I did not say ir imply to not make the reductions. My quarrel is with the method. There are any number of ways the reductions could be made without affecting those who want to enlist.
Some examples:
>anybody with 9 or more years gets to re-enlist
>those with less than 6 years rotate out at the end of their current enlistment.
>new recruits do not get to re-enlist
>non essential assignments be eliminated
>eliminate the activities that over the years have been farmed out to civilian contractors.
>anybody over 30 (pick a number) years of age ia able to re-enlist.


Just to name a few. It is very easy to project the impact and timing of such actions to deternine how and when the implementation is affecting the goal.

There are no actions taken that require any amount of thinking. Any dolt can put out a drop dead date and let the chips fall where they may....much easier....no accountability or follow up required.

Nobody is proposing a military we do not need. And therein lies the problem. Being at war is not the measure of need. Having a specific capability in place at all times to serve and protect this country and it's citizen's safety is the goal (used to be).

By the way....boots on the ground..... is only one small measurement of any military's capability.

The current military reduction is financial and date based. No thinking of any substance as to implementation impacts.
Typical one dimension, shallow robotic compliance.