Further cuts in military forces on horizon, general says
The Pentagon will have to cut the size of military forces for the second time in as many years if across-the-board spending reductions of $470 billion over 10 years take effect March 1, the top U.S. military officer said on Saturday.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about a third of the cuts would have to come from forces, with the remaining two-thirds taken from spending on modernization, compensation and readiness.
He noted that the Army had begun to shrink last year toward 490,000 from a high of 570,000.
The Budget Control Act envisioned the additional across-the-board cuts under a process known as sequestration.
If those cuts go into effect, “the Army will have to come down again,” Dempsey said.
Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Afghanistan, Dempsey said two recent high-profile examples of belt-tightening were attempts by the Pentagon to adapt to the challenging budget climate and had nothing to do with sequestration.
The Pentagon said last week it would seek a smaller-than-expected pay increase of 1 percent for military personnel in the 2014 fiscal year budget. Pay increases generally have been pegged to an employment cost index and had been expected to rise 1.7 percent.
“That action is being taken to help us absorb the $487 billion in the Budget Control Act. It has nothing to do with sequestration,”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Report: Wind could supply a third of the country’s power by 2050
- Former Massey Energy CEO pleads not guilty again in W.Va. mine safety case
- Gun used by agent who helped jail Capone headed to museum
- Despite high gas costs, Northeast resistant to pipelines
- Santorum: Obama opposition to fossil fuels ‘quasi-religious’
- Report: Prepare to drill for oil in Arctic
- Sen. Reid follows same old script for Democrats as he endorses Schumer as successor
- Maryland might owe federal government millions for health care exchange
- Mysteries of dark matter come to light in Science study
- Mining for tourists? A dubious economic savior in Appalachia
- U.S. parks cope with aging visitor base