I was at Fort Bliss in Texas when we had the RIF (Reduction in Force ) after Vietnam. The military threw out soldiers who had literally given their life's blood, young helicopter pilots, for instance; who had been to Vietnam over and over. It is not personal, with what we call, "bean counters" but they (the RIFed) take it personally. For Vietnam, we used them up and threw them out like yesterday's garbage.
I am retired military and one of your constituents and see us in a crucial spot. As the Army draws down, my suggestion is to maintain troop levels without "firing" soldiers. Normal attrition will take care of the issue I think.
One of my big concerns is that Congress will be led down the primrose path by the generals and high ranking civilians. Often, they talk about their concern for soldiers but it comes across empty. "Nothing is too good for the soldier and that is what they get, nothing."
We probably have too many generals and we need to reduce their ranks. Think about it. We "fire" the heart of the Army, young Captains; and we don't touch the generals. (This is just speculation and to be fair, I am just giving an example). But, when I watch the military in Congressional hearings, I often think to myself, does Congress have a clue of their BS.
Thank you for this opportunity. I haven't told you anything that you probably
don't already know. This is just feedback from my perspective. I have nothing to gain and have no agenda other than "always for the troops."