When I heard that the Trump administration was taking steps to reduce the size of the Army’s National Guard, my first reaction was disbelief.
What a load of crap.
It’s already a large force, and it has never been smaller.
And while some of that is a result of the president’s executive order, it’s also due to Congress’s failure to enact any significant reductions.
The fact that the Army is so bloated doesn’t help either.
The Army’s size is part of a larger problem in the Army.
While the Army has been on a slow decline since its peak in the early 2000s, its overall size has grown steadily.
During the Obama administration, the Army grew by more than 400,000 soldiers and 3.4 million equipment, according to data from the U.S. Army Command.
But the Army also has seen an increase in the number of officers, from about 3,200 in 2010 to more than 3,800 today.
And, of course, there’s the fact that many of those officers are retired, leaving fewer active-duty officers to fill those positions.
(The Army’s number of commissioned officers has increased by about 60,000 since 2010.)
The result has been a shrinking force, which means less funding for the Army and the Department of Defense.
In recent years, the size and size of other military services has also grown, and this trend has continued under Trump.
The Air Force has seen its overall budget increase by nearly 50 percent, while the Navy’s has increased nearly 50% and the Marines’ by more like 25%.
And in the Marine Corps, the number who are active-component members has grown by about 50 percent.
But, at least for now, the United States has more active-force members than it did in 2010, when Trump took office.
The Trump administration has proposed cutting the Army to about 3.6 million from 4.6, and the Navy to 3.2 million from 3.5 million.
This would mean a reduction in the size, funding and quality of the U:S.
But to understand how this all relates to the size issue, you have to understand the Army as a whole.
There are a number of reasons why the Army needs to be smaller.
The military needs to have enough personnel to fight the wars it fights.
The number of active-service troops is far too large.
The Pentagon has about 11.3 million active-members.
That number would increase by about 6 million under a Trump administration.
The overall military budget, meanwhile, has increased more than $1 trillion under Trump, and if you add up all of those increases, the U.:S.
would need to increase its military by more and more troops to make up for the loss of its active-forces.
The same is true for the National Guard.
It would need a total of more than 7,000,000 active-military members to keep up with the growth in the active-army.
And if you just look at the size in dollars, the overall size of this force is actually lower than the size the U., the Marine, the Air Force, the Navy and the Coast Guard.
There’s no reason why the total military should be smaller than it is.
The other problem with the current Army is that it has an aging, over-reliance on overseas bases, and its bases have long been at risk of being destroyed by climate change.
The Department of the Interior has about 1,400 bases in California and Idaho, for example, which could be used for a variety of purposes, from the construction of solar panels to the relocation of soldiers.
There is no reason to think that any of those bases should be at risk.
And there’s no need to reduce our military force in the name of climate change, either.
Climate change has a lot to do with it, too.
A recent report by the U,S.
Geological Survey found that more than 40 percent of the country’s coastal land has already been degraded by saltwater and rising sea levels.
This means that, in the future, the water and salt will get to the shores of the United State, and we could end up with an aging military that can’t protect us from climate change and other threats.
The United States is already the third-largest recipient of international aid in the world, and climate change could mean we are on the verge of losing that aid.
This is not just a problem for the United Kingdom and the United Nations.
The world’s poorest countries are already suffering from extreme weather events, like droughts and floods.
These events can have devastating impacts on people’s livelihoods, as well as the quality of their water.
The problem with climate change isn’t that it’s happening.
The issue is that the United U. S. has been the victim of a climate change-induced disaster.
The U.N. estimates that 1.8 billion people worldwide live in extreme poverty.
The majority of these