U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno (L) speaks during a meeting with Fang Fenghui (not pictured), Chief of General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, at Bayi Building in Beijing February 21, 2014. Reuters/Lintao Zhang/Pool
Reuters: Shrinking U.S. Army increasingly stretched by global commitments: general
The U.S. Army is far more heavily engaged around the world than projected when it began slashing force size several years ago, and its commitments will be hard to maintain in the long run as troop numbers shrink, General Ray Odierno said on Friday.
Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said decisions about cutting the size of the force from 570,000 to the current 490,000 were made several years ago when Pentagon planners expected a peaceful Europe, a declining commitment in Afghanistan and no return to Iraq.
Instead, he said, the Army is regularly using three brigades in eastern Europe because of concerns about Russia's support for rebels in Ukraine. It has another three brigades in Afghanistan, a brigade in Iraq, a brigade in Kuwait and is rotating a brigade to South Korea, Odierno added.
Update: Army Chief: Russia Major Threat, Iran Bears Watching -- Defense News
WNU Editor: U.S. General Odierno is retiring next month, so he is reflecting and speaking his own mind .... Top general reflects on Iraq, feels pain (USA Today).
8 comments:
"...blobal..."? :-)
"...blobal..."? :-)
As they are about to cut 40,000 more in next few years.
Thank you Sebastien for pointing out my error. Sighhh .... this is what happens when I do not get my coffee and I am distracted by the GF.
WNU
You lucky dog you:)
The US military is worn down from continuing operations around the world for the last 15 years or so. As such, it is going to be hard for them to carry out basic national defense let alone keep all of these commitments.
If I were POTUS, every single global commitment would be evaluated. The starting assumption would that they all need to be ended. It would be up to various parties to submit proposals justifying why a continuing US presence is needed. The decision on whether the commitments should be maintained or scrapped would be made in conjunction with the affected parties. In most cases, the troop commitments would be discontinued. Ideally this will done in conjunction with allies.
Obvious commitments that need to be rethought are to Eastern Europe and all support to Ukraine should be discontinued forthwith. Other global commitments to countries like Japan and South Korea while less obvious clearly need reevaluation as well. We are incapable of maintaining these commitments nor can we afford them.
I'd suggest a foreign policy similar to that countries like Canada and Australia. While our foreign policy would not look exactly like theirs as we are all different countries, it is an excellent place to start.
Canada and Australia do not have militaries.
Aizino,
Canada and Australia have militaries that are sufficient to carry out national defense as well as to contribute in various capacities in a variety of global missions. Canada and Australia are more secure than America (meaning less likely to be attacked by foreign adversaries), Canadians and Aussies have generally have a higher quality of life than Americans, generally are healthier, wealthier, and have more opportunities for advancement than Americans typically do.
Additionally, they are generally not target number one or generally targeted at all by Russia, China, or other major powers. It seems clear the idea of a global military presence on the level the United States has tried to maintain not only cannot be maintained but has negative utility for us. As I stated, looking at the foreign policies of these allies and trying to implement as much as we can seems reasonable but I was careful to point out that our foreign policy will not look exactly theirs as we are no them and they are not us. For example in a key area where I would diverge from the path they've chosen, is I'd do everything I could to make sure America maintains a robust nuclear weapons deterrent. At this time, it seems Australia and Canada have not chosen to invest in this area.
To suggest that Canada and Australia do not have militaries is not only inaccurate but to make such an inference could be construed as insulting to nations who have generally treated us very well. Given our situation, I'd be very careful about trying to ensure we do not insult the few allies we perhaps still have.
Post a Comment