The Army will shrink by about 22,000 people, the Marines by at least 15,000.

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by gojack, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. gojack

    gojack ....

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    2
  2. gojack

    gojack ....

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    2
    Force reductions do not come from only enlistment reductions but for perspective;
    US Army Fiscal Year 2011 Missions
    (The Fiscal Year is October through September.)
    Active Army Mission -- 64,000*
    Army Reserve Mission -- 19,320**

    http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/goals.htm
     
  3. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
  4. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,804
    Likes Received:
    942
    Curiosity question regarding the charts. For FY10 it was 74,500 AD and dropped to 64K for 11. Meanwhile, Army reservists jumped up 2K at the same time from 17K to 19k+. Does that mean that AROTC cadets were offered less AD commissionings?

    The Marine cut seems HUGE if you take the size of the Army compared to the size of the Marines. I could see the Army being able to cut 22K troops by attrition and reducing recruitment, but for the Marines that has got to be hard to obtain.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  5. gojack

    gojack ....

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    2
    I read an article a while back, A Marine commander talking about getting back to their real mission, that the Marines had effectively become a de facto second Army (out of necessity in the current wars) and needed to get back to core mission of being Marines, 'forward force projection'. Also mentioned increasing the size of their special ops unit now called MARSOC, from current strength of 1,000 to 5,000 by some unspecified future date.

    Army (AD+AR+NG) is about 1,000,000
    Marines (AD+R) is about 250,000
     
  6. Mongo

    Mongo Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prior to 2006, authorized AD Marine end strength was 175,000. In 2006, Congress authorized, to fight the war in the Middle East, an increase to 202,000 which they reached quickly. A decrease of 15,000 will still leave them more highly manned by 12,00 or so than they were prior to the war.
     
  7. futureAFA

    futureAFA Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if somebody enlisted they might wait a year to actually be sent to boot camp? How long did people used to have to wait to go to boot camp (in the army at least)?
     
  8. allmylife

    allmylife Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    You could ship within a week or 2 a few years back and could even get a quick ship bonus.
     
  9. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    What is 'forward force projection'? I respect the Marines, but my simple mind tells me not beign stationed overseas or not having special organic strategic mobility (i.e C-17s), the Marines are a defacto second army.

    I do see a Naval task force with a Marine Task Force a forward force projection. But, sea traveling takes time and some countries are surrounded by land.
     
  10. linkgmr

    linkgmr Old Grad

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good. Too many people have been stop lossed already. It's more than a little refreshing to see a change in the opposite direction.
     
  11. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    :confused:
    You do understand the disconnect in your post don't you? The Army (which is not doing much stop loss anymore) was forced to do so because of it's size relative to it's taskings- Ditto with the number of Reserve and National Guard troops mobilized and deployed. So exactly how do you think that shrinking the authorized strength of the active Army will reduce the number of Stop losses in the future? I suspect that it in fact will result exactly the opposite of what you are talking about.
     
  12. Malachy Marine

    Malachy Marine Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forward force projection is the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) typically embarked aboard naval amphibious shipping. We currently man (7) MEUs with any where from 3-4 always being deployed. Each MEU has (2) Battalion sized elements: a ground force and a logistical element. As well as a ad hoc squadron of various air assault/transport and attack helicopters, as well as a section of Harriers (if their lucky).

    Sea traveling does take time. But Marines can be there within 24 hours typically. Theres always at least (1) MEU in the Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf at all times. As for the surrounded by land thing... the first major combat troops on the ground in the war on terror in Afghanistan were Marines. The came from ARG shipping in the Persian Gulf.

    A MEU is probably America's most influential foreign policy tool. Its capability to conduct a broad range of operations from humanitarian aid to more traditional combat operations is unmatched by any standing unit in the US military.
     
  13. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
    The overstatement of the year right there.
     
  14. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    For those History Buffs you may want to read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. It examines what it costs a country for a projection of power, economic and military, on a world stage and the final decline. Most
    decline started coincidently with military cutbacks and "over-stretch" in most of the examples.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  15. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Thanks for the education.

    An argument I would make (for dicussion purposes) is that an Army Task Force can easily replace MAGTF/MEU, especially if they operate near or with conjunctions with a carrier battle group.

    I remember discussing competitive advantage in one my business classes. The ultimate competitive advantage is something that cannot be copied and most cases, it is not constant.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you about the uniquness of a MEU, but it comes down to can we afford it. I see like buying a car, do I just a buy regular model or buy a model with all the options.
     
  16. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
    Interesting point. In the age of ever-expanding "jointness" there isn't nearly as much need for the all-encompassing MAGTF, insofar as it mixes aviation and ground forces. Pretty much any Army combat unit or Marine unit is equipped and capable of interacting with purple air assets. Combine that with how the Marines employ their aviation, and you're still going to need dedicated CAP assets for some scenarios. I think you've hit on the heart of the matter...paying for duplicated capabilities. The 82nd Airborne can have its ready brigade anywhere on earth in 18 hours. There are many rapidly deployable light infantry task forces in our arsenal, all capable of exactly what a MEU can do in terms of full spectrum operations.

    I still think the claim that a MEU is America's most powerful foreign policy asset is outrageous. The claim that their capabilities are unmatched is ignorant.
     
  17. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
    With all due respect, please read carefully. Nowhere in that statement did I mention the US Army. Nor did I insinuate that they (we) are the best foreign policy tool. What I said is that the notion that the notion that a MEU is America's most powerful foreign policy tool is laughable. It is laughable. Think about it for a minute. When you look at ALL the foreign policy tools available to a world superpower like the US, can you seriously make a case that a MEU is the most powerful? I know the LT who made the statement believes wholeheartedly in his Marine Corps, but that doesn't make the statement true.

    Again, meaning no disrespect, I think the "pride in your service" warning applies to both of us here. I think that's worth a thought before we start poking others in the eye about statements which were not driven by pride at all, but by a simple examination of facts. Had I said "that's laughable because the Army is clearly the best tool" then you would absolutely have a point with that accusation. But I did not say that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  18. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Nuclear weapons seem to give the United States a bit more power...
     
  19. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes Received:
    272
    Against nation-states, yes.
    Against non-state actors, I think the ability to deliver several hundred pounds of high explosives within a few hours is one of the more useful tools (and is shared by several services).
     
  20. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
    Not even against nation-states. Would a MEU off China's coast deter them from a course of action they were determined to follow? Hardly. You can church it up any way you like, but in the end it's a mechanized infantry task force with organic CAS assets. It is not the be-all-end-all of foreign policy influence. Our money will always speak as loud or louder than our guns. For that matter, so will a boomer full of nukes.
     

Share This Page