This is happening now.

https://trendingpolitics.com/despite-tensions-the-army-might-soon-be-cut-to-its-smallest-size-in-decades-wiley/?utm_source=economics

Our Constitution only authorizes a standing Navy and Revenue service( Coast guard).
Congress has to continually renew the Army's and USAF's existence (legally).
Full disclosure; I was USAF and raised in a mostly Navy family.

Since it is illegal to use the Army domestically one has to wonder why we need a standing Army?
Better to build up and fund Marines( Navy) and keep a very robust Army reserve corps.

We are broke, let's spend our money better.
Ukraine just demonstrated how impotent we are and that we have to deal with Asian
countries differently than pacific ones.
Just a thought.
 

"Since it is illegal to use the Army domestically one has to wonder why we need a standing Army?"

Procurement
Research and Development
Systems Maintenance
Administration -- for at the very least retirees, commissaries, exchanges (BX/PX/AAFES), facilities management, personnel and property security, medical care for active, retired and reserve members and families, and so on.

The military needs manpower to provide all the services the active duty, retired and reserve members require as well as for their families.  While some of these services can, and a few do, operate with civilian employees, we'd have to hire a boatload more without the service members to help.

We can't realistically post a sign outside of every base for every service saying, "Closed until further hostilities."

Even if the amenities and facilities the military relies on were closed or 100% civilianized, you'd still be facing a training issue.  The primary purpose of the US military bases is training and equipping of its military.  Training seems like a never ending process.  Seems like once you learn everything for your job, you either switch jobs or the equipment you used gets upgraded.  Then there's refresher training to make sure you aren't forgetting what you learned due to non-use.

We hold training exercises with ally nations for a reason -- to make sure we can operate using common plans, gear and procedures. Sometimes the problems don't become known until you try to work together "for real."

I could go on, but with the complexity of doctrine, duties and resources in the military, we need to ensure the people, things and plans we have in place can take care of business if the "flag goes up."

One of the concepts of the reserves is to have a ready force that's trained and capable.  The problem with that IMO is training takes place for 1 weekend a month plus a 2-week period each year.  Unless you also do in your civilian job what you do on active duty, it's difficult to maintain proficiency with 47 days of training per year.

On top of the jobs people do, there is also physical conditioning, ancillary training (guard duty, marksmanship, driving large trucks, ...), and professional development (satisfying requirements for promotions and assignments with more responsibility).

I'm not saying the reserves can't do their jobs.  I'm just saying there's a reason many of the reservists have to go through additional training once activated in order to be deployed.  That training can't substitute for years of hands-on experience while doing the job on active duty.

Would you want your helicopter or fighter jet mechanic to be a 10-year active duty technician, or a 10-year English teacher who's been on active status for 3 months?

"Since it is illegal to use the Army domestically one has to wonder why we need a standing Army?"

Procurement
Research and Development
Systems Maintenance
Administration -- for at the very least retirees, commissaries, exchanges (BX/PX/AAFES), facilities management, personnel and property security, medical care for active, retired and reserve members and families, and so on.

The military needs manpower to provide all the services the active duty, retired and reserve members require as well as for their families.  While some of these services can, and a few do, operate with civilian employees, we'd have to hire a boatload more without the service members to help.

We can't realistically post a sign outside of every base for every service saying, "Closed until further hostilities."

Even if the amenities and facilities the military relies on were closed or 100% civilianized, you'd still be facing a training issue.  The primary purpose of the US military bases is training and equipping of its military.  Training seems like a never ending process.  Seems like once you learn everything for your job, you either switch jobs or the equipment you used gets upgraded.  Then there's refresher training to make sure you aren't forgetting what you learned due to non-use.

We hold training exercises with ally nations for a reason -- to make sure we can operate using common plans, gear and procedures. Sometimes the problems don't become known until you try to work together "for real."

I could go on, but with the complexity of doctrine, duties and resources in the military, we need to ensure the people, things and plans we have in place can take care of business if the "flag goes up."

One of the concepts of the reserves is to have a ready force that's trained and capable.  The problem with that IMO is training takes place for 1 weekend a month plus a 2-week period each year.  Unless you also do in your civilian job what you do on active duty, it's difficult to maintain proficiency with 47 days of training per year.

On top of the jobs people do, there is also physical conditioning, ancillary training (guard duty, marksmanship, driving large trucks, ...), and professional development (satisfying requirements for promotions and assignments with more responsibility).

I'm not saying the reserves can't do their jobs.  I'm just saying there's a reason many of the reservists have to go through additional training once activated in order to be deployed.  That training can't substitute for years of hands-on experience while doing the job on active duty.

Would you want your helicopter or fighter jet mechanic to be a 10-year active duty technician, or a 10-year English teacher who's been on active status for 3 months?

You are correct.
I brought this up because we live in a place where we can't use the army we have.
Don't need it to protect our land and can't legally use it until a real war situation exists.
Who in our Hemisphere is going to do a Russian or German style attack by land
on the USA?
Our modern Army's only purpose is in other peoples territory, in today's world.
As for reserves, My nephew retired as a Sgt. Major in the Army reserves
He was a full time employee.
His job was to train active duty guys, how to kill things.
Your concept of reserves and mine are different.
I'm just suggesting to move more of our resources to the Navy
and of course to the Air and Space forces and quit being so European/Asian Centric,
for tank land battles.
 

You are correct.
I brought this up because we live in a place where we can't use the army we have.
Don't need it to protect our land and can't legally use it until a real war situation exists.
Who in our Hemisphere is going to do a Russian or German style attack by land
on the USA?
Our modern Army's only purpose is in other peoples territory, in today's world.
As for reserves, My nephew retired as a Sgt. Major in the Army reserves
He was a full time employee.
His job was to train active duty guys, how to kill things.
Your concept of reserves and mine are different.
I'm just suggesting to move more of our resources to the Navy
and of course to the Air and Space forces and quit being so European/Asian Centric,
for tank land battles.
 

My concept of reserves:  there are full-time active reservists, inactive reservists who train monthly, and there are inactive ready reservists who are normally separated members who can be recalled if needed but don't train with the reserves.  All have to maintain their uniforms and physical fitness.

Not all reservists are the same, as I just described.  I worked with many active duty and separated Air Force members who were also reservists.  My first unit's Command Master Sergeant was also an Air Force Reserve major.  I was a tad confused the first time I saw him wearing collar rank when I was working on a weekend.  My first supervisor separated after his 4 year commitment and decided to join the USAF Reserves.  Since his position was minimally manned, he was able to keep his job in OK while living in NM.  Once a month, the gov't flew him back to OK for training -- sometimes on military air, but usually commercial.  I'd provide transportation from the airport, and he'd take cabs or share rides during training week.  Since he was traveling, he'd show up around Tuesday night to get a head start on the weekend -- since he was the commander for his unit.

I'll admit my info is based on the reservists I have known, plus my own experience in the reserves -- first as a reserve enlisted airman while in college going through AFROTC, then on inactive status as a reserve officer when I graduated.  Three weeks after graduation, I was an Active Duty Reserve Officer.  Later, I became a regular officer, but then I separated under the Clinton drawdown after the Cold War ended.  I was placed on ready reserves and subject to recall for a few years, then eventually given a separation from that status.  They say as a regular commissioned officer, you are always subject to recall at any time.  I don't think that's a rule now.  My "discharge" from the ready reserves stated I was no longer required to maintain ready status (uniforms, weight, physical fitness), because I am no longer subject to recall.

I'm sure there are all kinds of situations reservists encounter I have no clue about.  I'm the first to admit I know much less about anything than is knowable.

As for what's kind of forces we need here, where better for the Army to practice beach landings, infiltrations and extractions, and tactics as they apply to tropical islands than on a tropical island?  If the flag goes up, and we need forces in place in 24 hours, it's much better for the Army units stationed in HI to jump on planes and ships than to rely on mainland troops to travel from further away.  Besides, the Army Reserves need somewhere to train in Hawaii.  Army bases are required.  Most reserve jobs are in the same area as the reservists' residence.  My former supervisor was an exception.  In fact, when I left OK, he no longer flew for reserve training.  They finally found someone to fill that position locally, and he was reassigned to a NM unit.

 

You are correct.
I brought this up because we live in a place where we can't use the army we have.
Don't need it to protect our land and can't legally use it until a real war situation exists.

I re-read your post, and this jumped out at me.

The Army is not for the protection of "our land" unless we are attacked on our own soil.

The Army has no jurisdiction on US soil unless we are invaded or under martial law.

The purpose of ALL US Army bases and personnel is, as I stated, for training and equipping.  When called upon to fight, they are transported with their equipment to the theater of battle.  I see no difference with Hawaii Army units.

Factoid:  When I went from inactive reserve right after graduation to active duty status, the official term was "Extended Active Duty", or EAD.  That means I was full-time active duty, as opposed to the normal reservists who were active for a given period, such as monthly training.

While active, the part-time reservists were allowed to use the BX/PX, commissary, concessions, Class VI package stores, etc.  They had to show a reservist ID card and their orders placing them on temporary active duty.  For the duration of those orders, they had the same access to military "perks" as those on full-time status.

I'm not sure about medical unless it was for an injury that occurred during training.

Reservists also qualify for other benefits, like tuition assistance and VA mortgage guarantees.  They also accrue retirement points.  I worked with a guy who was a civilian GS employee at HQ PACIFIC FLEET.  He'd retired from the Navy as a Lt Commander IIRC, bought into his civilian retirement (not sure how that works -- somehow it reduces the double-dipping and lets you retire with more benefits on the civilian job side), and he retired from the reserves a couple of years before retiring from his GS job.  I think his reserve rank was Captain/O-6.  Added up, he has an active duty pension, a reserve pension, a civilian government pension, and Social Security.  That also includes all the medical and base facility access all military retirees enjoy (yeah, he's bottom of the queue behind active duty when going to a base hospital, but it's better than nothing).

How do you get people to join the reserves?  You have to entice them with tangible benefits.  So, even if we went all-volunteer, mostly-reserve forces, the cost would be reduced, but not eliminated.  Annual payroll expense would be much lower.  One of the ways the reserve forces are kept at needed levels is by requiring reserve service when the active duty hitch is up.  For example, my ROTC commission required a 4-year active duty commitment, and 2 years in the reserves.  For each professional development course I took (Squadron Officer's School, college classes on tuition assistance, etc.), I had to commit to an additional length of time either active duty or reserve.  Nothing's free.

I was a little lucky in that the Clinton Reduction in Force included a forgiveness of certain service commitments for people voluntarily separating.  I received a severance lump sum of about $40,000 for my 9.5 years of active duty service, and all the leave I'd saved was paid out to the tune of about $12,000.  And the service commitments I had from the college courses I'd taken over the preceding 2 years were erased.  Since I was active duty for less than 10 years, I decided another 10+ wasn't going to be better than a contractor job.  Also, the major's promotion board had been delayed for the 3rd time, meaning my next promotion would be at least 9 years after I pinned on Captain/O-3 -- nothing said they wouldn't bump it again and again.  Before the delays, I expected to be a Captain for no more than 6 years +/- 1.  The writing was on the wall, so I volunteered to be kicked out!   

I never once regretted it.  I've traveled more, contributed more to the military of all branches, and been treated better than I ever would have if I'd been promoted to Major and above.  I was able to continue being the technical lead rather than being the guy in charge of the organization. 

Anyway, I think the pendulum swings between active duty military and civilian/reservist position-fillers every few years.  Seems like we spend more money than we save each time we switch "solutions."

This is happening now.

https://trendingpolitics.com/despite-tensions-the-army-might-soon-be-cut-to-its-smallest-size-in-decades-wiley/?utm_source=economics

Our Constitution only authorizes a standing Navy and Revenue service( Coast guard).
Congress has to continually renew the Army's and USAF's existence (legally).
Full disclosure; I was USAF and raised in a mostly Navy family.

Since it is illegal to use the Army domestically one has to wonder why we need a standing Army?
Better to build up and fund Marines( Navy) and keep a very robust Army reserve corps.

We are broke, let's spend our money better.
Ukraine just demonstrated how impotent we are and that we have to deal with Asian
countries differently than pacific ones.
Just a thought.
 

While I am a strong supporter of having a strong military, I try to keep that position from blindly justifying military spending.

Decreased spending or decreased troop levels sound bad on the surface but really mean nothing without context. Have capabilities decreased? Do we really need that many troops or that many installations?

If new technologies can reduce the number of troops and the cost while still maintaining capabilities then I have no problem. If waste is being cut then I have no problem.