OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Army cutting combat brigades

**Pete** · 03-13-2014, 20:06

OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Army cutting combat brigades

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...ombat-brigades

"...Gen. John Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff and second-highest ranking member, in an exclusive interview with The Hill said the service was already planning to reduce its combat brigades, basic Army units of 5,000 soldiers that can be deployed and sustain themselves overseas.

The brigades were scheduled to reduce from 45 in 2013 to 32 by 2015, but now the number will shrink further....."

Cont

"...A Feb. 28 report from the Congressional Research Service cited an Army briefing in suggesting active-duty brigades could be cut to 24 with an Army of 420,000 soldiers in 2019.

Cutting active-duty brigades by that much could dramatically alter U.S. capabilities overseas.

For example, the Army might not be able to keep two active-duty brigades in Europe...."

PokemonMaster · 03-13-2014, 22:50

Is there any reason we should have active duty brigades in Europe? (Serious question.)

LongWire · 03-14-2014, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokemonMaster

Is there any reason we should have active duty brigades in Europe? (Serious question.)

Ask some Ukrainians.....

PokemonMaster · 03-14-2014, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongWire

Ask some Ukrainians.....

I thought of that, but rangers and Marines can get anywhere in the world within 48 hours and the Ukraine has an Army. Wouldn't it be more economical if we had one or even no active duty brigades in Europe? What could be missing?

Edit: I guess it would be provoking if we sent Rangers over while the Active units already there would be seen as normal and not an act of provocation.

BrokenSwitch · 03-14-2014, 03:58

To build on PokemonMaster's question:

If the units stationed in Europe are withdrawn, would the Europeans grow a pair, or would this be an invitation to World War III?

(On that note, I seem to recall it being discussed elsewhere on this forum that the only reason Europe hasn't had a full-blown war in the last 68 years is the presence of US troops keeping the peace.)

Perhaps the EU can pay out of their own coffers for the continued presence of the US peacekeeping force?

Regarding Russia, I seem to recall there were some American troops in Georgia when Russia invaded a few years ago...

**Box** · 03-14-2014, 08:33

Rangers shouldn't used to defend Ukrainians; they should used to attack the Kremlin. A heavy combat brigade would do a much better job of large scale defense.

I'm certainly NOT suggesting that as a viable option, but you should never use a good screwdriver to hammer nails.

Just my opinion.

Go Devil · 03-14-2014, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

Rangers shouldn't used to defend Ukrainians; they should used to attack the Kremlin. A heavy combat brigade would do a much better job of large scale defense.

I'm certainly NOT suggesting that as a viable option, but you should never use a good screwdriver to hammer nails.

Just my opinion.

Wouldn't they be better utilized to take down Washington D.C. to stem the communist assault taking place there?

JimP · 03-14-2014, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go Devil

Wouldn't they be better utilized to take down Washington D.C. to stem the communist assault taking place there?

well played and spot-on!!!

blacksmoke · 03-14-2014, 12:43

We no longer need a large army. Now that we have the military industrial complex under control there will be no more wars

And we can get back to spending our tax dollars on the oppressed here at home.

**Box** · 03-14-2014, 18:38

Quote:

Wouldn't they be better utilized to take down Washington D.C. to stem the communist assault taking place there?

They would...
...but when you approach it that way, they will be taking down Joe the Plumbers house first.

We are the threat. Turn your guns in and report for reeducation!!!

Pericles · 03-17-2014, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokenSwitch

To build on PokemonMaster's question:

If the units stationed in Europe are withdrawn, would the Europeans grow a pair, or would this be an invitation to World War III?

(On that note, I seem to recall it being discussed elsewhere on this forum that the only reason Europe hasn't had a full-blown war in the last 68 years is the presence of US troops keeping the peace.)

Perhaps the EU can pay out of their own coffers for the continued presence of the US peacekeeping force?

Regarding Russia, I seem to recall there were some American troops in Georgia when Russia invaded a few years ago...

As the saying went, the purpose of NATO was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. Destroy the mechanism and ......

If you are Poland, the Czech Republic or such, and you want a real counterweight to Russian policy, Germany may not do the trick for you. If you are the US and want to limit Russian activity about Europe, some credible force is probably the best deterrent. BCTs have to catch a ride to where the war is. In the 1980s, having one third of the US Army stationed in Europe, meant we got a head start and did not have to use planing and resources on how to invade western Europe as in 1944. We were already in place with a logistics infrastructure.