how many ******* generals and admirals do we need? and what are they costing the

[niyad]

taxpayers?????? and just what in the hell do they all do?

[exboyfil]

1. Here is an article on point

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals

[niyad]

3. wow--I knew the situation was bad, but had no idea it is this far out of control.

thank you so much for this article. would you consider posting it as its own OP for greater visibility, and so that we can rec it? important information.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Generals and Admirals Are Small Potatoes, Niyad

Remember that we built an aircraft carrier the Navy said it neither needed nor wanted and the airforce got planes they said they didn't need.

That brass is a dime on a pile of the bricks at Fort Knox.

[niyad]

4. perhaps they are small potatoes, but are a significant indicator.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Perhaps

I guess i buy that they are a metric of a bloated military. The MIC is the real problem, though. Not individual career folks.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Well with so many stupid ones ...

[Glassunion]

6. Depending on rank, the pay will increase.

an O7 makes less than and O10, but all are either Admirals or Generals.

That said there are quite a few, but budgeting for FY 2017 is suggesting a reduction of about 25%, while the Senate Armed Services Committee are proposing a reduction of about 35%.

Currently there are 886 Admirals and Generals combined, of which 37 are 4-stars.

There are too many, and thankfully they are working to reduce the number.

[niyad]

7. not according to the link posted above.

[exboyfil]

13. Niyad

That article is somewhat old. I wanted to use it to illustrate the actual numbers. I think good efforts are being made in reduction (a good reason why career officers would oppose any group trying to make that reform given the implications to their own careers).

[Glassunion]

14. That piece was from 2012.

Here are more current links: http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY17%20NDAA%20Bill%20Summary.pdf 2017's NDAA, you'll see the recommendation of a 25% reduction under "General and Flag Officers" on page 5.

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reducing-Number-of-Four-Star-Generals.pdf - You'll see on page 3 the SASC recommendation of a reduction of 4-stars by 34% from their authorized level of 41 down to 27.

Both of these are from this year.

[niyad]

15. as I pointed out elsewhere, recommendations and proposals, and actual reductions, are

two entirely different things.

but thank you for the excellent links.

[Glassunion]

16. We shall see. It has support from both Dems and Repubs.

I's kind of hard to excuse away having almost as many Admirals as you do ships.

[niyad]

17. or more, as I think I read earlier today.

[Exilednight]

8. The number of stars doesn't determine pay.

Although the military pay chart shows different amounts, all generls have the same base pay. They do get extra pay for positions they hold, and some generals are holding posts above their rank.

A two star division commander will make less than a one star at the Pentagon in many cases.

A division commander in the army is a two star slot, but when I was in the 5th ID our commander was a one star, even though he wore two. He would eventually become a 4 star with significant power within the military.

[Glassunion]

10. True... But it is a starting point for base pay to give an idea.

[1939]

18. Military Pay

Military pay is capped by the level of executive pay in the US government. While the pay tables show steady increases from O-7 to O-10 plus extra for the chiefs of staff, in actuality it is capped and many of the generals share the same base pay despite differences in rank.

[jamese777]

9. The Obama Administration is proposing reductions

This is a negotiated proposal from Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter:
On May 12, the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed some pretty substantial cuts to the military’s general and flag officer corps. As part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017, the provision proposes cutting the number of generals by 25%, or 222 of the Department of Defense’s 886 generals and admirals.

According to the committee, the number of general and flag officers has “become increasingly out of balance with the size of the force it leads.

As of Feb. 29, there were 411 one stars, 299 two stars, 139 three stars, and 37 four-star active generals and admirals, with several more appointed recently. The ratio of officers in the military to the total force size has grown from 15.69% in 2000 to 17.54% in 2015. ”

The number of General Officers increases during war time (Iraq & Afghanistan), then it takes a few years of natural attrition (retirements) or budget cuts to reduce the number.

[niyad]

12. of course we know that proposals, and actual cuts, are two entirely different things.

[karadax]

11. Too many bosses ? I'll agree with that.

I just read an article in the Air Force Times that talks about reducing additional duties because the workload is so much that people are being distracted from their core missions. That impacts readiness. I'd love for these generals to do more to alleviate some of the frustration. Yes, even if it means retire.

If we want to spend less on the military but maintain the same level of readiness then something has give.

[Exilednight]

20. It is possible to have a smaller military that is more flexible and

better trained. It comes down to the type of people we want to serve.

The given logic is that more people equals greater power, yet we have technology that supersedes any other military in the world.

We could cut our budget in half and still maintain our superiority over every other nation, but it has to be balanced with better soldiers who are apt to learning and thinking that leads to good decision making. I can train anyone to fire an M-16 with accuracy, but I can't train them to make tough decisions in absence of leadership.

It's the old quality vs quantity conundrum.