Bush to Propose Trimming Army Reserve

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_.../defense_budget
WASHINGTON -
President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs.

The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in
Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.

The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.

Some in Congress have vowed to fight the National Guard cuts. Its soldiers and resources are controlled by state governors unless Guard units are mobilized by the president for federal duty, as Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I remain convinced that we do not have a large enough force," Rep. Ike Skelton , D-Mo., said in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Proposals to cut funding in two key jet fighter programs were described by defense analysts and congressional aides, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the reductions have not been announced.

One plan would eliminate funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the military's next-generation combat plane.

The second would cut money for F-22 fighters during 2007. But it is actually a contract restructuring that would add that money back — and more — over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying up to four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 60 aircraft through 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.

The Joint Strike Fighter engine is being built by General Electric and England-based Rolls Royce, and the plan to dump them as suppliers has triggered intense lobbying, including a handwritten note from British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush.

On the homefront, the close to $2 billion cut would hit General Electric engine plants, and possibly jobs, in Ohio and Massachusetts and a Rolls Royce plant in Indiana.

"This is a big question for GE," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. "They could get shut out of the fighter engine business over the next 10 years."

The proposal would benefit Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, which got the original contract for the Lockheed Martin aircraft, and delivered its first engine last month.

GE spokesman Dan Meador said the alternate engine program provides competition for Pratt & Whitney, helping to drive down costs while also providing a back-up if problems arise.

"It's very important to GE and Rolls Royce, and we're performing well," he said.

Defense officials, however, said the Pratt & Whitney engine has performed well and within budget, and noted that a number of other jet fighter programs — including the F-22 — have just one engine maker. Pratt & Whitney also makes the engines for the F-22.

I'm so confussed.

I read here that for months the Army does not have enough manpower to fulfill the missions assigned to it. I've read at nauseum how a draft is emienent and it is the only way to save the military.

Now this shows up saying we got too many troops and we need to cut back on the number of troops available for Bush's adventures.

And on top of that they want to use only one engine manufacturer. I bet the Brits are pissed off we are going to use an American engine manufacturer. And to cork the snub they selected Pratt and Whitney; they only have less than 80 years in the manufacture of engines for military aircraft in the service of the United States.

I wonder who's congressional district General Electric's plants are located in?

And here I thought your post would be something from the Marines telling me I was wrong

There is a difference between what I've said in the past and what liberals say about troop levels in Iraq Noonan. What liberals say is we don't have enough troops to complete the mission in Iraq, what I say is we don't have enough troops in Iraq to complete the mission expeditiously.

What I've been saying is that without an indicator of when we our mission is truly accomplished - flexible milestones with input from our military, civilian leadership, as well as the leadership in Iraq - the troop numbers can yo-yo all they want, but it don't mean a thing. LOL

I fear that our troops over there are being used at times to further the political future of the current CinC. That's what bothers me, not the sometimes petty disagreements people have on here about our troops.

What political future is there for a lame duck president Noonan? Would you be referring to his legacy? Seems to me if George Bush ends up with a legacy of being a good president that would also mean good things will have happened for the USA too. Is hating George Bush more important than good things happening for the USA?

I don't hate GW, but I'll continue responding

I hate the policies he promotes. Pushing us into this war has done more than impact the soliders and their families. The massive debts he is running up will hurt the country my children, and their children will live in. His short-sighted and bumbling foreign policy is hurting our image around the world. My work opposing his policies are my way of helping good things to happen in the USA.

I cannot fathom how GW's legacy can be one as a good president, just as Herbert Hoover, Cal Coolidge, Warren Harding, JQ Adams, Martin Van Buren and Richard Nixon will probably never go down as great presidents for the majority of the public. They all had their strengths and legacies, but for one reason or another, the problems they created for the country outweigh the benefits we reaped. That is the group I see GW falling in with in the future.

I think I know why he's doing this: so he can say that Reserve strengths are at 100%! Same logic he has used throughout his reign- if you lower expectations, then eventually the bar will be low enough that anything can pass for success!

It's the usual political strategy, dreamed up so the failures to be able to recruit won't need to be acknowledged - wanna bet?


lenal