WASHINGTON, February 24, 2014 — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans for a major restructuring of America’s armed forces today. In a speech at the Pentagon, he announced that the United States needs a more agile, mobile military to meet the challenges of a more volatile world. He then called for cuts that would leave the U.S. Army with its lowest active duty troop strength in 74 years.
“We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and in some instances more threatening to the United States,” said Hagel. He proposed cutting troop strength from its current 522,000 to under 450,000. That would leave the Army at its smallest since before the United States entered World War II.
The proposed troop cuts reflect realities of military spending cuts and the end of America’s role in Afghanistan. President Obama will submit his budget to Congress next week, and cuts were expected. The depth of the cuts, though, was not. Earlier estimates were for a reduction to 490,000 troops. American withdrawal from the Middle East and Central Asia does not leave the Army idle, and as Hagel himself observed, the world is not notably more stable or safe than it was last year.
Hagel is reported to have conferred closely with the chiefs of the different service branches in arriving at these cuts, which also include cuts to the Army National Guard and the elimination of the Air Force’s fleet of A-10 attack aircraft. Funding for Special Operations forces, cyberwarfare, and the current fleet of 11 aircraft carriers is protected under Hagel’s plan.
Under the proposed cuts, the United States military would still be overwhelmingly powerful, according to military officials, but it would lose the capacity to fight a protracted war. In the event of a major war, the Army will rely on its superior capabilities to stop an enemy until reserve forces can be mobilized.
The United States has maintained a smaller army than most of its potential rivals, including Russia (766,000 active frontline personnel, 2.48 million active reserves), China (2.285 million frontline personnel, 2.3 million active reserves), Iran (545,000 frontline personnel, 1.8 million active reserves), and North Korea (690,000 frontline personnel, 4.5 million active reserves). The U.S. Army has depended on superior training, the use of volunteers rather than less reliable conscripts, and superior technology to retain its military dominance.
Critics charge that the American approach puts far too many eggs in the technological basket. While the U.S. can afford to maintain a smaller standing army, men in boots have roles that cannot be filled by technology. The U.S. no longer dominates the world of military high technology as it did 20 and 30 years ago, and our dependence on technology creates vulnerabilities to cyberwarfare and the appearance of disruptive new technologies.
Superior military technology also comes with high costs that have ballooned and reduced procurements. USAF original intended to purchase 750 F-22 fighters at a cost of $26 billion; procurement was stopped at under 200 aircraft at a cost of $66.7 billion. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be a lower cost aircraft, but its flyaway cost has ballooned to $150 to $200 million per aircraft, and planned procurements have been reduced.
Similar cost overruns have hit projects in every military service. This has led to periodic calls to reduce reliance on major new weapons systems and move away from a military doctrine that calls for fighting more than one major land war at a time.
The reduction in troop strengths will probably not be widely opposed. Other cuts will be, however. Slowdowns in Navy shipbuilding, cuts in National Guard units and the elimination of the A-10 fleet are expected to draw strong congressional resistance. Projected base closings will also be resisted.