Military In a Growing Phase?

A

ArmycadetMS19

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
54
Hi all,

I've been hearing from pretty much everyone -- family, friends, cadre (especially cadre) -- that the US military is in a growing phase, where we're expanding our manpower and investment.

Is this due to President Trump taking office after former-president Obama? Or is there another reason? IF President Trump is impeached/removed from office, does anyone see this course of expansion changing soon?

I'd say not, right? Because North Korea keeps making threats, there's still fighting and instability in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
 
The manpower increases are small. I think the Army got approval for 16,000 troops (up to 476,000 active duty) and the other services and reserve component increases are all much less than 10,000 each.

There is an ongoing debate in and with congress about whether money is better spent acquiring replacements for worn out equipment vs increases in manpower.
 
Oh i see...

Still, we are in a growing phase right? The main reason i ask this is (aside from curiosity in our nation's defenses) that my AROTC commander told me and my friend -- both of us are in a stressful waiver-needed condition -- not to worry too much because "the Army is in a growing phase," before implying that the Army needs potential officers to lead its troops as we expand. He told us to keep our grades up, keep doing PT, etc.

Before he told us this, i was under the impression that we were in a drawback phase
 
The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday approved its $625 billion version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, calling for the Army to add 17,000 soldiers. Yet the Senate Armed Services Committee's $640 billion version of the bill only adds about 6,000 soldiers to the service. The White House does not want to expand the Army next year, proposing in its $575 billion budget that the service stay steady at its 2017 size of about 1,018,000 soldiers across active and reserve components.

@Sledge, you seem to be a good numbers guy. I thought President Trump was committed to some kind of massive defense budget increase. This isn't sniping. Just curious about the difference.
 
There is lots of talk, but the size and budget of the DoD is not changing a whole lot--maybe a marginal increase.
 
^^ I agree. You have to look past the public rhetoric and recognize that the president has to work with the senate/congress to get a budget passed that balances a number of different priorities. Money to fund all of these initiatives doesn't just fall from the sky.
 
cb7893 said:
The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday approved its $625 billion version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, calling for the Army to add 17,000 soldiers. Yet the Senate Armed Services Committee's $640 billion version of the bill only adds about 6,000 soldiers to the service. The White House does not want to expand the Army next year, proposing in its $575 billion budget that the service stay steady at its 2017 size of about 1,018,000 soldiers across active and reserve components.

@Sledge, you seem to be a good numbers guy. I thought President Trump was committed to some kind of massive defense budget increase. This isn't sniping. Just curious about the difference.
Click to expand...

Some might say, not decreasing is a massive increase. In my state, not increasing spending is a cut. The verbiage doesn't matter as everyone will interpret it the way they see it.

Simply, without having a national security strategy to figure out the size of the military we need, increasing defense spending is nothing but a corporate welfare.
 
I would say that the military needs to modernize and increase efficiency, not necessarily grow.

Of course, circumstances can change in a moment.
 
AROTC-dad said:
I would say that the military needs to modernize and increase efficiency, not necessarily grow.

Of course, circumstances can change in a moment.
Click to expand...

How? I think we have learned in last 16 years, that technology has its limitation. Even if we give our infantry soldiers latest night vision device, a rifle that can hit a target at 1000 meter, we still need actual soldiers. I am pretty sure the mishap of USS Fitzgerald had more to do with human error than some old equipment that wasn't modernized. We need new airplanes, but don't need to build an airplane that costs anywhere between $100 to $200 million.

Efficiency. I will be political incorrect and say if we focus on discipline and war fighting, efficiency will come. There are more than enough rules, but they are not being enforced. For example, sexual harassement is a problem. The solution is not more training that take away from war fighting training, but punishing the offenders (to include other offenses). A recently, an Army two star ended up retiring as one star for improper conduct. To me, retiring as a one star instead of two star is not a punishment. I got it that general officers have served for many years, but they should be held to a higher standard. Military is about winning the nation's war and not make everyone feel good about themselves. For transgender intergration, there was a mandatory training everyone in the Army, to include civilian employees, had to receive. What's the big deal? The training itself is short, but it had to be conducted, don't forget to before and after time (travel to training location), record keeping at different level. How do we make up for this time, I guess not doing something else.
 
cb7893 said:
The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday approved its $625 billion version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, calling for the Army to add 17,000 soldiers. Yet the Senate Armed Services Committee's $640 billion version of the bill only adds about 6,000 soldiers to the service. The White House does not want to expand the Army next year, proposing in its $575 billion budget that the service stay steady at its 2017 size of about 1,018,000 soldiers across active and reserve components.

@Sledge, you seem to be a good numbers guy. I thought President Trump was committed to some kind of massive defense budget increase. This isn't sniping. Just curious about the difference.
Click to expand...

I imagine "his people" are trying to stay within a budget, shocker - I know, and listening to Mattis' explanations of how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on readiness and equipment modernization and replacement/repair.

POTUS is a wild card, but I think he listens to Mattis on defense issues.
 
If you're worried about job security don't be. It seems like they have no plans on shrinking the military. As someone stated earlier, we should see marginal increase in the DOD budget (slight increases in manpower and some improved equipemnt).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top