Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I may be in the minority, but I see this as a good thing. The military has been stretched thin in the War On Terror, but part of that has to do with fewer soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen electing to sign-up for combat related duties, and instead taking the more "administrative" route that keeps them out of harms way.
In my three trips to Iraq, i've seen what I consider to be a top heavy Administrative Army. Not to denigrate those that serve, but most American's would be surprised at the number of military folks sitting behind a desk versus shooting a gun. Yes, these folks are needed, but the ranks are bloated with these servicemembers from my perspective.
I believe a strategic reduction in non-combat roles is needed while simultaneously increasing the number of combat operators.
As for the Navy, I can't speak specifically to this troop reduction, but if its anything like what i've witnessed in ground forces, i'd say its good to reduce the force there as well.
Since I work for the Navy, we get these newsbites regularly and this came out to us about a month ago; however, the story I read didn't state that it had anything to do with the economy at all but just that they had a surplus of personnel and, really, not much to do with them.
I think "due to the economy" many people who would have otherwise never signed up for the military have, and I do feel bad if someone gets kicked out of the military unprepared. But the paring down of troops has to do with required numbers.
I may be in the minority, but I see this as a good thing. The military has been stretched thin in the War On Terror, but part of that has to do with fewer soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen electing to sign-up for combat related duties, and instead taking the more "administrative" route that keeps them out of harms way.
In my three trips to Iraq, i've seen what I consider to be a top heavy Administrative Army. Not to denigrate those that serve, but most American's would be surprised at the number of military folks sitting behind a desk versus shooting a gun. Yes, these folks are needed, but the ranks are bloated with these servicemembers from my perspective.
I believe a strategic reduction in non-combat roles is needed while simultaneously increasing the number of combat operators.
As for the Navy, I can't speak specifically to this troop reduction, but if its anything like what i've witnessed in ground forces, i'd say its good to reduce the force there as well.
But, but, you apply knowledge, understanding and reason. That is totally uncalled for here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
