Exactly, so rather than getting upset about politicians making a reasonable suggestion, we should be upset at members of the DOD who are putting their pet projects at a higher priority than our troops, and who are holding our pocket books hostage through the ransoming of our troops well being.
I don't disagree. However, that's not the reality of the situation.
During the Great Depression, between the two world wars, when the Army didn't have money to feed the cavalry's horses; were they sold? Set free? Given away to good homes? Retired?
No, they were herded into large pits and hosed down with machine guns.
Military cuts always come in the form of less housing, fewer bennies and RIF's. The DoD can get rid of a single soldier and literally save millions. They can write a training schedual that has soldiers spending fewer days in the field and save millions more. They can cut down LFX's (live fire excercises) down to one a year, per unit and save even more millions in ammunition, fuel and spare parts.
Weapons and vehicles cost money to purchase and maintain. The less they're used, the less maintanance that has to be done and the more longevity they have. If they're not being used, then soldiers aren't being trained. When soldiers hit the battlefield, with less training, more soldiers die.
During the prep up for WW2, US Army soldiers were training with wooden rifles.
Let's not forget, that as the military draws down, there will be more work load transferred to national gaurd units; like the infamous
roundout brigades of the 90's. The results from that will be even more part time soldiers deployed to foreign battlefields.
Perhaps not you, but I'm sure that there are folks on this thread, who support military budget cuts, but were livid when national gaurd soldiers were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Those same folks would be beside themselves, if there were a draft. Conscription is certainly something to look forward to, when bean counters start taking an ax to the DoD's budget.