Great news

Quote:The Army is getting a new commander in chief come January, and according to experts, the service is in for a bit of a U-turn.

After years of a military drawdown in both personnel and presence around the world, Trump will probably try to reverse course, according to a retired four-star general.

"He’s not in charge of money — the Congress is — but what he said was he thought the armed forces in general were grossly underfunded," retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a 32-year infantry officer who held top-level posts at the Pentagon and NATO, told Army Times in a Monday phone interview.

Confronting sequestration is key, he added, but with a Republican-led Senate and House of Representatives, agreeing on a beefed up budget shouldn't be a challenge.

That additional money could mean some job security for current soldiers and an uptick in recruiting after half a decade of drawing down.

"I sure hope so," McCaffrey said. "The Army is grossly undermanned."


Army Times
Army dropped by 1,100 soldiers in February: Drawdown is back on track
The plan was to get down to 460,000 active-duty soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017, but as a Trump insider and current Senate Armed Services Committee member told Defense News in October, the president-elect wants to reverse that.

"He proposes an increase in the Army," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. a rumored top contender for Defense secretary. "We now have about 480,000 troops. He proposes that the Army should be sustained at 540,000 troops."


Defense News
Top Trump Military Advisers Detail GOP Candidate's Defense Plan
Troops can also expect a build-up in Europe and Asia, McCaffrey said, despite Trump's criticism of NATO.

"You’ve got to have a military combat capability that is believed by the Russians and the North Koreans, among others, as being capable and willing to confront them in an air-ground-sea battle," he said.

The last of the American M1 tanks left Europe back in 2013, which was a "shameful invitation to Putin to confront," McCaffrey added, saying that he wouldn't be surprised if Trump sent them back.

"At some point, math counts in warfare," he said. "If you don’t want to fight, then maintain a capability that is persuasive to your adversary as being capable of taking them on. There is inadequate ground combat power in Europe."

And Trump might be just the person to get the other NATO countries to pull their weight when it comes to protecting themselves.

"I do think he’s also at heart a negotiator and so he’s actually quite correct that the Europeans, the NATO countries, have not in any way fulfilled their obligations under the NATO treaty," McCaffrey said. "It’s a shadow of what it was 25 years ago. If you’re into real politik, you would say that weakness invites aggression. So I think that Trump’s stand on NATO, while it frightened and outraged those of us who believe in NATO, is in reality a very useful opening stance."

Support from troops

On a philosophical level, McCaffrey said, support for Trump might have a unifying effect on troops.

"There actually was overwhelming support for Trump during the campaign from the rank-and-file of the armed forces," he said.

That had a lot to do with his rhetoric about the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCaffrey added, commiserating with soldiers over "inane" rules of engagement.

"If you rounded up an infantry battalion in the Army and asked, 'What do you think about all this?' you'd get a surprisingly positive response," he said.

'Ignorant and uneducated'

McCaffrey, however, warned that Trump has a lot of work to do when it comes to learning about the country's national security and foreign policy structure.

"In my judgment, Trump, if elected, would provoke a political and constitutional crisis within a year," the general wrote in an August op-ed for his hometown Seattle Times. "He is remarkably ignorant and uneducated about the world that we face and the means we may use to defend ourselves.”

But troops should be optimistic, he said.

"The office changes the man," he added. "Trump did win with a huge wave of support against all odds. There’s an enormous anger among many American people about the way government is, so let’s roll into this."

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/early...nder-trump

The Army needs an enema. Badly. I've never seen so many fat asses and neck tattoos in my life. Kick them the **** out.

The Army isn't undermanned, its overworked. The interviewee advocating for returning armor to Europe misses the fundamental point that Trump doesn't see that mission as vital to US security.

BUT MUH TRANSGENDER TROOPS

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Bigger, badder, yuger.

If there is inadequate ground power in Europe, then maybe the ******* Europeans should spend some money to defend themselves. I'm tired of subsidizing Europe's security.

England is pretty much the only country in Europe that invests somewhat adequately in their own defense.

Personally, I wonder if ALL of the services will make a U-turn and be given funding they need. From a personal perspective, I can tell you the Coast Guard is always doing more with less. What's worse is we are always asked to do MORE. For the last several years "we" have always volunteered to be the first service to take funding cuts.

I'd love to see that change, but that's just me.

I'll also be happy to see the other services get better funding even if the CG gets shafted again.

We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

This country needs to stop treating the military as Congressional pork. Bases and programs that exist because they add jobs to powerful Congressmen's districts should be weeded out and funding directed towards effectiveness.

Furthermore, we need to abdicate the nuclear test ban treaty and modernize our nuclear weaponry before it becomes obsolete.

On the flip side, one of the complaints often heard, from both sides, is we shouldn't be keeping so many forces in overseas locations. Yet I heard one retired Army general opine that it was less expensive to keep forces overseas than in stateside bases. That actually sounds logical.

Lol at the idea we aren't spending enough on the military. The military is the rights money pit in exactly the same way entitlements are for the left. Both need to be cut drastically.

He needs to fix Army football as well.

(11-16-2016 09:05 AM)Niner National Wrote:  If there is inadequate ground power in Europe, then maybe the ******* Europeans should spend some money to defend themselves. I'm tired of subsidizing Europe's security.

If Europeans don’t think defending Europe is worth European money and lives, why is it worth American money and lives?

(11-16-2016 09:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

(11-16-2016 12:52 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:05 AM)Niner National Wrote:  If there is inadequate ground power in Europe, then maybe the ******* Europeans should spend some money to defend themselves. I'm tired of subsidizing Europe's security.

If Europeans don’t think defending Europe is worth European money and lives, why is it worth American money and lives?

Good post Stanley. That goes for S. Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and others in the East like S. Korea.

(11-16-2016 01:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:52 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:05 AM)Niner National Wrote:  If there is inadequate ground power in Europe, then maybe the ******* Europeans should spend some money to defend themselves. I'm tired of subsidizing Europe's security.

If Europeans don’t think defending Europe is worth European money and lives, why is it worth American money and lives?

Good post Stanley. That goes for S. Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and others in the East like S. Korea.

I agree. Trump has assets in those countries however so it's doubtful that he will just ignore those areas.

(11-16-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

Jimmy Carter's liberal America?

(11-16-2016 01:50 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

Jimmy Carter's liberal America?

That was less than 50 years ago.

(11-16-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:50 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

Jimmy Carter's liberal America?

That was less than 50 years ago.

oops, tomatoe, tamato....LBJ's liberal America?

(11-16-2016 01:53 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:50 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We don't need a bigger armed forces. We need a more high tech one and a less wasteful procurement system.

I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

Jimmy Carter's liberal America?

That was less than 50 years ago.

oops, tomatoe, tamato....LBJ's liberal America?

There you go. You know, when he did that evil **** like the Civil Right Act.

(11-16-2016 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:53 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 01:50 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I was thinking the same thing but I guess this is what he means when he says he is taking America back.

Back about 50 years.

Jimmy Carter's liberal America?

That was less than 50 years ago.

oops, tomatoe, tamato....LBJ's liberal America?

There you go. You know, when he did that evil **** like the Civil Right Act.

good grief...not even going to begin a retort to that cherry pick. You are the master deflector.
My point is simple: leftists always play the "going back to scary America" card but when the curtain is pulled, there sits a leftest/progressive president at the wheel.