Military In a Growing Phase?

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by ArmycadetMS19, Jul 2, 2017.

  1. ArmycadetMS19

    ArmycadetMS19 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.
     
    af802990 likes this.
  2. Sledge

    Sledge Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    457
    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.
     
    ArmycadetMS19 likes this.
  3. ArmycadetMS19

    ArmycadetMS19 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    9
    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
     
  4. AROTC-dad

    AROTC-dad Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    1,815
  5. EDelahanty

    EDelahanty 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    373
  6. cb7893

    cb7893 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    684
    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.
     
  7. raimius

    raimius 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,301
    Likes Received:
    332
    There is lots of talk, but the size and budget of the DoD is not changing a whole lot--maybe a marginal increase.
     
  8. time2

    time2 10-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    391
    ^^ 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.
     
  9. MemberLG

    MemberLG 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    465
    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.
     
  10. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    The military doesn't need to grow. It's too big and too expensive, as is.
     
  11. AROTC-dad

    AROTC-dad Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    2,291
    Likes Received:
    1,815
    I would say that the military needs to modernize and increase efficiency, not necessarily grow.

    Of course, circumstances can change in a moment.
     
    NavyHoops likes this.
  12. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    1,219
    Our debt is changing in only one direction...
     
  13. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    217
    Stop Loss Is back!
     
    Blackbird likes this.
  14. conrack

    conrack Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    49
    and don't hold your breath on Trump leaving office anytime soon
     
  15. MemberLG

    MemberLG 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    465
    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.
     
    kinnem likes this.
  16. Sledge

    Sledge Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    457
    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.
     
  17. America Works

    America Works Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    7
    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).
     

Share This Page