America: Tens of Thousands Fewer Soldiers Marines: Bigger Navy, More Drones

Translated, the Obama announcement that he will downsize Army and Marines for a leaner Military means we will lose forces almost equalling the entire size of the U.S. Marine Corps. The downsizing will mean “tens of thousands” fewer boots anywhere. Drones and battleships instead of Soldiers and Marines is the plan, as the regime gears up to face China.

Tens of Thousands Fewer Army and Marines

Administration officials have said they expect Army and Marine Corp personnel levels to be reduced by 10 percent to 15 percent over the next decade as part of the reductions.

The Army’s current strength is about 565,000 soldiers and there are 201,000 Marines, meaning an eventual loss of between 76,000 and 114,000 troops. Source

Robert H. Scales writing in the Washington Post (snippet):

Here’s what the lessons of the past 70 years really teach us: We cannot pick our enemies; our enemies will pick us. They will, as they have always done in the past, cede to us dominance in the air, on sea and in space because they do not have the ability to fight us there. Our enemies have observed us closely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have learned the lessons taught by Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein: America’s greatest vulnerability is dead Americans. So our future enemy will seek to fight us on the ground, where we have traditionally been poorly prepared. His objective will be to win by not losing, to kill as an end rather than as a means to an end. And we will enter the next war again tragically short of the precious resource that we have neglected for six administrations: our soldiers and Marines.

For more than three years we have watched Obama demonstrate his belief that the U.S. does not have the right to be superior in anyway. We have ceded space, now we are ceding ground.

PowerLine quotes historian Arthur Herman (read it all here):

Obama’s been trying to reassure Americans all this won’t endanger our national security or our strategic interests. Everyone in or out of uniform who’s free to speak knows better — and that with a full-scale war still underway we are standing on the brink of our weakest military posture since Jimmy Carter, and our smallest forces since before World War II.

In the same article linked above, PowerLines’s Scott Johnson notes:

President Obama is moving the United States toward a European social democratic future where life will be nasty, lootish, and short. (It will be loutish as well.) Crippling the American military is one more act in this drama, but it’s more than that.

Hot Air – Ed Morrisey:

It’s also curious because of the complaint often heard from Democrats during the Bush administration of overextending troop deployments through stop-loss, and the overuse of National Guard forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The reason for both was that the current level of funding for troops was not high enough to support two extended, small-to-medium sized conflicts at the same time while keeping our security commitments around the world.  That’s not even the “win-win,” two-major-simultaneous-wars paradigm that “dominated Pentagon funding decisions” during the Cold War, but ended during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

The rapid redeployment schedules used in the last decade showed that we may not be prepared to fight one major ground war, let alone two, for an extended period of time.

The question is, how will we remain in a proper state of readiness with “tens of thousands” fewer Soldiers and Marines while building-up our Navy and drone program, as Obama says he is doing with his leaner Military? If ground forces are needed, how quickly can we repair and replace the “tens of thousands?” What happened to peace through strength on every level? Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress ready and able to cut every thing necessary to make superior military strength the reality? Dreadful that we cannot trust this president’s judgement, or that of Congress, on any issue these days.


Obama Announces Leaner Army and Marine Forces (video)

Thanks to David Lemon who noted the sour look on the faces of our Military leaders flanking Obama in the photo above.

Many thanks to Grumpy Opinions for linking.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • I know the USAF is already forcing people out. HW Bush started drawing down forces after Desert Storm. He didn’t realize the force he was able to compile for Desert Storm was the result of Ronald Reagan building up our forces after Jimmy Carter decimated them into a hollow force. Clinton sped up the drawdown, even offering a 15 year retirement, using the savings on social programs.

    If the military cut its waste, there would be plenty of money to cut. For starters, they could stop flying Michelle Obama to vacation spots ahead of her husband. If she waited and flew with him on AF One, it would save millions. Also, how the military budgets and allocates funds needs to be revamped which could save billions.

  • Pingback: Friday afternoon news update, picks from the Grumpy Daily | Grumpy Opinions()

  • I guess the President needed to free up some funding for his “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the traditional military.

  • Yep.. another 4 years of this.. and we’ll be right where Obama and his backers want us. Destroyed as a super power.

  • You know what this is true: “If the military cut its waste, there would be plenty of money to cut. For starters, they could stop flying Michelle Obama to vacation spots ahead of her husband. If she waited and flew with him on AF One, it would save millions.” ALSO stop the useless luxury vacations period with kids dog etc. Michelle Obama is a ‘spendaholic’ with her $600.00 plus dollar shoes that look like crap on those big clod hoppers of her’s. It’s real-diculous as to how the Obama’s have spent money along with Pelosi and her botox, and on and on. They don’t look a bit better either.
    I just pray for our children’s children sake that this evil Obamanation & his greedy minions are destroyed, quickly.

  • bob sykes

    The choices are not stupid. We are confronted by the need to make large cuts in all spending, including the military. The propose plan preserves the expensive, hard to replace items like carriers, and future bombers by cutting infantry. While our current infantry is truly elite, history you can train up serviceable infantry in a matter of months. Notice I didn’t say elite. The British army at Mons was elite; never again during WWI. However, it takes 5-10 years to get a new carrier.

    Keep the carriers and the bombers; let the infantry go.

    Also, after the cuts, we would still have almost 700,000 army/marine troops.