Since 2010, the U.S. Army has cut 80,000 soldiers from its ranks. It plans to complete a further reduction of 40,000 more by the end of fiscal year 2017, for an overall 21 percent reduction of Army active forces down to 450,000 soldiers.
The reductions in force were described in a July 2015 report to Congress that was released last week under the Freedom of Information Act. See Department of the Army, Notification to Congress on the Permanent Reduction of Sizable Numbers of Members of the Armed Forces, 10 July 2015.
“Nearly every Army installation will experience reductions of some size,” the report indicated. Six installations will be reduced by more than 1,000 Soldiers: Fort Benning (Georgia), Fort Bliss (Texas), Fort Hood (Texas), Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (Alaska), Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Washington), and Schofield Barracks (Hawaii).
The report “includes an evaluation of the local economic, strategic, and operational consequences of the reductions at these six installations.”
Additional reductions in the civilian Army workforce are expected to total around 17,000 by FY 2019.
“The Army will continue to be a force that can deploy and sustain capabilities across the range of military operations anywhere in the world on short notice,” the report said.
However, “force structure reductions and the resulting impacts on installation populations could be significant to both military communities and to the defense posture of our nation,” it concluded.
The newly-released Army report was also discussed in “Army Bases Bleed, Then BRAC Comes” by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Breaking Defense, October 21.
The history, status and possible future of current Army combat vehicles were examined in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress, October 15, 2015.
Employing a living approach to evidence synthesis, disseminated at a national level, is a streamlined way to enable evidence-based decision-making nationwide.
By providing essential funding mechanisms, the Bioeconomy Finance Program will reduce the risks inherent in biotechnology innovation, encouraging more private sector investment.
While the U.S. has made significant advancements and remained a global leader in biotechnology over the past decade, the next four years will be critical in determining whether it can sustain that leadership.
As the efficacy of environmental laws has waned, so has their durability. What was once a broadly shared goal – protecting Americans from environmental harm – is now a political football, with rules that whipsaw back and forth depending on who’s in charge.