Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
President Barack Obama unveiled a plan Thursday for a leaner, cheaper military. The new strategy eliminates the military's ability to actively fight two major wars at once, but the president insists that the country will still be agile enough to deal with existing concerns and new threats.
Many readers seemed appreciative of this change, but some of them were quite afraid of consequences.
Flambizzle: "This is a hard call. We're all afraid of China and Iran or if they buddy-up. But [Obama] promised this and here it is, and we do need it. I don't like to think of losing jobs or even soldiers' jobs. But this country can't continue to militarize while people starve. Those days are gone and we're broke. And the reliance for a lot of the economy on super-powerful military-industial contractors is a throw-off from the Cold War that is bad for our economy and country. And, quite simply, it's also an obvious attempt to curb America's military bullying. Now someone like Bush won't be able to con us into throwing away money and lives anymore. It will be unrealistic as much as it was unaffordable."
Some commenters said the government should focus on trimming its bureaucracies first.
skiingislife: "Way to sell out our defense while still providing billions of dollars to bloated bureaucracies and aid to people who shouldn't even be in this country to begin with. No better time to trim the military than when Iran is rattling its sabre, North Korea is doing God-knows-what, North Africa has been completely destablized, Russia is upping the ante over missile defense...what a rube.
Others suggested that perhaps even more should be cut.
Talgrath: "As I read it, our military budget will still continue to grow more than we need it, we will still spend more on defense than the next 10 big spenders combined and somehow Republicans are complaining that this is drastic? No, drastic, realistic action would be to cut military spending and reduce our military bases and the size of our military; we need to make those cuts, but they won't happen because we have to continue to be the world's defacto world government."
But on the other hand, there will be some job loss and industry reductions as a result of these cutbacks.
belmarek: "Sooooooo.... We will put out of work thousands of military personnel, and increase the unemployment and further burden on the economy.. Then we will leave ourselves less able to respond to threats because our military will be too busy policing our citizens. Yeah.. Great idea."
A commenter claiming to be an Army veteran said he was in support.
Mijan: "People keep whining that they want budget cuts, but they won't deal with the 800-pound gorilla in the room: military spending. This needs to happen. I'm a 7-year Army veteran. I was an officer, injured in the line of duty. And I have a duty to the truth, which (in this case) is that we are grossly overspending on the Department of Defense. Cutting back on military spending doesn't mean we're cutting all military. Do you people have any idea how much we've OVER-grown our military in the past couple of decades? We keep adding and adding. Of course we're going to spend ourselves into the poor-house! Don't blame Medicare or Social Security. We need to be realistic. We have tons of money in our budget ... but we're spending it wrong. Cutting out some of the military spending is necessary and rational."
allmosttoast: "I thought Medicare and Social Security were far bigger money pits than the military. Can you explain?"
Concerns about remaining nimble in the face of international threats inspired this conversation.
izaaks101: "Obama, get a newspaper and read it. You might want to tell your cabinet to do the same. Russia, N Korea, Afghanistan, and IRAN. Oh and by the way the new leader ship in Lybia, and Egypt guess what they think of the US. Open your eyes and stop trying to win your next 4 years."
Sinator: "We have a huge budget deficit and debt. He's doing what he's supposed to do and reducing it. Do you really think having a defense budget that exceeds the next 10 countries combined is not big enough? Warmonger much?"
BrianNM: "Don't need ground forces in all those countries at once. If you want to be fiscally conservative, you don't start ground wars."
Mike570: "The conventional war phase of both Iraq and Afghanistan were won by our forces quickly. Policing the indigenous peoples and weeding out insurgents? That's a very deep hole to throw lives and money into. You'd think we would have learned in Vietnam. Even the Romans couldn't win that battle."
One reader said political posturing would cloud evaluation of the decision.
Nodack: "It doesn't matter what Obama does. He could single handedly cure Cancer, end world hunger, balance the budget, erase the deficit, lower the jobless rate to 0, create the ultimate health care system and Republicans would still hate him and call him the worst president in history out of spite."
What do you think about Obama's decision? Share your opinion in the comments area below and in the latest stories on CNN.com. Or sound off on video via CNN iReport.
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.