvee driver) or in a manufacturing and maintenance...in the time they were away, more of our middle class jobs have been shipped abroad – oh the irony.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Reply
      • Tom in Desoto, TX

        The shrinkage of the military costs could be allocated to something useful, our roads and bridges that have been neglected for DECADES. The Engineer portion of the military could fill some of this positions. If they are in the artillery like I was in Vietnam, that "skill" doesn't transition to the civilian environment. Snipers would also be out of luck transitioning. There are many government and government related jobs that could be done with former soldiers.

        February 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • Stan Carey

      Nah. . . . we are just PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY as well ALLIES , INCLUDING especially when NNOCENT COUNTRIES THAT CAN'T FIGHT – As they NEED OUR HELP, which we can REALLY show them how to FIGHT as well run a military effectively STRONG , with GREAT MANAGMENT TEAM etc . . .

      February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Reply
  16. Saturnine

    GOOD! This needed to be done forever and a day ago!

    February 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Reply
  17. Lolo

    What does lazy have to do with cutting the military. I tell you those war mongers. They are the ones who are lazy and depend on the government. Probably the only way they can get income especially those red states.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
    • Jerry

      You some of those war mongers died, and many more permanently wounded so you can have the freedom to post disparaging remarks about them. Just saying.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • sammueltx

      You are right, they are lazy, but of the top 10 states receiving federal money for military bases, (based on past presedential elections) five of them are Blues states, those are Ca. IL,NY, PA, NJ. One is Red, TX. Two are mostly GOP leaning, LA and VA. Two mostly leaning to Dem's – OH and FL.

      So I guess you are wrong, except for the lazy part. California and ILL are pretty damn lazy. But listen, why don't you just stop voting Dem and GOP? Vote for the right guy, which ever party he's from. I hate that we treat the parties like a sports team, and we support them no matter what. Vote them all out. Lets demand we get represented correctly. Anyone gets rich in congress, lets find out and throw them out. Go there to support the people, USA jobs. Forget the two party system, lets just vote on who is the best, regardless of what party.

      Damn, I hate these sell outs.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Reply
      • Sdf

        So I guess you want us to throw outthe whole damn goverment in the meantime??

        February 24, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
  18. FoolKiller

    "do away with an entire class of Air Force attack jets"

    Good to know... WHICH class???

    February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
    • Big John

      The Air Force is looking to get rid of the only true ground support A/C we have. The A-10. Ask any grunt, jarhead or anyone who has been on the ground what they think of the sound of the HOG'S cannon as it spits out a hail storm of protection. By the way, the Hog is one of the cheepest and most reliable A/C in the invertory.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Reply
  19. Brian

    I don't have an issue with it, if we had more jobs for those coming out or options for the kids. If we were to cut spending on other nations and countries overseas, then we would have money to send the kids to school for free and increase our education to a level that would grow this nation. Cutting the budget in defense is not going to help if congress doesn't take a cut in their budget as well.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  20. Denverdriver

    "The proposed cuts will probably draw sharp criticism from some members of Congress, especially those with large Army bases in their states and districts, or whose economies depend on building and servicing parts for the Air Force planes that will be eliminated."

    They will try to hold onto the pork that they have enjoyed for decades at the expense of the rest of the nation.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  21. FollowTheMoney

    Maybe people will start the realize that defense spending is Gov spending. Trillions wasted. Cutting 10 000 personnel from a total of 450 000 is still a drop in the well. Only 2%!

    February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
    • AC

      YES, ABOUT TIME AND THANK GOD.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
      • Topher

        Thank ALL the gods, it's about time...

        February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • Brian

      Too bad Congress won't take a cut in their budget or in other needless things that would help our own nation for once. Cut defense, education, and health is all they continue to do, what do you recommend a kid to do out of high school? Get in debt $75,000 for school only to come out with no job to go to? The military provides jobs to both members and civilians. Without it Hawaii would never exist and our nation only weakens for others to target. Just my thought.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Reply
    • Harold Covey

      When a dirty bomb takes out San Francisco, it will be too late to worry about 2% cost saving. Freedom is not free.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
      • Topher

        rents might come down?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
      • AJ-107

        "When a dirty bomb takes out San Francisco,"

        And just how would spending billions on fighter jets and tanks stop a dirty bomb?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
    • MC

      Actually, they are reducing from 590,000 post 9/11 down to 440,000 to 450,000 or about 25%.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
  22. Elena

    Go! take the streets and riot lie the ukrainians did, and lets see what happens! would you get helped by the EU?

    February 24, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Reply
  23. columbus

    Don't worry, this congress will NEVER come to an agreement on this, between conservatives and progressives, this is about as decisive as you can get. It's just another strategic political distraction to make the other guy look bad leading into the elections.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Reply
  24. Taka Kalienov

    I am conflicted about the idea of cutting military budgets in America. I believe that this can lead to a good thing or a bad thing.

    Maybe they will use that money for eucation instead of war, books instead of guns, pencils instead of bullets, training to work instead of training to kill.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
    • Starman

      I don't mind having a beefy military. I do mind having an outrageously large military that is 10 times larger then the next country and has a 1 trillion dollar budget every year. Seriously, imagine how much AMERICAN infrastructure we could work on cutting that in half (yet still having a military 5 times larger then the next guy).

      February 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
  25. Eric

    Well we arent using the damn thing so why not cut back, now if we want to invade a few country and actually do something then fine but otherwise cut it

    February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  26. jwbjpb

    If we are going to have smaller government it means cutting EVERYTHING including defense. Fine by me. Cut it to the bone..cut every government program to the bone. We simply cannot afford it or this nation will be bankrupt forever.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  27. Larry Colin

    About time. Our military is bloated. We are going through austerity. We do not have the need for such a large military today as we are no longer in active WARS and only Afghanistan left and we are leaving there. WE are not the worlds POLICE. And if we bankrupt our nation then what is really left to defend? Our middle class and poor have already taken huge hits due to the poor economy. If the wealthy do not want to help pay the tab for the military then they do not need that defense either. If they do not like it then move to other countries. We in the US will fill their shoes as there is demand for those jobs that produce the goods and services. We cannot continue to fund such a bloated military when the GOP keep yelling about the debt and deficit. If they want to keep reaping the bounty of those wars and war machine then let the rich help pay for the costs.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
    • CindyLouWho

      I hope we know what we are doing. I know we need money to support the ACA and redistribute to those who are poor and don't give a damn about their future (income inequality), but let's be careful on this!

      February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
    • Me

      Larry... Seriously? We're not in a war so we can draw down? How long do you think it takes to train? How long is an acceptable delay for military action once it is needed?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
    • Kenneth

      So Larry, we cut the military down to skin on bone and then when war does break out we look like the stooges going in and then we lose a lot of lives because we have not been trained ? Afghanistan is not the only hot spot on the planer. Our military size and strength is a deterrent . If we cut too much, heck Canada might even bully us.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Reply
    • Daniel K

      While I agree that we need to scale back and it's costly. You can't say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. They pay 39% while over 46% of tax payers in the middle and lower class get it all back plus credits for refunds. A majority of the funding of government (a very large majority) is paid by the top 1% or so. Just want to make sure everyone knows that the middle and lower class aren't actually paying much in taxes.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
      • Llyd

        I pay 12k in taxes and will get about 4k back. how is that getting it all back plus ?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
    • Bob

      The DEFENSE and SECURITY of our COUNTRY is one area THAT IS THE Federal Governments JOB (not building bridges or giving cell phone/welfare/Health Care away). I Hope you are READY TO FIGHT when its needed and READY FOR A DRAFT (including your wives and daughters). An don’t forget when the NEXT Katrina / Natural (or Man Made) Disaster happens the Military and Guard WON’T BE THERE TO HELP.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
    • Donna Moran

      WE deploy troops on a daily basis,this is crap about our soldiers coming home ask the families of our US soldiers and people get your head out of your butts.I hope if they do this each and everyone of you are ready to stand up and serve .

      February 24, 2014 at 12:31 pm | Reply
  28. John Jacob

    Just more unemployment caused by the democrats and their American Terrorist activities.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
    • jwbjpb

      So you are all for government cuts but not defense cuts. You're part of the problem..not the solution. Want smaller government? EVERYTHING has to be cut. EVERYTHING. Defense is part of government. You either want big government or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Reply
    • MValk

      The proposed cuts are the norm for a post war period. It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. I love reading all the posts that blame all changes to the military as the liberals fault. The nation cannot sustain a military of the size we have now, unless tax rates go up. It is funny that if you do your research and look at voting record and service record of the members of congress you will find that the majority of people who have served and vote pro military are DEMOCRAT. Put the blame where it belongs when discussing the downfall of the country, Eisenhower warned against the current GOP ideal of corporations are people, we should heed his advice. Vote the GOP out in 2014/2016!!!!

      February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Reply
    • DO NOT CUT MILITARY AID...

      Instead of cutting military aid, the govertment should cut aids to foreing countries who hate us but we still give money to them . I am a Democrat voter and I support our military.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
    • Dingo

      using that same logic we should solve unemployment by hiring them all into the govt :/
      don't use jobs to defend a military budget. it's a stupid and expensive way to reduce unemployment as it doesn't give anywhere near the product back considering the money you put into it. shift that money to resolving infrastructure issues and you get back more than you put in (at least it's a possibility).
      and don't argue that having *no* military yadda yadda.. we're talking about shifting gears here, not eliminating it.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Reply
  29. Norm

    Lazy People: YEA!! More more money for us!
    Dems: Yea!! More money for our voters.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • Starman

      Wait a minute.... You do realize that *cutting* military jobs by 100K people will actually probably create 100K people who would not vote democrat? Are you guys really this blind? Why do you guys always see things in these terms (and be wrong about them even when you do)? Healthcare is not for votes, its for healthcare. Cutting military size is not about votes, its about shaving some money off the 1 TRILLION a year budget they have. The blinder people live with are just amazing.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Reply
  30. korkea aika

    hey all you blood-thirsty, war-horney flag wavers out there. What is A 10 anyway. Since i'm just living my life in harmony with man and nature, I'm not up on this terminology. have a great day

    February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
  31. LouAZ

    A-10s ? F-35s ?We need P-47s and P-51s to shoot up the bad guys in pickup trucks with a 50cal in the bed. Oh, wait, John McPain and sweetie Lindsie Graham want to keep the B-52s for carpet bombing open desert . . . so much for making the weapon fit the target.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
  32. Abbey

    The progressive hillbillies have just overplayed their hand!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
  33. Nikolas

    It's about damn time!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
  34. David

    World policing is just way to expensive, this has been needed for a very long time now.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • nathanbrazil

      A lot of people forget that "world policing" is not actually about saving the world. It is about keeping the fight elsewhere and off of our own soil. You keep the "bad guys" down elsewhere and then you don't have to fight them here when they get strong enough to come to you. You may not agree, but "world policing" has always actually been about self defense.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
      • Inglourious

        We fought the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam to keep them from coming over here and attacking us in our streets? We invaded Iraq (twice) to keep them from invading us?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
  35. Tenzin

    Historically speaking, the nations with the best military thrives. Just something to keep in mind.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • Nikolas

      We could stand to reduce our DoD budget by 30-40% across the board, and still be considered to have "the best" military in the World. 😉

      Considering our "defense" budget is greater than the next several countries combined. 🙂

      February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
      • watergirl

        Next 15 countries combined, I believe. People never stop to look at how much we actually spend.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
    • David

      Look at Canada, they are doing just fine, and they are not expanding their military force. A lot of countries have very small defense budgets, and are also doing well.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am | Reply
      • Paul White

        You're comparing Canada to the United States? You're a moron.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
      • nathanbrazil

        I am sorry but this is because you don't understand defense. Canada does not need a large military because it is on the US border and is also difficult to strike. So they are an unlikely target, and if they were attacked they can count on the US to be fully involved immediately. So in a sense they have a HUGE military for defense, it is just not theirs.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
      • Dakota

        David, and all others, Canada and Europe cut their armed forces back so they could do more socially for their people...ie socialized medicine because the US had a large Armed Force that they relied on for protections. Now with cutting back who is going to protect them and us? We are being sold down the river slowly and surely. When the rest of the United States wakes up it will be too late...well it already is too late. Women you better get measured for you burkas...it is coming sooner that you think.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
    • Dave Green

      Sure, but I don't think we need a 672.9 billion dollar a year invasion sized military to accomplish that goal. Not to mention al the rest of the money we spend on our national security. The Dept of homeland defense, the CIA, the NSA. Dept of VA...all told about 900 billion a year. Given the next largest expenditure by any country on Earth is a 1/3 of that, I don't think one could defend it as necessary for our continued success and security.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
    • Army Gal

      You mean like the Soviet Union?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
    • Timodeus

      Typically the nation with the best military goes bankrupt. We didn't have the best military in the 19th century but we thrived quite a bit. The British Empire had the greatest military in 1900, by 1950 they didn't have an empire left, they went broke.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • MValk

      Also, historically speaking, those nations fell as quickly as they rose. Look at Rome, the Nazis, etc. Russia had the strongest military in the second world war and what did it get them? You need to stop thinking in the past and look to what the future holds. long drawn out force on force conflicts are over, we need a well trained, well equipped professional army that can be deployed anywhere at a moments notice, and that is what we are moving toward.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Reply
  36. Dave Green

    Well, that's one three major departments that need to be slashed. It's a start anyway.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
  37. WestsacVoice

    This change is in the right direction. This is a combination of greater automation (use of drones, cruise missiles, better intelligence) and the overall changing face of warfare. We can't compete with the likes of China and North Korea for sheer number of people in the military and we shouldn't have to. We can be a lot more effective with fewer people. This is the general trend in all areas of industry so why not apply this to the military.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
  38. BrianMemphis

    Except for Vietnam Dems always cut the military.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • MValk

      They trim the fat caused by Republican excess. The military is in dire need of cuts, during the Bush administration the army lowered its standards and took anyone they could to be used as cannon fodder in their illegal wars. Most people in the army would agree that it needs to be cut and the people who will be cut should never have gotten in in the first place. by the way, this is coming from a veteran who currently works training soldiers for their jobs.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Reply
  39. Fair Look

    I do agree the military needs a cut, so is every other departments. Health care, live a healthy life style or deal with the consequences yourself. Welfare, bare minimum help to keep you alive but if there are job available, no help. Foreign assistance, they have improve alot with human rights to earn our money. Education, if they want to get left behind, let them, real life will give the best education. All prisoners should do some works to be fed, if not, bare bread and water. E.T.C...

    February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • Patrick O.

      Every other department has been cut!

      February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • Jungg

      God points, I agree.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Reply
      • Jungg

        *good

        February 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • gb333

      I agree with most of your points except for educatoin.

      Educating our citizens is an investment into our country and the return is very good.

      BUT,

      Maybe we should only help out students for fields that are in demand, and there are plenty of them.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
      • nathanbrazil

        Sorry, but we DONT need more money spent on education. We need better methods and less sucked away by salaries and administration. As an example, California spends more per student than any other state (and around 50% of all of their budget) and they have the 3rd lowest scores and grades for graduates in the country. So big spending does not mean anything. As another example, people assume private schools get better results since they get tons of private dollars, but in fact private catholic schools in California take in around 2/3 to 3/4 the dollars per student than public schools do and get much better results. It has to do with better teachers, better parent involvement, and a better atmosphere. Not more money.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • gb333

        I can't replay to your comment Nathan, but you are right.

        I am completely for restructuring our education system.

        Much like.. .Sweden. Treat everyone equal to the 8th grade, but after that send the kids that don't excel academically to a trade school.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
    • Mark

      Seems like an emotional response more so than a rational one.

      Spending on education prevents us from having to spend on welfare, healthcare down the road. Foreign aid often times prevents us from having to invest in or deploy our military and can mean a boost to our private sector down the road. There isn't much we (and most other nations) do that doesn't have favorable odds for a pay out in the long run.

      As long as there are nukes, we won't have to worry about an invasion. Our military needs to be right sized for the environment we live in. A 16 year old kid can cripple a country with a few key strokes, we don't need 200 thousand troops for that anymore. Everyone that could pose a threat is keenly aware that a world with the US is a much more profitable world then one without it. First Russia, and now China are turning capitalists. Our treaties, truces and squables will be fought and settled with Dollars and Yuan's, not the military.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Reply
  40. bm

    Brilliant move, Chuck! No doubt he will see his budget significantly increased now.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
  41. sam mazz

    Cut the (fill in the blank). Rebuild the (fill in the blank). The cycle repeats every 10 years or so. The game never changes, only the players do.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • coolmoondog

      First intelligent comment I've read in this while thread.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:30 pm | Reply
  42. bspurloc

    While we need to cut the military and its HUGE unchecked spending, cutting the A-10 Warthog is a mistake.
    but then again I am going on 0 knowledge of what would replace it.
    AC130 gunships?!?!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • Analyst

      The A10 Warthog is a tank killer. It is optimized for taking out enemy armor, the last time it was legitimately used for this function was Desert Storm and the Gulf.

      Helicopter gunships like the Apache, Kiowa Warrior fulfill these roles already. The A10 is a redundancy in this role.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am | Reply
      • Analyst

        and by fulfill this roll, I mean light air to ground attacks (not taking out armor)

        February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • nathanbrazil

      One word....Drones.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  43. Patrick O.

    I think it is funny that the same people who supported cuts to education and didn't give a hoot if thousands of teachers lost their jobs are freaking out of their mind that the same thing might happen to the military. It wasn't going to destroy the economy then, but now, all of a sudden, the entire U.S. economy is in jeopardy.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • Harold Covey

      Wait. Education is needed the Department of Education is not. This is a management issue the states should take of. Now on defense also needed, cuts are the last thing we need. Obama is sucking money out any whereever he can to help his spending habit. He needs to cut somewhere else, he has already weaken the US, we need the military to defend us until we can get better WH leadership.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
      • 062014

        Actually, it is best to have national standardization to a degree. Moving children from state to state without basic standards is not good. It's bad enough already.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
    • Sandra

      That's backwards thinking for you in a nutshell.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
  44. Qlicker

    Nearly 50% of the entire world's military spend comes from the U.S.

    This is big government and increases our propensity for military adventurism ( i.e. Iraq).

    Good move – Long overdue.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
  45. History teacher and professor

    This is absolutely the right way to go. We have a larger military than we could ever use or need. We spend far more on our military than any other nation in the world. Cutting back things we don't need anymore (ground troops are becoming less necessary, tanks and some planes are becoming less necessary) and focusing on what we need (cyberwarfare and special ops) is most certainly to right move.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Jerry

      I'm glad non of my children are in any of your classes. You're an idiot...

      February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
      • greennnnnn

        Sounds like he/she should be MORE glad your kids aren't in any of his/her classes. You're a moron. LOL.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • Ken

        I'l take his/her class any day. Rethink it Jerry.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
    • jack morrison

      being a history teacher you should know what happens when we become weak, as in after world war one and two and as for no boots on the ground or fewer, just who do you think is going to assault that bunker and kill the enemy? who do you think is going to pull the trigger on that m4 rifle and send that round towards the enemy? sure is not going to be some drone or robot, in the end it is the boots on the ground that wins any war

      February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
      • MValk

        We have had "boots on the ground" for 12 years now in Afghanistan and what have we accomplished? Your theory is out dated. We are fighting an unconventional, Asymetric type war, not a force on force conflict. What we need is to cut the military and use a smaller, well trained, technologically advanced army, that has the capacity to take the fight wherever needed at a moments notice. That is what we are doing, yet you "old guard" types, who think we are still in the 1950s don't want to acknowledge that despite your lack of understanding, the world is progressing. If you don't want to move with it, you will be left behind. This is the problem with the Conservative movement, they think that it is still WW2/1950 and that we don't need to change the way we operate.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
  46. Chanmac

    Thats cute...people still think were going to be using people...
    Scifi is about to become reality.
    Autonomous Quadrupedal and Bipedal machines.
    They already said by end of decade they want 10 per 1 soldier. (Because they are taking the people out; just like air force.)
    1million fps vision systems, swarm drones.
    I guess we all had to go at some point.
    The UN is trying to stop them but most Americans seem to not be aware of whats going on right now.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Chanmac

      And they want that 1 soldier in power armor (like TALOS) etc..
      Cant wait till the cops get a hold of that...

      February 24, 2014 at 11:51 am | Reply
  47. Harry101

    Well can't say I think this is a good ides. One many use the military as a means to fund College and boot straping out of a bad situation and receive training in structure and responibilty. Two the pool of personnal from whom to choose special operaters is very much reduced, decressing the quality of those forces. I seem to remember the dislike of multiple deployments for the service member and thats will go up so what lip service again from civilian street. I guess we can be a paper tiger as long as the politicans understand that the next attack on the US and believe there will be another that we can go to the UN for justice. Keep cutting until theres nothing left we can just fund the UN peace keepers. Yep lets go to the UN for justice and protection.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • gb333

      We spend more than the next like 5 countries COMBINED.

      Your post is stating that these cuts will make our military weak, but we will still have the highest funded most powerful military in the world by far.

      Don't forget we do have allies. And if we were to get into a world war(of which only two countries could even put of a good fight and in the end both sides will lose), but if we into a world war the draft most certainly will be back.

      Though like I said, we are far from "gutting the military" more like we are shredding waste.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
  48. Thunder-hammer

    Don't retire the A-10, give it to the Marine Corps or Army.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
  49. HeyHey

    None of the cuts will happen. Obama is president for just a little longer. Democrats will not gut the military.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
    • greennnnnn

      It's not "gutting the military", goofy. It cutting costs, which are WAAAYYY out of control.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • Galumbits

      Of course. Cut spending on everything. Except the military. Sorry, if you want to cut spending so much, you have to be wiling to cut it everywhere.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  50. Tim

    Seems like illegal hard drugs (not cannibis) are our country's worst enemy.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
  51. JohnSmith

    It's about time we end these pointless wars and bloated military budgets. Let's take the money save and reinvest in our education and STEM sectors. Time to get to work.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
  52. JackBriss

    Cuts would not be needed if we had a president who didn't give our tax money away to countries who hate us.
    Wasting trillions on ghost projects is why this country is broke. Our military is our only protection from those countries who hate our guts and will attack when the time is right.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
    • bspurloc

      ignorance is your crutch...
      EVERY single president hands out money to countries...
      AND that money is meant for the countries to cherry pick from our Military...
      it is all about military.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • ironman59

      Blah, blah, blah. Loan guarantees and foreign aid are at some of their lowest levels in decades. The military, particular as it relates to hardware and senior officer pay is at absurd levels. It is time to get military spending to appropriate levels.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • greennnnnn

      Cuts are needed, no matter WHAT. There is so much waste in the military. It's time to have it reined in. Enough is enough.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • wjshelton

      @JackBriss: You say, "Cuts would not be needed if we had a president who didn't give our tax money away to countries who hate us."

      First, we've long had presidents who "give our tax money away to countries who hate us." Not only is President Obama not the first, he certainly won't be the last.

      Second, most of that money is "given" in such a way that it does come back to us. Studies from back in the 1970s suggest that for every $1 of "foreign aid" we give, $3 return to the US.

      Third, perhaps if we didn't insist on invading so many countries, often simply because we don't like their leaders or their policies (rather than for any real threat they might represent), there wouldn't be some many people who "hate our guts". How would you like it if the big bully on the block constantly broke into your house and told you how to live? You wuoldn't tolerate other nations doing this to us, so why should they tolerate us doing it to them?

      Fourth, considering that we, as a nation, are by far the biggest spender on the military - our defense spending is equivalent to just a little less than half the total spent IN THE ENTIRE WORLD on defense. The second largest spender is China, and they spend only one fourth of what we do, we could cut our spending IN HALF and still outspend the Chinese two to one.

      It's easy to say "they hate us". It's a lot harder to look at reality.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
  53. Deacon

    The Democrats do this all the time when they are in office. Nothing new here. Clinton rode on that platform during his presidency.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      And it balanced our budget.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:56 am | Reply
  54. Bill in VA

    The biggest problem with military spending is that Congress won't let the military kill what the military doesn't want. That is because of jobs that the military contractors spread as far and wide as they can. The military industrial complex Eisenhower famously warned of. As a starting point we should just have the military tell us what they don't need, see what's left, and cut from there. I a pro defense but anti waste.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
  55. Thunder-hammer

    Getting rid of the A-10? Huge mistake!!! The entire fleet was recently upgraded to the precision strike "C" model. It can carry the same munitions at a higher payload than the F-35, and the F-35 does not have the 30MM GAU-8 cannon. It has been retired before by democrat presidents and every time a republican is elected it is again brought back into service. The A-10 has been the most widely used aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:47 am | Reply
    • bspurloc

      widely used in afghanistan?!?!
      clueless much? while I am against it being retired your comment is way off...
      The A-10 Warthog is for anti tank etc etc you know all the things Afghanistan does not have nor ever had.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
      • Thunder-hammer

        Yes I did say most widely used. Your knowledge of the A-10 is ignorant at best. It is one of the versatile CAS platforms ever. CAS is close air support. All of the anti-tank weapons on the aircraft have been used daily in Afghanistan and Iraq. Google the A-10 on wiki, and educate yourself. The aircraft hasn't engaged a tank since the '91 gulf war.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  56. Dennis

    I understand the need to draw-down our military and eliminate some expense, unneeded projects. I do however, disagree with the cutting of the A-10. It has proved itself over and over again during the last 25 years!! No aircraft can take its place. Drones cannot – they don't have the flexibility to react in a fluid situation to protect our troops. Suggested replacements are fast movers that lack the armor to withstand close air support that the A-10 has provided. If the Air Force doesn't want it, give it to the Army. Keep the A-10. 1SG, Airborne, US Army Retired.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
  57. Wiltonmanors

    Here goes Jimmy Carter all over again. Remember (if your're old enough), he gutted the military then tried to use the military to rescue the Iran hostages. Reagan rebuilt the military and nobody messed with us again.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
    • gb333

      Umm really, no one has messed with us again...

      February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Frank

      9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, yeah, no one EVER missed with us again... smh

      February 24, 2014 at 11:53 am | Reply
      • bspurloc

        Iraq never messed with us... we invaded Iraq per a

        WMD LIE.

        try to not rewrite history, this isnt Texas.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • OwMySkull

      I'd love to see a scan of the inside of your head. Like a fire drill at the state asylum.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am | Reply
    • bspurloc

      he used SPECIAL FORCES to try a hostage rescue. their failure had nothing to do with him.
      U ask us to REMEMBER yet you seem to mention that which never happened.
      that is like blaming Obama for the helicopter failure in Bin Ladens compounce.
      well of course it was his fault. my bad

      February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am | Reply
    • Dennis

      President Carter was a naval officer for tenyears. He did not gut the military. He did reduce the number of troops in Korea and reduced the DOD budget, but he did not significantly reduce our military. He also gave us the largest raise that I ever remember getting in the service almost 13%!!!

      February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Reply
  58. Tim

    Agreed! A leaner and more mobile military is the way to go. A stronger, smarter, and more secure intelligence gathering operation wouldn't hurt either.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
  59. Gary

    Funny to see all these right wingers criticizing Obama for downsizing the military because it will cost jobs. Isn't having a massive organization staffed mainly by people paid (directly or indirectly) by the government sort of like, you know, socialism? What happened to the free-market mantra of the right? The US is currently involved in no major wars, and the challenges of terrorism are not best fought by fighter jets or conventional soldiers - in fact, these things have made matters worse in many cases. These military positions are currently not required, hence, the employees are being let go. And if the idea of a government spending money to help poor people in the US instead of dropping bombs on poor people in other countries upsets you, then perhaps you need to reconsider your values.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
    • greennnnnn

      Well, yes, they DO need to reconsider their values. Since when is the government obligated to provide jobs? Isn't this the mantra of the right? Wow, big hypocrites. But then, it's nothing new at all.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
  60. Reality

    Oh noooo. Does this mean we don't get to play "World Police" as much anymore? =(

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
  61. Mel Stricker

    The easy part is to close as many overseas bases as possible. This saves in more ways than closing US bases

    February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
  62. Kevin

    Folks, war isn't fought for conquest anymore. We don't go in and annex a country to the US if we win, and a nation isn;t destroyed if it loses. The idea of ground troops has become obsolete in the face of technological advances. The next big attack on US soil is going to be over the same network I'm using to post this comment.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:45 am | Reply
    • sez you

      We have more to fear from our own gubment and the militarising of cops than any concern over downsizing our armed forces.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • jrh0

      you seem to misunderstand warfare. You do realize the type of war we engage in now IS the kind which requires more ground troops. It wasn't a new computer that regained a foothold in Iraq, it was a troop surge.

      As long as we are going to be doing counterinsurgency stuff and police actions all over (and we will) you need boots on the ground. You can't conduct counterinsurgency from behind a keyboard.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
  63. TBambulas

    John I understand your message but we need to stay technology advanced and have a strong military in order to be proactive not reactive if there was ever another Pearl Harbor or 911.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:45 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Both of which were surprise attacks, one of which wasn't military, and the other of which was not prevented by having military forces present.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
    • ksdksdksd

      Yes. That's why the F-35 is still in lay and not an ancient aircraft meant for major land battles. Besides, the army has a ton of units that need to be rework/reorganized and become more like the Marines.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
  64. JeffC

    The vast majority of what we spend on the military is not useful in modern warfare. We still plan our military like the Cold War strategy of "Overwhelming Power" still works. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Somalia, it wasn't put to use during the Bosnia conflict, it didn't work in Iraq and hasn't worked in Afghanistan. The people that are looking to hurt us these days aren't nation states with regular armies. Infantry and battleships aren't very useful anymore. The military is a massive part of our budget that is really just a defense contractor welfare program. Most of the money doesn't even go to the soldiers or the benefits they are supposed to receive.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:45 am | Reply
  65. gb333

    Dear lord, we are not cutting a whole lot. We are not going to have a weak military. We will still have the highest funded strongest military in the world by far.

    Just throwing money at things we do not need is not a smart thing to do. Our budget needs everything we can do to help it.

    And if you want the government to employ people, why don't you fight to a new "New Deal?" Lets get them out there building a better America instead of fighting wars that most people seem to think are a waste.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am | Reply
    • sez you

      Building a better America would require lost revenues from investers in public utilities and transportation, ain't gonna happen cause thats where congress gets its kickbacks. Ban lobbyists and Pacs and we might get some where.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
  66. Tim

    This only makes sense. Why didnt Bush think of it?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am | Reply
    • A Democrat

      He wasn't smart enough.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Epidi

      Cheney didn't forward the memo.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:51 am | Reply
    • Dan

      Actually under Bush administration under Rumsfeld they wanted a leaner military but that never went anywhere.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Reply
      • jrh0

        and rumsfeld was kind of an idiot for wanting it. Rumsfeld mistakenly thought (much as this article proposes) that you can buy shiny new toys and that it will replace skilled personnel on the ground. That's just wrong. Every major war we've had in the last 50 years, someone has thought "oh well the old way is obsolete, we have this new machine now." and they have been proven wrong.

        The above mentality was the same type that caused air schools pre vietnam to decide that teaching air combat skills was "obsolete". "Oh we have long range missiles now. Dogfights are over."

        Annnnnnd several combat losses later, we pulled our heads out and started fighter weapons school.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
  67. don_pk

    How can we deal with the ever growing and bolder threat from China if we keep cutting like this?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am | Reply
    • Epidi

      We still have nukes in the silos – don't worry.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • Martin Van Buren

      China? Maybe if we had a better economy they wouldn't be a threat.
      There is no reason to bankrupt our country in another cold war.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  68. Ngau Hu Phart

    Its about time. We have bases in more countries on this planet than most people can name countries. More than 60 countries, and between 700 and 900 bases, depending on the source. The plan is right. Far fewer boots on ground, but continue with prudent technical advancements.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
    • jack morrison

      being retired military I am kind of confused here, could you tell us exactly where in the world we have 7-9 hundred bases?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
      • EvinAR

        Where? The whole world?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
      • Jim

        I think these folks need to check current information. There may be some small outposts, like embassy guards in many places, but actual military bases are a pretty small number.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
  69. EvinAR

    Good. Why do we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of soldiers and legions of high-tech armored vehicles and amphibious this and that in order to protect ourselves from people who infiltrate our country, make homemade bombs, and blow themselves up in commercial airliners anyway?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
    • jon wilson

      When was the last time we used Armored APC's, MRAPS, amphibious units,F-18 hornets etc. to stop terrorists in this country?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:54 am | Reply
      • EvinAR

        That's what I'm saying.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
  70. dave

    With the republicans constantly complaining about debt the military needs to be almost completely eliminated. In exchange we could give a very small tax break to the rich. For the rest of us, with all the wars ending, there should be a huge peace bonus, sort of thanks for the efforts put forward by taxpayers for defending the Country, while the rich got huge tax breaks. With all the accomplishments that Obama has made, he may be the best President we have had in modern times.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
    • RT Colorado

      Dave...The American economy is 70% consumer spending based. The products that American consumers spend money on are mostly from overseas markets. The ability to assure and stabilize international commerce is predicated on being able to provide sufficient security of overseas trade routes and assist trading partners in thier security needs and support our treaty obligations. Otherwise, trading partners will seek the expedient measure of allowing nearby hostile enities, both state and non-governmental organizations, to determine and decide the relationship they have with the US. America's ability to assure strong trading partners is tied to its ability to secure and defend its trading partners and its trade routes.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
  71. TBambulas

    This makes no sense... We are going to weaken our country making it more vulnerable to the outside world. Our military is number one in technology but not in size. We need the new technology to stay on top and be number one. I realize the F35 is very costly, but the aging F16, F15, etc... Aircraft will not be able to compete if they are worn out, broken or grounded. Our country became number one by looking ahead and not staying stagnate, we looked at tomorrow and the new technology. There are many other areas to reduce spending, it seems that the military and education are generally the first two that those in power think of.
    Think of the reduction in spending if the United States was to stop being the world police. Why it is the US is always involved while other countries such as Germany, Britain, Canada, and the many others sit idle and never get involved. Have you ever heard of Australia getting involved? No... They sit down there quiet about everything, and don’t provide the world with a paid police force. Maybe if the other countries seen the US back off they might actually step up and provide aide or help to those in need. The world knows they do not have to help because the US is always first to help with everything. Seems like the world it sitting back letting the US destroy itself financially so they can become the next superpower.
    I would rather keep a technology advanced military and sleep better at night, than have a weak military spread too thin while congress and others keep their six or seven figure income.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • Olivier Twist

      TBambulas which side of the fence are you sitting on or are you just straddling the fence with one foot on both sides.. I am confused:-)

      February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • Daren

      TBambulas Canada played a major role in Afghanistan for over ten years

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
      • Jim

        Canada played a role. Britain played a role. Other NATO countries played a role. However, "Major"? I think not. Not to put down the Canadians, they are one of our very few remaining friends in the world. That is, if Obama hasn't offended them like he did the British.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • EvinAR

      World police? What do you think F35 aircraft are for? They're for stealth–why would you need stealth over your own homeland in 99% of scenarios, if you have range and a monopoly on the ground? This is a total contradiction–you want F35's because they're nice toys, and you want a million-man army when we're not invading anybody. Absolute nonsense.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
      • jrh0

        Do either of you know what exactly the F35 actually is or does? Its not "for stealth", though that capability is supposed to be rolled in as a benefit. The ONLY purpose for the f35 being created was cost savings. Several different current aircraft are going to need replacement or upgrade soon. The F35 was designed to be a single platform replacement for multiple aircraft. That way, it would (theoretically) have been much cheaper to build and maintain one multi use platform than keep building and developing 5 different specific things. Its the same idea as a car manufacturer building 4-5 different cars off one platform. (see: dodge charger/chrysler300/challenger)

        February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
    • P. Davis

      Try reading history books sometime sir.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am | Reply
    • Fred Garvin

      Better check your facts.Look at globalfirepower(dot)com. We have the largest military in the world. The USA military is almost twice as large as Russia, who has the second largest military. We could literally cut our military in half and still be twice as powerful as Russia with our advanced technology.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • Tom Bukowski

      You're sleeping just fine, and will continue to do so.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm | Reply
  72. John

    Naysayers should keep in mind things like this are reversible when/IF that were ever to become necessary. As long as R&D goes on, and intelligence, and an effective fast-strike capability, nobody is coming after us in large scale anyway. So why do WE need it? Who out there, any half dozen of the other nations of the world combined, is going to see this as the opportunity they've waited for for full-scale invasion of the USA? Nobody, we are worth a lot more as a trading partner than we could ever be as a military antagonist. So give it up. Then, if there is ever another Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the speed of the US mobilization at the cutting edge will make your head spin, and you will be happy again.
    In the meantime, infrastructure and education, and a few other things, still have some work to do.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • armyduke

      Unfortunately the cuts that have been occuring have been occuring in the Intelligence arena also and these cuts will hit there as well, leaving us more vulnerable than before 9/11.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  73. Ian

    Yep. We are losing tons of personnel...thank you for your service. 12 years at war hoping for a pension only to be cut short. We offer blah blah blah...suck us dry and spit us out. Well done leaders. Well done.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • RT Colorado

      Ian...America's history of how it treats its veterans has been since the first days of the nation's founding, very poor. I myself served nearly tens years (Vietnam) and I remember the reductions in force ("RIF's") through the Carter years and its effect on the Army. This is the way it is and has always been, and I assume will be forever. When the military needs you, they'll promise you the world, give you bonuses and offers of education. When the military doesn't need you, they'll find every excuse to weed you out of the service. I'm amazed that anyone still enlists. When there was a draft, it made sense for some folks to sign up to get away from unpleasent assignments or undesirable MOS's. But with an "All-Volunteer Army" it would seem that only the devoted professional soldier would be signing up these days. And with professional soldiers, you'd think they would have some sense that they serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief. But, its not my problem anymore... served and I'm proud of my service, but I can't for the life of me understand why any reasonably sound individual would serve these days unless they want to serve. No one is forcing anyone to enlist these days.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Reply
    • JT

      Actually, the way this is usually handled isn't that individuals are intentionally separated, but rather that retiring/discharging personnel are simply not replaced. Between a multi-year plan and a reasonable turnover rate, this is almost always sufficient to reduce units to the desired levels without involuntary separations.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Reply
    • greennnnnn

      I am not unsympathic to your problem/plight. HowEVER, there are tons and tons of people in this country who have either had their pensions cut greatly or lost them altogether. I don't see anyone coming to their aid. You're no more special than anyone else. Just suck it up and deal with it like everyone else has to. And stop crying.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Reply
  74. Deac

    He has to find a place to save so he can spend that money on supporting his growing welfare state. The more you depend on the government the more likely you will be to vote democrat

    February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
    • Bill

      The military IS a welfare state. It allows the federal govt to employ thousands and thousands of otherwise-unemployable recent high school graduates, and on the back side it allows the federal govt to pump tax dollars out to military equipment contractors. Stop being so dense.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Reply
      • Sandra

        Hear, hear!

        February 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  75. Minos

    Looks like USA ran out of boogieman to scare and excuse its expend on military. I expect a convenient terrorist attack in the close future.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      It appears that Russia is going to retake the stage as our national boogeyman.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
  76. Walter

    Were building tanks we don't need isn't that a form of welfare? A-10 's give me a break. Manned aircraft is on it's was out.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
  77. Kevin

    You'd think more "Conservatives" would support cutting the world's single most wasteful and bloated military in all of history?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:40 am | Reply
    • DontPretend

      I agree, the money is best used to support the largest population of non-working deadbeats in the history of the World.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
      • Kevin

        So you support massive government spending, as long as it's spent on guns. Gotcha.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:47 am |
      • thomas@aol.com

        Yeah like your mom.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:53 am |
  78. P. Davis

    However, the U.S. Government is willing to spend $200 Billion dollars over just the first decade of a three decades long 'modernization' of nuclear forces. The weapons are obsolete and not even a single one can ever be used in aggression. Does the U.S. Government really value this issue over heath care and education?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:40 am | Reply
  79. John Pickett

    My jmy I remember Reagan's cuts to the Navy left ships in port without enough crew to deploy & those tat did were told to cut fuel use. When times are hard & there is more peace then war a smaller more efficient military makes sense! I was in Supply Department &^ our manpower was cut so deep I chose not to reenlist rather then wait 5-6 years to take the first class exam!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:39 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Reagan added more to the military budget as a percentage of GDP than any other President, including Roosevelt during WW2.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
  80. Darth Vader

    Good. Invest the money into creating the Death Star

    February 24, 2014 at 11:39 am | Reply
    • Luke Skywalker

      Just make sure to shield the small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port...

      February 24, 2014 at 11:53 am | Reply
      • Darth Vader

        Son, just let Dad take care of it and go play with your droids.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
    • deep wallet

      ahhahaha .Fantastic!

      February 24, 2014 at 11:53 am | Reply
  81. Sonny

    We need to cut costs so we can afford to give Govt Benefits to all the illegals who will be eligible for citizenship.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:39 am | Reply
    • M

      Of course. You nailed it right on the he... wait. No. That's just inane crackpot talk.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:45 am | Reply
    • Patriot

      What was the flavor of your cool-aid?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
  82. Burly

    That's great and all, but I hope the country invests in rebuilding our manufacturing base. Not only for more jobs and a better economy but, in case we would need to convert them in any large future war.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:38 am | Reply
  83. Codeblitz

    Finally, we can focus on our country and not waging wars to make Coke and Exxon richer. Why did this take so long with a Democratic president?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:38 am | Reply
  84. Casandra

    The GOP needs to realize, you can't be pro-Military and pro-small government.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:38 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Exactly. You have to wonder about people who complain about excessive spending, then support the purchase of billion-dollar-planes that don't even fly.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • Norm

      And Dems need to realize that you can't preach stimulus, job creation, and opportunity for those with less education while dismantling one of the key providers of those things. Oh wait.. they do. But only when the cuts affect their district. Then all the sudden they're strapping themselves to the gates of the local shipyard.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
      • Kevin

        Believe it or not, there are ways to spend that money on helping people without having to kill others.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:58 am |
    • ga444

      you can if you are not a part of the rand paul wing of the republican party.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Reply
  85. SayWhat

    Meanwhile the DOD is doing this, our government is sending $billions to tgird world country who hates the US. Good job obama and congress.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Our foreign aid budget is about 2% the size of our military budget.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
      • Bill in VA

        And at least twice the size it should be, given the result.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am |
  86. MontanaTrace

    How many civilian military support jobs will be lost? Oh, they too vote GOP.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      I thought you were against government-created employment?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
      • Norm

        No. They are against govn't interference in the private markets. Military is not part of that. Try again.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
  87. Ramona Smith

    This is great.........maybe they can recover some of the trillion dollars that went missing in the Dept. of Defense
    during 911. This would be a great step for the US Govt. to return these stolen monies for better use instead of sending off our young men to be killed for the all mighty dollar.
    Hopefully it will be used for a better cause.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
  88. peterz

    At least, a break from UK policy which treated US tax payers as their second resources.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
  89. Donald George MacDonald

    I realize I was most fortunate to be born and raised in the United States where we treasure our freedom to object. Yet, every day since my discharge, I have also wondered how many more of our finest sons and daughters and then their children will somehow be coerced and convinced by government, church, family and friends that “there are no diplomatic alternatives left,” so they must go to war as bravely as we did and our ancestors did.

    ***

    So now I ask you how many more of our finest sons and daughters and then their children will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered to become brave soldiers in order to pass one of the entrance rites to adulthood?

    I ask you how many more of our world citizens will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered to go to war to kill other equally perfect human beings?

    I ask you how many more of our next generations of finest youths will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered by leaders of nations, movements and religions to sacrifice their precious lives in war?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am | Reply
    • Donald George MacDonald

      How many more will it be?

      Will it be many millions more or could it be none?

      Do you possess the answers?

      Indeed you do.

      In deeds you do.

      Our definition of democracy determines this to be true.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
      • JT

        well said donald mcdonald!

        February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • Jack Daniels

        Are you high?

        February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • thats true

      Donald, I am retired from the Army after 23 years and I cannot follow what you are trying to say. It is an all-volunteer force and I wasn't coerced by anyone and everyone I have ever served with wanted to join. It was my career and MY choice. The US has a proud military tradition and many young men and women want to be a part of defending this country. It is the most free place on earth and as such requires defense, and those who answer the calling are employed by this country to defend it. There is plenty of honor in that, you seem to see it as negative???

      February 24, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
      • Donald George MacDonald

        I likewise defended my leaders’ chosen causes when I volunteered to enter the military in 1969 and volunteered in basic training to go to Vietnam. I was subsequently decorated with the Air Force Commendation Medal for my one year of service in Vietnam. I then served as an in-flight crewmember on a C-141 personnel and cargo aircraft for another year and delivered military personnel and equipment to over 40 countries. During that year, I routinely returned to Vietnam in order to take healthy personnel and weapons in, then to take the bodies of our boys and our injured back home.

        I performed my duties to my country faithfully, but slowly became less faithful to my changing morality and myself. Eventually, I could no longer conscientiously contribute to causes condoned and to conflicts created and continued by my Commander-in-chief. I requested and received an Honorable Discharge as a Conscientious Objector.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Harold Covey

      I could not agree with you more. Served and retired myself, I hate to see where all this is going. Not going to be good news regardless. My Son is active duty currently, newly pinned Major in the Marine Corps. He is a JAG officer, and I am a little proud. But cuts to the military will puts him at risk, more so to all the Marines around him. There are lots of places to make cuts, just not the military.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
      • ksdksdksd

        The Marines have adjusted (for basic survival) to the fightings needs of today. The Army hasn't. These cuts will be connected to the Army and the Air force and not the Marines.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:54 am |
  90. Pete/Ark

    Empty article – things which will be proposed in some form – no time lines of any sort – speculative at best

    February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am | Reply
    • Ian

      Terrible article yes...not speculative at all. We are cutting 23K people from the AF this year. We think unemployment is bad now...what are they going to do with 100K+ troops that cant get jobs. I was one 4 months ago but lucked at after searching for over 2 years.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
  91. snowdogg

    "The budget, does, however, protect funding for cyberwarfare and special operations"

    Moving in the correct direction.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • Pete/Ark

      M daughter is a Geospatial Intelligence Analyst ... a rapidly growing specialty which is being raided by private industry and civil government ... she says it's nice to be wanted

      February 24, 2014 at 11:38 am | Reply
  92. Erick Holmes

    It doesn't say it, but according to another article, this includes cutting the entire A-10 Thunderbolt II program. Big mistake!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • Eric

      Not at all. The A-10 is obsolete, we have newer planes with the same capabilities.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply
  93. elizabeth ditchkus

    What great news, the Democrats have given us a weak military, and a strong welfare system. Keep voting Democrat, wait and see how many sub contractors will shut down and go on unempolyment. This is not you Democratic party of Truman. or Kennedy.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • snowdogg

      Weak military? I don't think so.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
    • Bill in VA

      Don't know that I would call miltary weak, but you are on point wit h Dem priorities. Military would be weaker under the moderne Democrats.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • Mack

      Ryan is the one pushing for the reduction to current retiree COLA. Bush and the base closures that began at the same time as the first Gulf War, and blamed on Clinton as bases were closed and sold in the 90's, ushered in a reduction back then too. We were a Million man Army back then. We had 500,000+ in the first Gulf War that went home to a closed base and no future. Pres. Obama has kept a conservative as Defense Sec. who is now recommending these cuts. So, you can't say those Democrats are at fault, can you? What was our big cut compared to what I've mentioned already? ...... Silence....

      February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am | Reply
  94. humtake

    That's Obama's logic. Cut essentials so there are less jobs, all while complaining that there aren't enough jobs. Why not just change the customer of the jets to foreign investors? That way, we keep the jobs in America and we make profit from selling the jets. Of course, that goes against Obama's plan to ensure everyone in America is dependent on the government to live, so I know he won't do that.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:32 am | Reply
    • Jack Blindfold

      Are you really suggesting selling our advanced jet technology to foreign countries? That is very contradictory to the goal of having the greatest military and being able to best defend the nation against foreign threats. Selling our jets to foreign countries will even the playing field and take away the advantages we have.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • Hill

      You are talking ideology, the dumb Fox kind. The reality is the UAV program, having proved itself in Laughganistan. A less expensive drone can launch a phalanx of simple hellfires to bring down multiple, very expensive jets. Think of positioned drones as air minefields. So you want to sell 11Billion$ jets to China so they can use them against us?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am | Reply
  95. MontanaTrace

    We need the strongest military possible. Additionally, we need the jobs. It's a good tax base too. So, why reduce the numbers? Oh, most military vote GOP? I get it! That's why the Dem leadership wants fewer numbers. Strictly politics. Anything to stay in office. TERM LIMITS!

    February 24, 2014 at 11:32 am | Reply
    • Hyptiotes

      I think you underestimate the size of the US military. We spend more than the next 14 or 15 countries combined on our armed forces. If we cut our spending to the bone, I estimate that we would still have larger military expenditures than any country on earth. The problem is that our overspending is the current largest threat to our freedom and independence. Ironically, the military can contribute the most to this treat by dramatically reducing its size.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
  96. Scott

    Getting rid of the A-10s is a huge mistake. Drones and highflying Raptors do not measure up at all to the close support of the A-10s.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:31 am | Reply
    • Erick Holmes

      I agree 100%. They do that, they'll ask for it on the next battlefield when our guys get slaughtered.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am | Reply
    • Bill in VA

      Agree. One of the best bang for th buck aircraft ever.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:40 am | Reply
    • Walter

      Another usless tool for the military play with. Over priced as usual. But than again it's just tax payers money.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am | Reply
    • Brandon

      If anyone thinks the A-10 should go then they have never been in a position where they needed it.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:47 am | Reply
  97. BSH

    This is good, but let's see of Congress goes along, or overrules the Pentagon as they have before.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:30 am | Reply
  98. Tanker

    Looking into the future, we aren't going to need 20+ Divisions to fight North Korea, we aren't going to get into a land war with China and Russia is only a threat to itself.

    At present, we have 2000 M-1 tanks sitting in storage because we have no mission for them.

    We can get buy with a smaller military.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:29 am | Reply
    • tee

      u need to BYE and education to learn how to spell by!

      February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
      • Hemi P

        grammer nazi that uses incorrect grammer then has to correct his own "corrections". and u is spelled you. fyi. I think it is YOU that needs to BUY an education sir. good day

        February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • tee

      and = an 🙂

      February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am | Reply
    • FLUX

      The real story here is "The proposed cuts will probably draw sharp criticism from some members of Congress, especially those with large Army bases in their states.." As usual policy is dictated by the desire of Congress members to get reelected, not by any rational, truthful consideration of whats best for the American people.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • Reality

      Of course we can get by with fewer than 20 Division. We have had a 10 Divison Active Army for over a decade. What number is small enough for you?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am | Reply
    • jack morrison

      lets see here, the 1st inf division is at Ft Riley, 2nd division is in Korea, 3rd division is at Ft Stewart, 4th division is at Ft Carson as is either the 3rd or 6th cavalry regiment, the 10th mountain is at Ft Drum, two squadrons of the 11th Cavalry are at Ft Irwin, the 1st Cav division is at Ft Hood, 25th inf division is in Hawaii and there might be another cavalry regiment in Germany. this looks like six divisions and 2 and 2/3 cavalry regiments a far cry from the 20 divisions you cite in your post.
      \ there are also a few special forces groups around, Ft Bragg, Ft Lewis, Ft Campbell, Bad Tolz Germany come to mind

      February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Reply
  99. Matthew Kilburn

    "Boots on the ground in huge numbers does not look like a necessary factor, even in any future large scale war. "

    To win a future war? Maybe not. You're fairly on-target when you imply that planes, drones, etc. can do a good job actually defeating an enemy – battles today may take place without the two sides even seeing each other, and where only small, fast teams go in to mop up.

    But while lots of boots on the ground may not be necessary to win the war, they are still necessary to win the peace...that is, to establish the kind of a civil state that must be left behind after a military conflict, unless we are to return again in short order. You can use a drone to kill an enemy with a gun, but drones don't help you to police a civilian population, or establish a new government, or provide necessary services....or really do any of the 101 other things that are required following a military victory.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:29 am | Reply
    • istenno

      perhaps we shouldn't be involved in any wars that afterwards require policing and setting up new governments?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:39 am | Reply
  100. Beasterdamus

    Yes that's it oh CNN, go on, continue to put this information out to our enemies...show them our weakened state...For F..k sake stupid! And you call yourself Americans

    February 24, 2014 at 11:29 am | Reply
    • MCP123

      "Pointless, to cut military, all we are doing is weakening a country and opening ourselves up to more attacks because we will appear weak"

      Yes we are so weak with 5,000 nuclear weapons...enough power to destroy life as we know it on earth. Twelve aircraft carriers each with more firepower than fired in all of world war II.

      That alone... WW II over 50 million dead... x 12... figure it out.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:31 am | Reply
      • Matthew Kilburn

        So that is your solution? Someone attacks us, just nuke them?

        And people like you say its those of us advocating a larger standing army who are the uncivilized, warmongering, death-bringers.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am |
      • Scar

        One missile can take out an aircraft, in a heartbeat.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • Lemon

      Right, because a foreign country is going to look at an article CNN and say , "Oh look, the US have a more streamlined , efficient military, lets attack".

      February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.