Army Troop Drawdown


Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Sep 9, 2006
If you're in the Army right now, or are considering joining, you ought to start taking a very close look at the strategic communication being put out by people the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of Defense.

Major cuts in troop levels and budgets are coming, I think most of us already know that. But what does that mean? Well, for starters, if you have any black marks on your record, or if you get any, you specifically are on the chopping block. It used to be a commonly-told joke that you couldn't make SGM without having one or two Art. 15's, and a DUI was in some cases survivable. I think that is shortly going to no longer be the case. Waivers to enlist are going to dry up also. And promotions, schooling, and assignments are going to start to become way more competitive.

So what to do? Start familiarizing yourself with the upcoming changes. There was an announcement about re-enlistments that I read today, that I found particularly concerning. Educate yourself and your subordinates. Prepare yourselves for the changes, and do what you can to help keep our Army getting better.
Hmm...maybe we need a post or two on how promotions in the Army work? Points, schools, mandatory schools, when in your career, etc....or at least some external links. Our enlisted and junior O's might benefit.

For that matter, all of the branches would benefit with their respective processes.

Just a wild-assed idea on my part.
I am talking about active duty. They are actually looking for prior service guys to go into the reserves, it's USAREC's top mission right now

Goon, can you speak a little more about Uncle Sugar's recruiting priorities? AD/NG/AR?
Hard to find guys that qualify for a TS and have high enough GT or ST scores. The only MI job I can get anyone lately is 35P, but very few are qualified and interested in it.

Most likely because "it's so secret that you won't even know what you do". Too gay and full of BS. The job isn't classified it's the TTPs that are. Stupid.
Most likely because "it's so secret that you won't even know what you do". Too gay and full of BS. The job isn't classified it's the TTPs that are. Stupid.


Goon, can you speak a little more about Uncle Sugar's recruiting priorities? AD/NG/AR?

I can only speak for reserve and active duty, national guard is a seperate branch. but yeah, stand by.
As far as recruiting priorities in the infancy of the draw down:

Active Duty- Seniors in high school who score over a 50 on the asvab and have no medical or moral issues, high school grads who score over a 50 and have no medical or moral issues, applicants with medical degrees, applicants who speak Dari, Farsi, or Arabic.

Reserves- Prior Service NCO's, Prior Service SL1, AR OCS applicants, High School seniors who score over a 50 on the asvab and no medical or moral issues.

Incentives have all but gone away for the active duty, and there are very few jobs available, as stated above. The Army wants to cut the active duty force and boost the reserve force, and so you can find incentives for joining the reserves but not the AD.

2013 Army budget calls for more program cuts

By Kate Brannen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 13, 2012 21:31:51 EST

The Army plans to buy fewer trucks and terminate a handful of smaller procurement programs to meet its budget targets for the next five years, the service announced Feb. 13.
At a briefing at the Pentagon, the Army unveiled its $185 billion budget request for 2013, which represents 30 percent of DoD’s requested $613 billion.
The Army budget includes $135 billion in base budget funding, plus $50 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, known as OCO.
Barbara Bonessa, the Army’s deputy budget director, outlined the programs that were terminated or restructured to generate $5 billion in savings over the next five years. Some of them had previously been made public while others came as news to the reporters in the room.
With the 2013 budget, the Army plans to finish its buy of Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTVs), built by Oshkosh. The Army is requesting $377 million to procure 1,471 FMTVs in 2013.
By finishing its buy early, the Army will save $1.4 billion, according to Bonessa. The program will be “significantly restructured this year, with termination in 2014,” she said.
Another $900 million in savings is expected to come from canceling the Humvee Recap program — also known as the Modernized Expanded Capacity Vehicle. Several companies were expecting to compete for that contract in the coming months.
Instead, the Army plans to focus on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, an effort with the Marine Corps to develop a new vehicle to replace the Humvee.
The Army is canceling the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System, a reconnaissance aircraft program for which Boeing was on contract. This will save $1.2 billion over the five years, Bonessa said.
The Army is also canceling the Mounted Soldier System, a wearable kit of equipment for combat vehicle crewmen, saving $500 million.
Canceling the Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) will save another $400 million, Bonessa said.
The Long-Range Advance Scout Surveillance System, known as LRAS3, is also being canceled.
In addition to these program terminations, about 100 programs have been restructured, Bonessa said. Some buys have been accelerated, while many more have been stretched longer.
“We recognize that there is some potential risk to the industrial base with these terminations and restructurings; we believe at this point those are manageable,” Bonessa said.
The Army expects to save $1.3 billion from a delay to its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). However, in the 2013 budget request, it is asking for $640 million to continue work on the program.
The Army is also restructuring the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) program, for which Lockheed Martin and Raytheon were competing. JAGM was on the verge of moving into production with one of the contractor teams, but now that plan is being scrapped while the Army looks for a more affordable missile.
In addition to cuts to weapons programs, the Army is also beginning to plan for reductions to its force size.
The Army’s active duty end strength is planned to drop from today’s 547,000 troops to 490,000 soldiers by 2017. The Army will eliminate at least eight brigade combat teams (BCTs), two of which will come from brigades stationed in Europe. The Army could cut further brigades following the completion of a force mix and force design study the service is still conducting.
The Army Guard plans to reduce its size by 5,000 soldiers, reaching a total of 558,200 by 2017. There are no reductions planned for the Marine Corps Reserves.
The 2013 budget was crafted in “the face of considerable change,” Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale said, citing the spending caps passed as part of the Budget Control Act in August, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the winding down of operations in Afghanistan.
To calculate the OCO budget, the Pentagon assumed there would be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan in the coming years. This number is used as a placeholder, Hale explained, and it allows the president to make the necessary decisions about operations there without feeling tied to budget concerns.
Within the Army’s OCO budget is $5.7 billion for equipping and training the Afghan security forces, a number significantly down from the $11.2 billion appropriated in 2012.
Hale said this did not represent a reduction in U.S. commitment and that U.S. commanders in Afghanistan were very comfortable with this level of funding.
At the height of the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2008, war spending accounted for almost half of the Army’s overall budget. In 2008, the Army’s base budget was $131 billion, with an extra $121 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With U.S. presence in both countries winding down, OCO dollars now make up only 27 percent of Army spending.
The Army’s 2013 OCO request includes $3.7 billion for reset and repair of deployed equipment.
I don't have the e-mail right in front of me, it's on my work computer, but we recieved an e-mail today talking about the reduction in promotions, increased TIG to compete for promotions, and increased service commitment if chosen for promotion. A lot of changes coming down, some good and some bad in my opinion. As the push for keeping only the best leaders in the Army is upon us, I think one of the main questions needs to be "what is a good leader?". I know that the defintion of a good leader in the SOF community and a good leader in the rest of the army can sometimes (often times) have a lot of distance between the two. So, maybe we can talk about what we think the Army should be looking at for it's current and future leaders. Should the leaders we keep have high PT scores? Should they have a degree? an advanced degree? Should they have made the commandants list at atleast one NCOES course? How much admin time should they have? and so on....
Ask the subordinates "Do you trust this man with your life?"

Peer review plain & simple. If they can survey for DADT and PT uniforms, they can get feedback on dangerous or questionable leaders.
There has been talk of changing the NCOER so that you recieved a rating from your rater, peers and subordinates. Not a bad idea. There has also been talk of getting ranked. For example, if a PSG is rating his 4 squad leaders, he would have to rank them 1 -4 and put that on their NCOER. I believe there is something similar on the OER presently. I don't know how crazy I am about that idea, if you are in a unit with exceptional NCO's, that number rating may not be an accurate portrayal of your performance.
Ask the subordinates "Do you trust this man with your life?"

Peer review plain & simple. If they can survey for DADT and PT uniforms, they can get feedback on dangerous or questionable leaders.

Unless the feedback from junior guys is going to be taken seriously, this is pointless. I think that when it comes down to it, most officers will protect their own and will interpret negative junior enlisted feedback as indicative of "Joe's" inability to grasp "the big picture".
I have a lot of problem with junior people rating senior people. Each of us that has risen through the ranks in military or civillian DOD circles have found out the job of our supervisor is not anything like we thought once we get that position. Lets take reflective belts this word came from high up and so the SSGT etc enforces what he was ordered to do does that make him a tool? I think it is a good idea to have junior people rate the command as a whole it gives some good insight to what is perceived at the private and corporal level. I am sure that good people will lose their way in this new austerity and some who polish the knob will rise at the expense of others. It is one thing to work in the top 5% but there are a lot of people out there that are not up to the lower 40% that still make the military go round and round.
What we will find in my opinion is the people that played the game and walked the walk will have it over the very effective combat leader every time. Except in the rare case when a person can do both sides very well.