Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: robert a belfer who wrote (103166)	3/3/2005 3:08:22 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) of 793928

I don't see any conflict between what I've been saying and that article. It projects the future. I have been posting what has been happening in the very recent past. The fact that US Navy projects cuts in 2007 and 2011 means little right now. The world situation could change that overnight. I have admitted I don't keep track of Navy or USAF figures. Feel free to put up the strength figures for the past few months or year. I believe I recall both Navy and USAF may have been slightly overstrength at the end of the calendar year. I also know the Navy did not get a personnel cut for FY 2005, nor did USAF. Army got 20,000 slots added and I believe USMC added either 2,000 or 3,000. On Dec 31, Army authorized strength was 502,400, actual was 494,112. USMC authorized was 178,000. Actual was 177,000. Both services were authorized to exceed end strength figures by a substantial margin. Neither could do it. And recruiting not only did not keep up, but the end strength figures are still going down. Ditto for both services' reserves. I still like the idea of training excess Navy and USAF folks to fight like Infantry. :o)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next