The United States continuously monitors and engages with global conflicts and peacekeeping efforts in regions such as Gaza, Ukraine, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, and Venezuela. The U.S Army in particular is instrumental in such efforts.
Unfortunately, the world faces increasing instability and adversarial actions.
America has recently deepened its involvement with Venezuela, as evidenced by President Donald Trump’s threat of military action against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, whom he accused of leading a narcoterrorism cartel.
Regardless of the likelihood of direct conflict, the current international and political climate makes it clear reducing the United States military’s capacity is ill-advised and potentially costly for the entire nation.
The stakes are high, not only in Latin America but in regions with established U.S. adversaries: the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Despite these risks, some unelected Pentagon officials are considering significant reductions in Army resources, directly targeting the foundation of American military strength.
Reports from spring 2025 indicate a considered reduction of 90,000 Army personnel—a 20% cut. Such a move would fundamentally undermine Trump’s stated objective of revitalizing the military.
Some Democratic voices argue these reductions are justified due to “excessive military spending.”
While it is prudent to eliminate unnecessary expenditures not contributing to national defense—requirement mandated by the Constitution—diminishing the size and effectiveness of military personnel is not a sound approach.
It is essential to remain vigilant about present threats while also preparing for emerging forms of aggression.
The volunteer nature of the U.S. military means service members selflessly dedicate themselves to the nation’s security. Although personnel requirements may evolve, the Army routinely educates, trains, re-educates, and retrains its soldiers to meet current needs.
Reducing the size of a committed and capable Army, especially when the guiding principle is “Peace Through Strength,” is counterproductive.
The Army also plays a crucial role in supporting efforts against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
Our involvement in Ukraine has led to shortages in key weapons systems, as Ukraine expends up to 15,000 ammunition shells daily, while the Army produces only 40,000 per month.
Beyond Ukraine, the Army combats terrorism in Africa, deters threats from North Korea, and works to maintain stability in the Middle East. With forces stationed at 1,500 domestic sites and hundreds more overseas, the Army operates on an extraordinary scale.
Despite this extensive portfolio, some in the Pentagon intently suggest the Army should function with fewer troops, bases, resources and armored vehicles.
The conflict in Ukraine alone underscores the importance of ground forces and weaponry to secure territory. Cutting back on the service branch most capable of these operations is a dangerous proposition for the Army, but also for us at home.
Advocates for Army reductions often point to China, suggesting future conflict would be primarily naval and not require significant ground forces.
However, the Army’s presence remains a vital deterrent, even across the ocean. The cost of maintaining a robust deterrent force is far less than the cost of war.
Special Forces units train allied militaries, preparing them for potential invasions. Army bases in Japan and South Korea are instrumental in deterring Chinese aggression.
The First and Second Island Chains, where China makes illegal territorial claims, are also areas where the Army regularly conducts joint exercises with allies.
As Army Gen. Ronald Clark noted, “adversaries have not accounted for the Army’s ability to provide access through multidomain land operations.”
Throughout history, the significance of controlling territory has been a central theme in military strategy.
A joke dating back to the Cold War captures the idea of military strategy: wo Russian generals sit together, sipping coffee in Paris. One turns to the other and asks, “So who won the air war?”
The humor lies in the implication that, regardless of who dominated the skies or the seas, the true victory belonged to those who held the ground—the generals now sitting comfortably in Paris.
The outcome of wars is ultimately determined by the ability to take and hold ground.
Control over territory is what distinguishes the victor. Winning the air, sea, cyber, and space wars does offer clear advantages, but it is the occupation and protection of land that secures victory.
The principle remains consistent: Securing land is essential for both wartime success and peacetime security. “The Army moves on its feet.”
The recent withdrawal of a U.S. Typhon missile system from Japan illustrates the Army’s deterrent value. China quickly claimed the withdrawal as a victory, issuing threats against the Japanese prime minister. As a result, the Army demonstrated the significance of an American military presence in the region.
At home, the Army not only defends the United States but also provides life-changing opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The military, particularly the Army, has been called “the exception to America’s wage stagnation problem” by the Brookings Institution. For countless Americans, Army service is a steppingstone to a career, offering education, training, ethical grounding and leadership skills.
As threats from China and Russia intensify and Americans rise to meet these challenges, reducing the Army’s resources would be a grave mistake for both the nation and its soldiers.
Increased investment in troops, weapons and equipment is necessary to attract new recruits and address the demands of the 21st century.
While government waste exists, including in the Pentagon, and needs to be eliminated, reducing Army personnel in this political and global environment is a poor allocation of resources.
Army Strong!
