Post User Polls

Do we need fewer military generals and admirals?

Of all the spending cuts and budget battles the Pentagon is confronting, none is causing more angst than Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's vow to start getting rid of generals and admirals. Read the full article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  August 13, 2010; 8:14 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Do you think Elizabeth Warren is the best choice? | Next: Did your home flood?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



My dad was a CMC, 37 years of service. Always fond of saying "too many indian chiefs, not enough indians". But that's the Academy Mafia for you. They take care of their own.

Posted by: biffgrifftheoneandonly | August 13, 2010 10:05 AM

Well, obviously only the liberal/socialist/Communists/fascists, etc. have voted so far. This is being done with two wars being fought? Typical, stupid, unschooled in defense Obama! We're going to be attacked before we can get him out of office, I'm sure! I think anyone who voted for that idiot should be tried for treason!

Posted by: georges2 | August 13, 2010 10:08 AM

Was wondering how long it would take the Tinfoil Helmet brigade to show up. Let me guess, you hold the rank of General in that army....

Like most unequivocally necessary Pentagon reforms, this is 25 years overdue.

Posted by: Godfather_of_Goals | August 13, 2010 10:26 AM

I think I just saw some statistics that the ratio of officer to enlisted was 1:5, that is better than the teacher to student ratio in most schools nation wide. I agree that it is time to downsize most officer ranks. We cannot sustain a military the size of our current one with the rates of pay that are available and with the significant amount of injuries our soldiers have already sustained.

Posted by: lorac58 | August 13, 2010 10:57 AM

You want to save money! Cut the number of Civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) positions in the Federal Government. In protocol they hold General Office status. You could cut the force by 50% and not impact any thing in the Government. Reduce them to GS/GM 15s. You would reduce the average pay of GS/GM employees so that they don't get a bad wrap for receiving too much pay compared to the private sector.

Posted by: Gabe2 | August 13, 2010 10:59 AM

What we need to do is get out of both useless, senseless, costly boondoggle wars FIRST, then shave the officer force down to size.

Posted by: mtravali | August 13, 2010 10:59 AM

Not only overdue, but somewhat considerably short. The defense budget ought be cut in half. Contracting-out must be outlawed altogether, for the agency should be compelled to train within. Elementary, indeed. Rogues, like Haliburton, must not be involved with any defense matter whatsoever. Neocons and Tea Party people do not realise that welfare is on a cash-driven role at this behemoth agency.

Posted by: prokofiev85 | August 13, 2010 11:33 AM

I am with Prokofiev85. The only way the US will EVER reduce the deficit is to cut the DOD down to a successful size. Any time you give someone that much money they have to stop running efficiently.

Posted by: alex35332 | August 13, 2010 12:28 PM

Since 2001 - Jan 2008, there were 17 Army Recruiter suicides, plus they continue regularly - one in Jun - another in Jul. What's up this month? 70% of Army Recruiters are combat vets - they are no longer on a battle field - they are now state side desk jockeys and salesmen. They have access to the VA here. So, U S Army Recruiting Command - which of your convoluted management practices are resulting in regular suicides? I suggest the retirement of MG Donald M. Campbell, Jr., the CG at U.S. Army Recruiting Command. He was previously their Deputy CG as well. I am surprised the families of these now deceased Army Recruiters have not yet banned together and demanded his retirement. God Rest Their Souls and God Bless the U.S. Army.

Posted by: Ghost2010 | August 14, 2010 12:32 AM

Georges, out of 404 votes, 92% voted to cut the top heavy Pentagon. By the way, this country is a Republic ran by Civilians and NOT the military much to your disappointment. Have you ever read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Doubtful!!!!!!

Posted by: nalaegral | August 14, 2010 12:42 AM

Obama and his radicals have been systematically dismantling America from banks to car dealers to financial sectors to health care and now our military, right under the noses of the congress,senate,the supreme court and the American people.God help us and Americas future.He's the real bilderberg puppet .Pray like never before people!!

Posted by: votingrevolution | August 14, 2010 1:18 AM

nonvotingreactionary,
This proposal originated from Secretary Gates. You can be certain he would have resigned in protest if he did not support it.

If you had travelled extensively around the world you might realize a larger US military does NOT increase our national security.

If you had worked on any DARPA projects in the last decade you would realize that bigger targets don't make economic, military or security sense. That's why stealth, UAVs and SOF make sense for everyone but people trying to make the next grade based upon procuring a billion dollar dinosaur.

Finally, you need to realize that membership in the general officer corps is the ultimate gold-plated government pension that provides a low return on a huge investment.

Posted by: boscobobb | August 14, 2010 2:06 AM

We have as many flag officers now as during Vietnam when the military was many times larger--and it often seems like half of them are wearing 4 stars which used to be reserved for a handful of the very top commanders. The argument some are making here that we have "two wars" is irrelevant--what ought to matter is the number of necessary military units suitable for flag command and with a smaller military, that is certainly fewer. Most of the people who actually plan and execute wars are staff officers of the rank of colonel or lieutenant colonel.

PS: I spent 26 years as a naval officer myself--I've seen what goes on.

Posted by: BTinSF | August 14, 2010 4:55 AM

Georges2,

Our number of brass is out of proportion to the force in being. We have the same number of 4 stars as we had during Vietnam, and less than half the force size. As a retired LCDR, I recall several times when my time was wasted because some flag rank officer needed to justify his position and called a meeting. Since he was not usually where I was, this meant travel arrangements had to be made, per diem had to be paid out; all for a one hour meeting that accomplished nothing. Yes cut the flag-ranks, getting rid of them and their bloated staffs should free up people to do the actual work of the military.

Posted by: jamalmstrom | August 14, 2010 7:32 AM

While they're at it let's reduce congressional staffs by 50%.

Posted by: pwithing | August 14, 2010 7:53 AM

1. Well, obviously only the liberal/socialist/Communists/fascists, etc. have voted so far. This is being done with two wars being fought? Typical, stupid, unschooled in defense Obama! We're going to be attacked before we can get him out of office, I'm sure! I think anyone who voted for that idiot should be tried for treason!

POSTED BY: GEORGES2 | AUGUST 13, 2010 10:08 AM

2. Obama and his radicals have been systematically dismantling America from banks to car dealers to financial sectors to health care and now our military, right under the noses of the congress,senate,the supreme court and the American people.God help us and Americas future.He's the real bilderberg puppet .Pray like never before people!!

POSTED BY: VOTINGREVOLUTION | AUGUST 14, 2010 1:18 AM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Here we have two well thought-out responses to the elimination of the dead wood in the military. I am sure these posters realize that the US brass, especially the Academies' graduates, enjoy a thoroughly socialistic existence; if they were service brats a la Sen. John McCain that would be from the cradle to the grave--and after with interment at Arlington. Enjoy the application of your tax money to support these TV stars who have been suborned to prejudice the discussions of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By all means, let's keep them up front at the public trough.

Posted by: mini2 | August 14, 2010 8:24 AM

Even though President Obama and faux Democrat and Fox anchorperson wannabe Robert Gibbs say that we liberals want to eliminate the military, I think that most of the top brass should stay. However, as in the top management of any organization, probably 10% could be eliminated without adversely affecting operations.

Posted by: nicekid | August 14, 2010 8:39 AM

The question is not why some do nothing egotistic military brass be shed from the rank- but rather why should the US spend huge military budget equivalent to all the military budget of all the countries in the world combined? It is one thing if it can afford but the reality is with the huge federal budget deficit it does not make any sense. Does any one believe Europe needs defending by the US? Japan? South Korea may be debatable--ditto for a war instigated by Bush (Cheney-Bush wacko war in IRAQ), Afghanistan is fools errand-- ask the British, Russians etc. who miserably failed to subdue those backward warriors who do not give a hoot about ...democracy or Western way of life. Definitely the DOD should be made slimmer, smarter, and quick at its feet to defend the US and let the rest of the world fend for itself. Now this will sound as a loony idea to the neo-cons, the parasites who depend on DOD contracts --ask Cheney's former firm Haliburton and the likes-- but economic and budgetary reality will force the the US to defend for itself in say one or two decades. We might as well get used to it ..

Posted by: ere591 | August 14, 2010 9:11 AM

There's no reason every aircraft carrier battle group has to be commanded by an admiral. An experienced, senior captain will do just fine.
If the objective of our armed forces is to be able to react quickly to attack , the less layers of command the better.

Posted by: grasonvilleed | August 14, 2010 9:29 AM

Well obviously only those who work or have worked in the Pentagon have vote so far.

Posted by: whocares666 | August 14, 2010 9:38 AM

It's a fine idea as long as they are not allowed to come back as "mentors", "advisors" or defense contractor employees.

Posted by: grobinette | August 14, 2010 9:49 AM

What really is disturbing is the fact that retired generals end up working for these war monger military contractors and worse , they also are 'military annalists' at our stupid 'independent' media, always pushing for more wars. Our beloved soldiers are being used to benefit their fat pockets. This is a real mafia, isn't it?

Posted by: rappahanock | August 14, 2010 9:51 AM

At the height of WW2 we had only about 6 four star Generals or Admirals. Now we have at least twice that many, or more. They do not advertise this of course. I'm all for cutting back on these four star frauds.
ex USMC

Posted by: jrnberrycharternet | August 14, 2010 10:04 AM

Thank you for the preview of the peaceful Christian right...Could you now please get out of my party or stop squeezing its neck ...the reason there are two wars is the generals needed work..other wise we would have had one small kick ars event in Afghanistan and be back home 9 years ago and saved a bunch of Trillinos with a T for our own future.

Well, obviously only the liberal/socialist/Communists/fascists, etc. have voted so far. This is being done with two wars being fought? Typical, stupid, unschooled in defense Obama! We're going to be attacked before we can get him out of office, I'm sure! I think anyone who voted for that idiot should be tried for treason!

POSTED BY: GEORGES2 | AUGUST 13, 2010 10:08 AM

Posted by: reddy531 | August 14, 2010 10:15 AM

The Russians tried to get rid of experienced Generals before WWII. They paid a dear price for that error when the Nazi's invaded Russia during WWII. The point is that in time of war you cannot just create experience by raising a person to General or Admiral. You need them in the bench waiting for the call to lead our troops. Yes it is expensive but the alternative is worse. Just ask the Russians.

Posted by: jdbassjr1 | August 14, 2010 10:37 AM

Well as long as they have people whose job it is to have and run wars, there will be wars.
What if they gave a war and nobody came ?
Wars are the dream job for all these people, are you kidding.

Posted by: kat2show | August 14, 2010 11:01 AM

After reading the book (k.i. sock it dog airmen & the wing commander) I am convinced that the Sergeants and young troops are the ones who do all the work. So yes, I agree that this is a good move to retire a lot of older senior military officers.

Posted by: Moley2 | August 14, 2010 11:24 AM

Another General is created or promoted by a Lobbyist controlled Congress …!!!!

Afghanistan and Iraq are wars. Conceived by a Powerful group of men(“lobbyist”) in Washington DC, this includes the President of the United States (Mr. Bush). These men had a believable Flunky in Colin Powell (Retired-General). Who personally went before the United Nation and deceive the rest of the world with doctored photos of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to justify these wars.

Yet..!! Not a single one of these men have been brought before any kind of justice or tribunal.
Yet..!! Have not been held accountable for these heinous crimes of lies.
Yet..!! There exist without question or a shadow of doubt that the and exposure that falsified information and falsified or misleading photos were presented to the rest of the world as evidence to invade an Oil producing Islamic Country..!!

But, Nine Years later we are still having our young men die for a cause conceived of and based on these lies and deception… The worst components of these crimes are and over abundance of arse Generals who dare..!!! .. To continue and campaign for another 10 years of war…!!!!

The Pentagon has become a very powerful and at the same times a useless function. As a Direct results of to many Generals and no Leadership of our Military exist to Protect our Country (U.S.).

VP Biden, who opposed McChrystal's troop surge recommendation last year and instead, urged a more focused emphasis on counter-terrorism operations. “Is Absolutely Correct”…

These Generals are incapable of dealing with a very small group of evil Clerics and their murderous, cowardly and maniacal Islamic men who will kill anyone that includes men, women and children in the name of their God and his prophet Muhammad…

Our President has a very simple choice. Remove a dangerous oversized society of Generals and Commanders. Whose sole purpose is to increase many weapons contractors’ “Washington’s Political Powerhouse” extremely profitable contracts...

This act is called “Covering his Flank”..!!!. By Generals who Careers are in jeopardy by the contractors “lobbyist” controllers over many aspects of our U.S. Congress's daily functions…

We need to continue and focus our concentration and our efforts in capturing these evil Clerics and Islamic men who use innocent and naive young boys and girls as walking bombs and disable them. By decreasing and disable their abilities to use innocent and naive young boys and girls as walking bombs anywhere around the World…!!! They (Islamic men and Clerics) are a menace to all countries in the World. Even, if the world hates America for our leader’s (G.W. Bush) and his Generals (Cronies) deceptions. Please, always remember and never forget this fact..!! This has always been and shall be historically…!!! Bush and his Generals War…!!!

Posted by: BFJustus | August 14, 2010 11:57 AM


I am amazed it took this long to come to this conclusion. With all the BRACs in recent years, why do we have the same number of Generals? If we are downsizing, consolidating and relocating facilities and staff, why was it not done at the General level?

Posted by: FormerNewYorkerNo9 | August 14, 2010 12:36 PM

Having had the opportunity to work within three government departments, the military is hands down the most efficient. So, Secretary Gates' decision only makes sense if we are going to take out the knives and really cut the other inefficient and incompetent government departments with bloated staffs. But the chances of that happening are zero due to the unionization of all government departments except the military.

So, we will cut the only effective and efficient government operation since they are not unionized and permit the bloated and inefficient ones to keep expanding since the Congress bows to the government employees unions.

Unfortunately, the sweeping health care legislation will greatly expand one of the most inefficient departments.

We eliminate the best and keep the worst. Not a great recipe for success or savings.

Posted by: strategiesinter | August 14, 2010 1:50 PM

Does having far more generals and admirals now than in the past mean the grunts need more adult supervision?

If not, cull the herd.

Posted by: Garak | August 14, 2010 1:55 PM

This is a no brainer,as they say. Of course these administrative types should be cut, especially generals and admirals. I think the cuts should be applied more broadly throughout the bloated defense department and should include high level civilian jobs. Retain only the troops who do the actual fighting and their logistical support personnel. Secretary Gates can provide a good example for other cabinet members in Obama Administration. If it were up to me, I would review the entire workings of the federal government, evaluate what is worth doing, what not, and how few people we can do it with.

Posted by: mcdonaldjames2 | August 14, 2010 1:58 PM

"Get a second opinion," Good medicine. Good defense. We need two completely independent chains of command rising from the lowest levels to the Commander in Chief. Reduce the bloat, but don't regress further into the trend of the DOD becoming the fifth branch of government: "the hunters", professional mercenaries in their own world. Checks and balances.

Posted by: randomsample | August 14, 2010 2:29 PM

The Navy has more admirals than it does ships. Its so top heavy its a miracle the whole organization does not capsize.

Posted by: dfdougherty | August 14, 2010 2:47 PM

Nowhere to be found in all the talk of government spending; Defense. Now over $700 billion per year. No problem?

Lift up the rock to find more slush funds, overspending and fraud, than even in Medicare...

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | August 14, 2010 2:48 PM

Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex. McNamara tried to rationalize Pentagon spending. I applaud Gates attempt to trim the most bloated of government departments but think that it is going to take a real reassessment of the purpose of our military. The two ill advised and economically devastating wars we are currently engaged in serve only to waste our blood and treasure and make us no safer or promote our national interest.

To that end, I have a simple suggestion: return the name to "The War Department". If one is going to engage in military adventures, let's be at least honest about it. The change to the Orwellian "Defense Department" gave moral cover to the excesses of spending and extra-constitutional military adventures. No politician is going to object to the "defense" of the Nation while one would have to make a much more compelling case to advocate a bigger budget for "War". This should appeal to the strict Constitutionalists. The Department of War was the original name of this Cabinet post.

Posted by: senigma | August 14, 2010 2:56 PM


Remove all our military forces from land bases overseas immediately. End any and all military and civilian participation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Cut our military budget in half immediately. Cut it in half again next year.

Convert twenty to forty thousand of our returning military people to the Immigration Service and our Border Patrol and place them on our border with Mexico and thoroughout the U.S. to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Change the name of the current Department of Defense, to, Department of Military Affairs. We are not doing much defense these days. Only offense and occupation of places we do not need to be in.

Posted by: surfer-joe | August 14, 2010 3:17 PM

70% of DOD is contracted out. Initially meant to save money, contracting costs have exploded and are now out of control. Lax oversight, corruption, and the "revolving door," of retired flag officers going to work for contractors, has escalated the problem. We need a lifetime ban in military officers working for contractors. Also, military pay is out of control. With allowances, especially the lucrative housing allowance, enlisted soldiers in D.C. now can pull in over $100K annually. Officers much more. We can no longer afford it.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | August 14, 2010 3:31 PM

I believe I've found the secret to cheap, seemingly unlimited energy - harvesting the emissions of energetic windbags.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | August 14, 2010 4:24 PM

Did this article say that we have 40 four star generals and admirals? The idea that we could safely cut 10% of those 40 is a joke! We could easily cut 30 % along with the miitary empires that go along with them. In England they have started to realize that they can't continue to spend money they don't have and will probably not build two new Trident Submarines and an aircraft carrier. The Russians have already started reducing their officer corps. There are so many programs that could be safely scrapped: Star wars, with it's missiles only capable of hitting a incoming missile that is equipped with a transponder or the fleets of 747's with lasers to shoot down incoming missiles. All those colonels and Generals cranking out patently self-seving blizzards of paperwork to justify their existence need to go. Do not, as one person warned, re-hire them as consultants.

Posted by: Aarky | August 14, 2010 6:25 PM


Obviously, all the RightWing Neocons are over on the comment threads bashing the president for visiting the Gulf coast.

Secretary Gates has made a much needed move. The Pentagon and its function needs to be reviewed periodically. This review was not done by accident. The Secretary had first hand experience there were too many chiefs.

Posted by: Thependulumswings | August 14, 2010 6:27 PM

Consider this - for what we spend having an arms race ith the United States we could provide 16 class classrooms with full day kindergarten for every single school aged child in the US, plus pay for tuition for most of the freshman University class every year. Or we could completely convert the national energy infrastructure to renewables in a decade. Or we could provide a decent grade school education in every third world nation on earth, including the American Southern states, so that radical ideologies fed to gullible uneducated hicks would have no where to breed.......


Instead we spend 700BILLION on just the pentagon to kill brown people and make more enemies. To be sure we need a strong nation DEFENSE, but we are wasting the single most golden opportuniity God ever gave a nation in finding ways to kill people for no prctical purpose other than to make weapons dealers rich.

Posted by: John1263 | August 14, 2010 6:47 PM

Cut the military by half. Smaller government at it's best. The pentoagon gets more money than every single agency in the federal government combined. If you want to cut spending, cut where the spending is.

Posted by: John1263 | August 14, 2010 6:49 PM

I agree that it is time to downsize most officer ranks. We cannot sustain a military the size of our current one with the rates of pay that are available and with the significant amount of injuries our soldiers have already sustained.

POSTED BY: LORAC58 | AUGUST 13, 2010 10:57 AM
---
Thats right, god forbid that our armed forces make a living wage. And even worse, that there should be leaders of those forces.

Posted by: LiberalBasher | August 14, 2010 8:08 PM

Let's just do it the Republican way - privatize it and put it up for bids. Maybe the Israel Defense Force (IDF) will get the contract.

Posted by: lmm31 | August 14, 2010 8:42 PM

Or, here's a Republican style, Adam Smith-inspired thought: just bribe our enemies not to fight. Been working well for the Chinese so far, hasn't it?

Using this Wall Street approach would have been immensely cheaper and would not have cost American lives. Buying Iraq from Saddam would have surely cost less in both national treasure and lives than the War(s) (A recent report to Congress (fire them too!) says the Pentagon can't account for $9 BILLION in cash it was given to conduct "nation-building"? - that much cash, stacked on pallets on an airfield, should be visible from space!) and the depraved/uninformed and macho-from-a safe distance and an secure, undisclosed location Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bremer approach of unemploying the entire, trained and ready Iraqi Army at the very moment they were needed most to maintain order and stability in Iraq; leaving them virtually no option but to "bring it on" (forgot what idiot - yeah, right! - said that) to our troops, using whatever means (huge caches of artillery rounds, some provided by the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq War) that they had left available to them: unconventional warfare.

And these people actually have the chutzpah to suggest that WikiLeaks has blood on "its" hands?

Sorry, I forgot: the wars have been really good fir the defense contractor community. Or as were called when we really knew what values were, "war profiteers". Note to those with Defense Contractor stock: doesn't that make you a war profiteer as well? I seem to recall that legally one can be charged as an accomplice to a theft merely for knowingly receiving stolen property. Please enlighten me, if you can, as to what is the difference.

Yes, downsize the General Officer (G.O.) ranks - immediately! It shouldn't even be a question, for each and every one (G.O.) requires their own "Headquarters" building and staff and in most cases these days, a separate intelligence unit in addition to the bloated General support staff and trappings to include a Public Affairs Office (PAO), "Executive" furnishings, vehicles, drivers, secure communications, Video Teleconference Centers, etc.


Posted by: lmm31 | August 14, 2010 9:23 PM

The defense budget is the most wasteful
of all our expensives.It has to be cut.bush
sent plane loads of cash to the middle east
to buy allies from people that hated us.The
military does'nt need,or want, most of the
hardware we are giving them.It is a social
istic work program which the taxpayer gets
nothing.Put these contractors to work on
Earth,cleaning up the planet.Oceans,rivers,
nat'nl parks,etc.We have to remember that
that we are all greedy so make us work for
it,that's what gov is about, I think.

Posted by: domer | August 14, 2010 10:05 PM

Well, obviously only the liberal/socialist/Communists/fascists, etc. have voted so far. This is being done with two wars being fought? Typical, stupid, unschooled in defense Obama! We're going to be attacked before we can get him out of office, I'm sure! I think anyone who voted for that idiot should be tried for treason!

Posted by: georges2 | August 13, 2010 10:08 AM

Since the Admirals and Generals have done most of the fighting in Irag and Afghanistan please tell me how many have died there? Thought so.

Posted by: stevel1 | August 14, 2010 11:25 PM

It is just interesting. So many comments made by those that probably do not have a clue how the military runs.

Typical liberal response, all military spending is bad, so reduce to as little as you can.

Typical conservative response, military spending is needed to protect us from evil.

Lets just be clear, the elimination senior level people means a flatter organization. Are the leaders being kept able to manage in this way? Or is the military willing to give more responsibility to the lower ranks?

It just seems like a drastic move thought of by a government consultant than someone with real military experience.

But in the end, we should blame Bush for all of the bloated military brass in this country. I am sure it was his tax reductions that caused this. Right liberals!?!? LOL!! Cant wait to see how Obama blames this on Bush too! LOL!! What a joke!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 14, 2010 11:34 PM

Why do we need a two party system? Why can't we all work toward the common good? War is not good - so lay off Generals, Honorable SECDEF. Those comments to Rolling Stone Magazine by McChrystal and his cohorts were enough to assure me that there must be more egotistical, arrogant and duplicitous Generals where he came from - peer pressure certainly did not rein him in. And certainly his sycophants would not. Pull the covers off USAREC - they are secretive and dislike transparency - see how many millions and millions of dollars have gone down that bottom less money pit. And, be sure to watch Mr. and Mrs. Tillman on Larry King Monday night!

Posted by: Ghost2010 | August 15, 2010 2:01 AM

The country needs their leadership skills in the business sector, badly. With too many big & medium sized businesses following the lead of the timid herd of Wall Street's lemmings, well they'll end up being a vanguard of change & wealth creation if we're lucky.

I can't think of a body of leaders more likely to create jobs in America, for Americans, than these guys.

Unlike for example Steve Ballmer, they're more likely to want to see hiring and growth, and see an out of work citizen hired over say an imported Russian spy...

Posted by: Nymous | August 16, 2010 1:43 AM

Its about time.

There's something seriously wrong, when we have two times as many Admirals as we have ships in the Navy.

I assume the Army and Air Force as similarly top heavy.

Posted by: DarrylScott | August 16, 2010 7:31 AM

One interesting habit the Pentagon has. It recalls retired admirals and generals on full retirement pay, and pays them again for being "consultants". Some are triple-dippers. We are bankrupting our nation with two wars for 9 years, which include such items as a $5 million dollar reward for information about al-quieda. I note that $87 billion dollars went missing from the money sent to Iraq. Where would you hide such a large lump of dollars? Gimme a break!

Posted by: drzimmern1 | August 16, 2010 10:35 AM

t is just interesting. So many comments made by those that probably do not have a clue how the military runs.

Typical liberal response, all military spending is bad, so reduce to as little as you can.

Typical conservative response, military spending is needed to protect us from evil.

Lets just be clear, the elimination senior level people means a flatter organization. Are the leaders being kept able to manage in this way? Or is the military willing to give more responsibility to the lower ranks?

It just seems like a drastic move thought of by a government consultant than someone with real military experience.

But in the end, we should blame Bush for all of the bloated military brass in this country. I am sure it was his tax reductions that caused this. Right liberals!?!? LOL!! Cant wait to see how Obama blames this on Bush too! LOL!! What a joke!
******************************************
The joke is on you, dude. I've got over thirty years in as a civilian in DOD. In the Navy, the Commanders and Captains do the heavy lifting while the Admirals sit on top of the pile to make it heavier.

"LOL" used more than once is a sign of instability.

Posted by: st50taw | August 16, 2010 10:44 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company