Tuesday, June 28, 2016

This Is Why The U.S. Congress Wants To Fire Many Pentagon Generals

Saagar Enjeti, Daily Caller: Here’s Why Congress Wants To Fire So Many Generals

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recently proposed a 25% reduction across the board for general officers. The bill would cut the number of four star officers from 41 to 27, representing one of the largest reductions in modern history.

A summary of the committee’s bill states the drawdown in general officers also applies at the three, two, and one-star levels. The majority staff reasons, “Over the past 30 years, the end-strength of the joint force has decreased 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star officers to the overall force has increased by 65 percent.”

A litany of aides and other staff officers accompany each general officer, significantly bloating the number of military personnel in administrative roles. The growth in the number of administrative roles relative to the fighting force concerned the committee, who want to “shift as many personnel as possible from staff functions to operational and other vital roles.”

Read more ....

Previous Post: There Are 886 Generals And Admirals In The U.S. Military

WNU Editor: 41 four star officers. 21 U.S. generals leading the war effort against the Islamic State. A military that is shrinking but the number of top officers increasing. Yup .... I can understand why some cutting may be necessary .... but I doubt that when "push comes to shove" it will happen. On the bright side .... at least the Pentagon is not like Venezuela .... Venezuela Has 4,000 Generals (May 7, 2016).


TWN said...

A Stalinist like purge, that worked out well in 1941 didn't it, amateurs.

Purpleslog said...

TWN: Do you really think the reduction in general officers will be through a combo of executions and imprisonments?

TWN said...

I was referring to how purge of General Military Officers is a bad Idea, and when you include all the middle and Jr officers that were purged since 2011, and are now on the sidelines the US Military has been weakened dramatically. I don't expect them to be executed, Stalin's purge was one of the dumbest things that could have been done that was what I was referring to in using Stalinist Purge.

Anonymous said...

An army with 10 divisions does not need that many generals, or their staffs.

TWN said...

No but the army's are designed to expand rapidly if needed and you also have to take in account that some that are in power maybe incompetent and have to be replaced quickly, you need depth in your Bull Pen.

Jay Farquharson said...

Not in a modern "Professional Military":

- 6 months for basic,
- 6 months for MOS,
- 6 months to learn Squad and Platoon
- 6 months to integrate Squad and Platoon into a Company
- 1 year to integrate a Company into a Brigaide
- 1 year to integrate a Brigaide into a Division,

4 years to turn from scratch, a bunch of raw recruits into one of the building blocks of an Army.

It's not a case of WWII anymore, where Conscripts are stood up
in 6 months and a Brigaide in a year, then turn them loose to learn their "trade" on the job.

Bob Huntley said...

Raw recruits yes, but there are about a million experienced vets on the street who could be enticed to re-join and battle ready in a much shorter time.

Jay Farquharson said...


Cut's a year off a 4 year process, shaving corner's could save you another year at the cost of casualties.

The only reason for such a manpower call up is a Peer to Peer War, ( Russia, China), which in wargames, has never lasted more than 22 hours before it's full on Mutually Assured Destruction.

You won't get all those General's and Admiral's actual people to command, period.

Given the lead times, costs and complexity of training up Armies, building fleets, aircraft, weapons, WWIII consists of "ya run what ya brung" up until the time we all need SFP 9,500,000 fir the flash burns.

Does zinc sunblock also bloc radiation?

RRH said...

Better to put the resources into skilled diplomats and programs aimed at building international cooperation.

Jay Farquharson said...

One would think, but, you look a lot better for your reelection campaign doing a "strong on defence" photo op in front of jets or tanks,

Than a column of pin striped Diplomats.

Just look how often a comment here, is some variation of "nuke em".

You won't win any votes from the mouth breather demographic by saving them from nuclear annihilation.