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.
The transition to a clean energy future and diversified sources of energy requires a fundamental shift in how we produce and consume energy across all sectors of the U.S. economy.
A deeper understanding of methane could help scientists better address these impacts – including potentially through methane removal.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Advancing the U.S. leadership in emerging biotechnology is a strategic imperative, one that will shape regional development within the U.S., economic competitiveness abroad, and our national security for decades to come.