Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
More specialized army?
Does any reasonable person have some thoughts on the costs/benefits of downsizing the army, with the goal of maximizing efficiency per person through a more selective recruiting scheme? Followed by better, more specialized training for each soldier. I was AD for 4 years, now in the reserves, and this is something I have often squandered with.
For most business applications, I believe this would produce a more capable, cost efficient company; just not sure if it would translate well in the army. To be frank - do we just need some guys who just react without thinking, or could I be on to something??
HDH, I see what you are saying, but I don't think we are on the same page. I understand 2 will never equal 4. But the question is, do we need 4? In other words, Can we cut half the troops in Iraq and essentially accomplish the mission successfully with better trained and equipped men and women. Also, I did not do a 15 month tour; however, i did do a 12 monther and I noticed all the waste in lives and $. We have soldiers there just trying to stay alive, and not really advance our operations.
4 Answers
- TearasLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Lets see, the last time they tried downsizing the Army was with Clinton, then when 9/11 happened and we were faced with a muti-front war the Army had to jump through hoops, grant waivers for nearly everything, and allow $hitbags to serve just so we had enough soldiers to fight. So why don't you tell me how cost effective it is now that they have paid for these idiots to be trained, only to be tossing them out now because the Army realized what an enormous mistake it was to waver these @ssholes in.
Source(s): Army vet - 1 decade ago
I don't think you are understanding what the questioner is asking. The Army's size was reduced but quality not increased so yes we had/have alot of $hitbags in command. However, I think were looking at it the wrong way. It shouldn't be "either/or" it should be both. We will always have a need to for copious amounts of cannon fodder but we do need a larger specialized core infantry than we have. I suppose the Rangers would fall into this category but they are only 3 battalions. Imagine an entire DIVISION of Rangers without compromising training or quality. Now thats an Army.
Source(s): Us Army Infantry - HDHLv 71 decade ago
I'm not sure it would work. Active Duty guys already spend a year deployed for each year at home. The only way you could downsize the Army and still keep up current ops would be to lengthen the tours and/or shorten time at home.
I've done a 15 month deployment. I can't recommend that to ANYONE.
- alexander mLv 71 decade ago
to a point, but even if you trained every single infantryman to SFs standards, you'd still need a large element to assault and secure a city...its just not something that is doable with a 12 man team.
but yes we do need to raise our standards. we need to stop letting people with 3x the allowable amount of body fat remain in the NG, we need to hold women to the same physical and hygenic standards that men are at (and if they cant meet the standards they need to get booted), and we need to stop wasting money on cosmetic **** (like getting a new dress uniform...or even dress uniforms at all) and pump all of that money into training.
