I received this very provocative response to the article below. But I think the key point to keep in mind is that when the Army is reduced in size the ability to sustain the current size of SOF will be severely impacted. For those who think that SOF (and the Marines) can make up for reductions in the size of the major strategic land power force they really need to see the catch 22 we put ourselves in when we reduce the size of the Army (I know the Army has to be reduced in size and it will be – we just need to do so with a full appreciation of the 2d and 3d order effects some of which the provocative comments below illustrate from a SOF perspective). Instead of doing more with less (our typical military mantra in times of austerity) we need to do the right things with the right forces, that are of the "right" size (and therein lies our dilemma – what is the "right" size?) - I would say that the size has to be based on what our nation tells the military it has to do – and of course that requires a balanced and coherent strategy (within the constraints and limitations imposed and acceptable risk identified) that support our national policies.
What is wrong with wanting to 'right size' the DOD to pre 9/11 size? Not exactly the numbers being discussed here, but how would that hurt the military?
We take our lessons learned, our technology, and move fwd.
We go back to a Corps and Division based Army. Get rid of the 4th BCT.
SOF? SF goes back to 3 BNs/Group. Ranger Regiment goes back to its original size. SOAR? I would try to keep it as it is now...we were always short platforms. CA can stay a BDE, but the 85th would need to go. MISO can go back to a single Group. SWCS must cut programs that were designed to fill the extra 18 series demand.
JSOC...let's look at what it is supposed to be, and return it to that. From 3 stars to 2 stars.
SMU's should also return to its mission statement.
USSOCOM? That is a tougher nut to crack because of its COCOM status. There is a lot of fat down there. It would need a leader with guts, and services to look at themselves honestly and find where they can loose positions.
The hard fact that nobody within SOF is really talking about, is that when the general population of our military shrinks, so does the recruiting pool. Our goals/objectives must be realistic, and we must empower the lowest element and gut our headquarters. Too many people doing redundant jobs. When you have a lot of people, you come up with a lot of work for them to do. Is all that work really necessary?
More Starbucks, please.
From: David Maxwell
Date: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:06 PM
Subject: FW: Odierno: Active-Duty Army's Size To Fall Below 490,000 Troops
I have actually heard 350,000 to 390,000 mentioned (RUMINT only).
Inside the Army - 02/18/2013
Cites 'Bermuda Triangle' of fiscal uncertainty
Odierno: Active-Duty Army's Size To Fall Below 490,000 Troops
Dire warnings about the catastrophic impacts of sequestration aside, the
Army's chief of staff says he could stand to cut the service's end strength
below the planned floor of 490,000 troops, though neither he nor his staff
would specify the exact number.
"We all realize the Army's getting smaller," he said during an appearance at
the Brookings Institution on February 15. "We're going down to 490,000 in
the active component even if sequestration doesn't occur, but my guess is
we'll go a little bit smaller in order for me to balance the readiness and
the modernization. We're still working that number. Is it 490? No."
(Inside the Army requires subscription access)