Pentagon May Seek Cut of 50,000 Troops

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s most thorough analysis of its needs since the Cold War ended is expected to propose cutting about 50,000 active-duty troops, a figure far short of reductions some reformers had hoped would signal a sweeping reshaping of the military.

While the numbers continue to shift as the study heads into its final week, it appears the report will call for cuts of no more than 4% from the Pentagon’s active-duty roster, compared to a one-time target of 10%.

Including civilian and reserve forces, the report could urge cuts of up to 200,000 of the Pentagon’s total head count of 3 million, officials said.

The report was planned as a blueprint for finding money for new weapon development--which many Pentagon officials view as sorely needed--without sacrificing military readiness or cutting back too far on the forces the nation still may need as the world’s sole superpower. As the year has progressed, uniformed leaders and their civilian bosses have moved--in an often wrenching process--toward conclusions that won’t sacrifice huge numbers of troops, make radical cuts in the force structure or give up some of the most visible new weapons.

“This will take a little from here and a little from there. . . . ,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a former top Pentagon official now at the Brookings Institution. “This isn’t a radical proposal.”

Officials said the Army--once seen as the likely big loser in troop reduction with a cut of as many as 50,000 from its 495,000 active-duty roster--will now lose no more than 15,000 active-duty troops. The Navy is expected to give up 18,000, the Marines 2,000 to 3,000, and the Air Force between 18,000 and 25,000.

Some analysts, noting that the trend has been away from big cuts, say the Pentagon could still end up proposing no cuts at all in its active-duty forces, which have shrunk to 1.4 million from a peak of 2.1 million in 1989.

“There’s still a chance the [active-duty] cuts could be zero,” said Michael Vickers, director of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The report is expected to call for cutting the civilian head counts by 75,000 to 90,000, and the reserves by about 60,000. The Army National Guard and Reserve are expected to take a big hit, as much as 35,000, officials said. But because of the strong lobbying power the reserves traditionally exert, cutting those forces can be much harder than it appears.

The military’s big new aircraft programs--the Air Force F-22, the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter and the Navy FA-18E and F--are likely to be reduced in number or stretched out in delivery, but not eliminated. The Navy is expected to maintain all 12 of its carriers.

Vickers said overall savings from the review, targeted at about $12 billion, had been steadily shrinking and could end up as only “a couple of billion.”

The study, formally called the Quadrennial Defense Review, got underway last year with predictions from some quarters that as part of an effort to rethink military configurations and reap big savings, the service branches could drop some major programs.

A Congressional Budget Office report last August laid out several options, from canceling the Navy’s new attack submarine to pulling the plug on new tactical aircraft, reducing Army light divisions, and paring four reserve divisions. At least some civilian officials at the Pentagon believed these might be the right choices.

But uniformed leaders have argued that the budget-cutters were putting fiscal considerations ahead of strategic considerations. If the military loses a war, “nobody’s going to accept the answer that you didn’t give me enough money,” said one senior Army official.

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who had been pushing for a bold rethinking of the military’s mission, has said he has made no final decisions on the report, which is due on May 15.

Some members of Congress have made clear they want the report to propose change.

“This is the military’s chance to make its own choices for the future,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Rolling Hills), a top member of the House National Security Committee. “If it flubs this, if it isn’t bold . . . then I think Congress will move in and fund or de-fund priorities as it chooses.”