Top-heavy military structure
Chief Tango sends a link to WTKR3 which reports that Virginia Senator Mark Warner is wondering why there are more flag officers in recent years than at any other time in our military history;
“I want to see the Pentagon cut back on some of this “brass creep” both in terms of numbers and some of these perks,” Warner said.
[…]
“You’re not going to buy the new car, you’re going to fix up the old one. You might cancel the family vacation. You are going to have to adjust your own household finances to accommodate 14 days without pay,” [Craig Quigley, a retired rear admiral] said. “If you are a small business with only a handful of employees, you might not survive.”
Of course, it’s not just the fact that there are so many generals and admirals hanging around, their sense of entitlement leads to huge staffs and an entourage of lackeys and perks that they can suck down, while the trigger-pullers suffer;
“If you’re a four-star, and you’ve got a G-5 aircraft waiting for your private use, or governmental use, 24/7, that doesn’t make sense to me,” Warner said. “That all adds up, and it just sends the wrong signal, when we are cutting back on the number of troops, and soldiers, sailors and airmen, yet we are increasing the number of generals and flag officers.”
Slate.com estimated that the perks and entourages afforded flag officers cost a million dollars for every admiral and general.
But, yeah, it makes more sense to cut back on tuition assistance for the troops who, for the first time in a decade are finding time to work on their college time. Thanks, Pentagon.
Category: Politics
Top heavy with a bunch of spoiled, arrogant leaders. When I was in Afghanistan, the head of ISAF came to the FOB and did not say 2 words to the troops. Pathetic.
You know shit ain’t right when we have more admirals than ships.
It’s not just flag officers. There are way too many senior enlisted as well.
It’s the new “move up or move out” culture that’s to blame, IMHO.
In the Navy, we have a large percentage of CPO’s who are making Chief with only 7-10 total years in. In the old days, the Chiefs ran the Navy, providing example and guidance to junior officers and enlisted alike, but how much can a person with only eight years in the Navy possibly know about leadership?
Instead, what we see with the modern CPO’s are “yes-men” and micro-managers who are unable to allow their junior’s to learn how to lead and manage, at the same time being completely unable to make any kind of decision that might possibly have consequences.
And “CPO-365”? Don’t get me started.
In the late 90s, there was one Army GO per battalion + brigade + the standard GO billets at 2 divisions(-) and Corps with Corps Artillery.
Most of them hung out at NATO/SHAPE. During Bosnia, each of those GO felt the need to be relevant, so our Rear-D received regular inspections by GO.
Having been on the personal staff of two GO, I understand “perk-creep.” Power attracts, and no one is authorized to tell a GO ‘no.’
@2 Roger that, Sparky!
Ain’t it always the way? In ANY organization of more then two people, any growth is always at the top, and cuts are always from the bottom. These asshats at the top ignore the little people who created/made/repaired/worked the things that made them a success.
Seriously, this sounds more and more like what went on with Vietnam. The Army promoted people who had XXX number of men under their command in the field. Getting that position meant getting bumped up a notch, say from colonel to general before retirement.
This is not a good thing. If you make Chief in 7 years, it doesn’t mean you know anything about leadership.
Agree with Warner and everyone here, Warner is one of my Senator and we asked him at a town hall @4 months ago about not only this subject but also why don’t members of Congress cut back their own “perks” and office creep, said he would look into it and get back to us, right !!!!
Yeah, the Marine Corps (who has prided itself in the past in doing more with less, and having a less officers to enlisted personnel ratio) has six 4-star generals, the most it has EVER had – although General’s Allen and Mattis are due to retire soon. Not sure how to explain that one, short of Marine General’s being more involved in the goings on on the world stage.
Way too many chiefs, not enough Indians, Seems the officers and Senior NCOs have always had those hide-away billets on Staffs, special duties or Months long schools. Iv’e seen Marine Arty officers with 20 Years plus that spent Maybe half that time in an Artillery Regiment.
@9- The 6 USMC 4-Stars is actually fairly easy to explain. 4 of those 6 are commanding Joint Commands. The only 2 4-Stars actively commanding Marines are the CMC and ACMC. I am actually proud to see so much Marine brass holding key command billets. It shows a high level of trust and confidence in the Marine style of doing business, which although I am a bit biased, I believe is the best of the services. (I still love my zoomie, dogface, squid brothers and sisters!)
Gen Mattis- CentCom (retiring)
Gen Allen- ISAF (retiring)
Gen Dunford- ISAF
Gen Amos- CMC
Gen Kelly- SouthCom
Gen Paxton- ACMC
I can remember in Afghanistan in ’04, the two star in charge was a tee total arrogant asshat. Gave a briefing to all of the E7s and above trying to pitch the idea of voluntary tour exptensions. The amount of underemployed E9s was also staggering.
I’m of the opinion if you were to go to any large installation, go to the Main PX between the hours of 1400-1500 and summarily give early retirement to every E-8/O-4 and above you ran into the Armed Services would loose zero efficiency.
#1,
Arrogant? I agree. I constantly harp about a certain former Chief of Engineers’ retirement back in ’07. We were standing tall on Summerall Field for it, and this guy proceeded to give some of the longest remarks I remember ever hearing while in TOG. After a Soldier fell out, the general took the time to “recognize” that Soldier by pointing out exactly where he had been in the formation. Also, when describing his ideal of a new Chief of Engineers to GEN Schoomaker he starting describing his own background (VMI, Special Forces, blah, blah ,blah). Most of us couldn’t believe how full of himself this guy was, especially after watching so many other retirements/change of responsibilities. General Schoomaker kept it short, sweet, and humorous when General Casey took over.
Flash forward to a few weeks ago. Some of my Soldiers and I were in full battle rattle waiting outside for the CG to arrive and give a little talk. The CG takes his time in the AC, finally appearing an hour after he was supposed to, then blows off a salute by one of my Soldiers (I had told them not to salute since we were security, but some kids get impressed when they see stars). He didn’t say a single word to any of us, though to his credit the Brigade Commander returned the salute and greeted us. That was the first time I’d seen him up close, but other Soldiers told me it fit his reputation. I looked up the CG’s bio last week, and it reads like so many other modern-day bios read. Then I read his father’s and older brother’s bios. Let’s just say that two are highly decorated combat Soldiers, while the third has the standard “been there” array of a 21st Century ticket puncher.
Say what you want about Petreaus, but when he commanded the 101st, he took the time to acknowledge all of us, even having “For Excellence in Combat” coins minted which he and the DCSM personally presented to all of us.
@14, I remember when he first took over the 101st. He came out and visited us at range 55. He joked with us for a little bit and then challenged my Squad Leader to a push up contest and won. He then challenged me to a sit up contest. Needless to say, that old man kicked my ass.
There are far too many General officers in the military these days. That means they have staff and perks. We went through WW2 wih far fewer General Officers and much larger military (and no Air Force). Any organization that becomes overly top heavy loses its ability to inovate.
Sounds like the place I was working at until last week. They’re cost-cutting: getting rid of the people who actually produce the product while holding onto all the overheads who “manage”. Customers are already starting to walk.