Pentagon plan to downsize Army: a sign of US reluctance to nation-build

Bringing US ground forces to their lowest level since before World War II makes sense given that troop-intensive, nation-building operations are unlikely for the foreseeable future, the Defense secretary said Monday in discussing his Pentagon budget plan.

|
Carolyn Kaster/AP
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel briefs reporters at the Pentagon, Monday, Feb. 24, 2014, where he recommended shrinking the Army to its smallest size since the buildup to US involvement in World War II in an effort to balance postwar defense needs with budget realities.

With Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announcing Monday a historic downsizing of US ground forces, along with other cost-cutting measures, what does the move say about military priorities at the end of two long wars? 

The new budget, if it were to be approved by Congress, will take the Army down to pre-World War II levels – a good idea given that the US military is not likely to be waging troop-intensive nation-building operations for some time to come, Secretary Hagel said during a briefing with reporters.

What’s more, “given the Army’s reliance on contractors to do things once performed by active-duty personnel,” these cuts do not “necessarily mean the Army will be less capable,” says Benjamin Freeman, policy adviser for the National Security Project at Third Way, a think tank in Washington, D.C. “Personnel numbers only tell one part of the story.” 

Although reaction to the budget plan within the Beltway can tend to run toward the dire, particularly among defense contractors, “one doubts that the American public are terribly worried about a military that might be slightly less likely to get involved in unnecessary and counterproductive nation-building missions in distant lands,” argues Christopher Preble, a defense analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. 

Under the budget plan for fiscal year 2015, the Army would decline from a post-Iraq high of 566,000 in 2011 to some 440,000 active-duty troops by 2019. The post-World War II low was 475,290 in 1999, Dr. Freeman notes.

“Given rapidly rising personnel costs, and the great political difficulty of reining them in, the only way to achieve actual savings may be a smaller active-duty force,” Mr. Preble adds. 

That's in effect what Hagel is proposing. “Our recommendations favor a smaller and more capable force, putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries,” he said.

Even with the cuts, the Army still would be just above the force levels it had prior to 9/11. The proposed cuts, moreover, are not nearly as deep as the Army had contemplated during a strategic review last summer, notes Todd Harrison, senior fellow in defense studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

That signals that the Army and the Marine Corps are prioritizing higher numbers of troops over acquiring modern technology, he adds.

At the same time, the Navy will retain its 11 aircraft carriers, while the Air Force will continue to prioritize the F-35 fighter jet, the next-generation stealth fighter. 

Rather than putting their money on higher force levels, the Navy and the Air Force are emphasizing high-tech modernization, Mr. Harrison says. “The real story here for me is this looks like a giant balancing act.”

Special Operations Forces would get a boost, too – from 66,000 troops today to 69,700 in the new budget. “Clearly, Special Operations Forces have been very effective in what we’ve been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in terrorism operations around the globe,” Harrison says. 

What is not included in the budget are the sequestration cuts already mandated by Congress, or the overseas continuing operations (OCO), which is where the Pentagon keeps the funding for the war in Afghanistan.

“The OCO has really become, frankly, a slush fund,” Freeman says, adding that defense analysts will be watching carefully when the Pentagon rolls it out, probably after the presidential election in Afghanistan in April.

But defense officials are eventually going to have to make some tough decisions on the cost of the war, or face the wrath of some lawmakers. Adds Preble: “If the Pentagon isn’t serious about confronting" the high cost of the war, as well as looming sequestration, "the resulting infighting could get ugly.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Pentagon plan to downsize Army: a sign of US reluctance to nation-build
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0224/Pentagon-plan-to-downsize-Army-a-sign-of-US-reluctance-to-nation-build
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe