The inflation of military generals and admirals

[Craig234]

Righties tend to support any military spending. Some facts for them to explain:

Full article from POGO (Project on Government Oversight):

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/testimony/national-security/ns-wds-20110914.html

This record level of brass at a time the US has never been safer militarily.

It's big business, with a revolving door.

 

[trenchfoot]

Imagine what downsizing the military will do. These generals and admirals have enough influence to save their jobs, while the junior "O" grades and enlisted personnel positions get jettisoned like so much chaff, furthering the inflation of the flag rank population. Just like in business and politics I guess.

 

[PeshakJang]

There are 981 Generals to run a military of 1,407,553. That means they comprise about .069% of the total manpower.

Are you going to state any opinion as to what is wrong with our current situation, or just post a bunch of numbers and make some idiotic comment implying that something is wrong?

Would you rather we increased the number of enlisted personnel to make the ratio lower? Or do you believe we'd be better off kicking out all the personnel with 30+ years of experience?

I'm eager to apply your answers to other parts of the government.

 

[hal2kilo]

Righties tend to support any military spending. Some facts for them to explain:

Full article from POGO (Project on Government Oversight):

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/testimony/national-security/ns-wds-20110914.html

This record level of brass at a time the US has never been safer militarily.

It's big business, with a revolving door.

You should see what happened to the extra layers of management that were added at the Srategic Projects (SP) funded Bangor Submarine Base after the NAVSEA funded surface world took over. Got more GS 13s and 14s than you can shake at stick at. I guess this is supposed to make of for the pathetic lack of funding for the no training that the sailors are getting now. I'm sure that GS 14 management type will make up for it.

 

[MotF Bane]

The military has gained layers and layers of bureaucracy, and this is not a good thing. It's what seems to happen inevitably with any organization, of which the government as a whole is the finest example.

 

[Anarchist420]

There are 981 Generals to run a military of 1,407,553. That means they comprise about .069% of the total manpower.

Are you going to state any opinion as to what is wrong with our current situation, or just post a bunch of numbers and make some idiotic comment implying that something is wrong?

Would you rather we increased the number of enlisted personnel to make the ratio lower? Or do you believe we'd be better off kicking out all the personnel with 30+ years of experience?

I'm eager to apply your answers to other parts of the government.

The military is socialism. It's a handout.

 

[PeshakJang]

The military is socialism. It's a handout.

Didn't you pretend to be smart?

 

[Vic Vega]

There are 981 Generals to run a military of 1,407,553. That means they comprise about .069% of the total manpower.

Are you going to state any opinion as to what is wrong with our current situation, or just post a bunch of numbers and make some idiotic comment implying that something is wrong?

Would you rather we increased the number of enlisted personnel to make the ratio lower? Or do you believe we'd be better off kicking out all the personnel with 30+ years of experience?

I'm eager to apply your answers to other parts of the government.

He's a complete idiot, just ignore him.

His complete lack of understanding is cemented by his own statement, which itself is a validation of the latter, that he fails to see.

This record level of brass at a time the US has never been safer militarily.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The military is socialism. It's a handout.

Didn't you pretend to be smart?

@Anarchist420 you've already lost by virtue of account names.

 

[trenchfoot]

There are 981 Generals to run a military of 1,407,553. That means they comprise about .069% of the total manpower.

Are you going to state any opinion as to what is wrong with our current situation, or just post a bunch of numbers and make some idiotic comment implying that something is wrong?

Would you rather we increased the number of enlisted personnel to make the ratio lower? Or do you believe we'd be better off kicking out all the personnel with 30+ years of experience?

I'm eager to apply your answers to other parts of the government.

Well, let's crunch some numbers here:

If things are the way they were as last I recall, generals usually enter into play at the brigade level, so that means you'd need at least say, 3,000 personnel to command before a flag rank is assigned.

Given your total number of military members under flag rank, we'd need 469 generals/admirals to command those personnel, leaving an excess of 512 generals and admirals that don't fit within the command structure, and that's not including colonels, which would bump those excess numbers even further.

Mind you, the figures I used are of the same general (no pun intended) nature that you're ascribing to.

I'm sure there's more detailed info that could sway those numbers we're using either way, but the point I'm making here is your statistics may not stand up to more detailed scrutiny just as mine would or wouldn't.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

@Anarchist420 you've already lost by virtue of account names.

So is his point 100% wrong?

Beyond the whole security thing, members of the military dont generate a whole lot of value to an economy.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So is his point 100% wrong?

Beyond the whole security thing, members of the military dont generate a whole lot of value to an economy.

Sometimes you DO need to pay attention to the source. () Oh and, members of the military have never generated value to the economy, at least directly.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes you DO need to pay attention to the source. () Oh and, members of the military have never generated value to the economy, at least directly.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we should greatly inflate the brass or not.

Pointing out their drain on the economy (mostly indirectly with industry growth) is a factor in answering that question - growing scientists tends to help the economy.

I do notice not one person who says they are for the huge military spending has defended this rank inflation with any substance - nor admitted they're wrong.

 

[Doppel]

Reminds me of a bank, in which half the people you meet are a VP of something.

 

[maluckey]

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we should greatly inflate the brass or not.

Pointing out their drain on the economy (mostly indirectly with industry growth) is a factor in answering that question - growing scientists tends to help the economy.

I do notice not one person who says they are for the huge military spending has defended this rank inflation with any substance - nor admitted they're wrong.

Not much of a drain in the big scheme of things.

A 100 percent increase in Flag Officers would still be small, since there aren't many officers overall (+/- 1500). They also don't make what you think that they do. Their pay is public and you can look it up. I have personal friends that make far more than a Major General does, and my buddies never put their life on the line.

Cold world comparisons of headcount are absurd, since that was peacetime, not having three or four ongoing title-10 contingency OPS ongoing with no end in sight.

As far as economy......I guess that you don't pay attention much to facts? A larger military budget helps scientific research. Military and aerospace research go hand in hand. Many if not MOST life saving techiques and technologies are born from the need to keep soldiers alive and intact. Scientists are rolling in cash when the military hires them to come up with something new. This research then rolls into civilian use after a few years.

Younger soldiers routinely blow half of their income into the economy. High tech gadgets, entertainment and laptops are number 1 purchases. Watches guns and knives also popular. Older soldiers fill universities with their kids. Army brats are notorious for getting better grades on average than their counterparts and tend to be more well disciplined.

Larger military isn't a real issue. Wars with no end goal or defined end state are a problem. Why are we in 140 -plus countires and actively engaging "enemies" in half a dozen? I don't recall the US being elected as Sheriff.

Remove soldiers from 130 of the 140 countries would reduce flag officers and save $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Craig234]

Not much of a drain in the big scheme of things.

A 100 percent increase in Flag Officers would still be small, since there aren't many officers overall (+/- 1500). They also don't make what you think that they do. Their pay is public and you can look it up. I have personal friends that make far more than a Major General does, and my buddies never put their life on the line.

Cold world comparisons of headcount are absurd, since that was peacetime, not having three or four ongoing title-10 contingency OPS ongoing with no end in sight.

As far as economy......I guess that you don't pay attention much to facts? A larger military budget helps scientific research. Military and aerospace research go hand in hand. Many if not MOST life saving techiques and technologies are born from the need to keep soldiers alive and intact. Scientists are rolling in cash when the military hires them to come up with something new. This research then rolls into civilian use after a few years.

Younger soldiers routinely blow half of their income into the economy. High tech gadgets, entertainment and laptops are number 1 purchases. Watches guns and knives also popular. Older soldiers fill universities with their kids. Army brats are notorious for getting better grades on average than their counterparts and tend to be more well disciplined.

Larger military isn't a real issue. Wars with no end goal or defined end state are a problem. Why are we in 140 -plus countires and actively engaging "enemies" in half a dozen? I don't recall the US being elected as Sheriff.

Remove soldiers from 130 of the 140 countries would reduce flag officers and save $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The issue isn't the salaries of the flag officers. It's the growth of the bureacracy, the military-industrial complex they represent, which is growing a lot - AFTER the cold war.

You come across like an ass with your tone. Yes, there are some scientific benefits to military spending sometimes - which are hugely inefficiently obtained - but there's also the 'horizontal expansion' of waste that adds nothing to 'scientific research'. Ordering $20 billion of a product we don't need has the same scientific payoff as ordering $5 billion.

But your apparently delusional ideological blinders are made clear when you say "Larger military isn't a real issue."

Yes, it is, in countless ways - including diverting people and resources from better use.

You might want to go read Eisenhower's 'Cross of Iron' speech for a reminder that excessive military DOES greatly cost society. Since you won't, here's a quote:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

 

[Rainsford]

The issue isn't the salaries of the flag officers. It's the growth of the bureacracy, the military-industrial complex they represent, which is growing a lot - AFTER the cold war.

You come across like an ass with your tone. Yes, there are some scientific benefits to military spending sometimes - which are hugely inefficiently obtained - but there's also the 'horizontal expansion' of waste that adds nothing to 'scientific research'. Ordering $20 billion of a product we don't need has the same scientific payoff as ordering $5 billion.

But your apparently delusional ideological blinders are made clear when you say "Larger military isn't a real issue."

Yes, it is, in countless ways - including diverting people and resources from better use.

You might want to go read Eisenhower's 'Cross of Iron' speech for a reminder that excessive military DOES greatly cost society. Since you won't, here's a quote:

You're making a lot of assumptions based on some very limited statistics. Without knowing WHY there are more admirals and generals, or what they're doing, you can't necessarily say that the "military industrial complex" is getting bigger. Maybe the military was UNDER-supervised at the flag level before, why assume that the correct magic ratio of flag officers to everyone else is the smaller one? And our military's missions and structure are always changing, fewer ships and more admirals in the Navy might mean that the Navy is focusing on legitimate things that don't directly involve large numbers of boats.

You could also be right, of course, but these stats alone don't tell enough of the story to conclusively say.

 

[Craig234]

Rainsford, the military budget is public. I didn't say 'the senior officers are increasing and that proves the budget is' as you claim; I assumed that level of knowledge.

The linked article discusses why it's happening, and is mostly not about the increases to the military spending, but the buraucratic reasons for needless rank increases.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it's wonderful that someone who is utterly clueless as to why a thing is declares with certainty that it's needless.

 

[Matt1970]

What a complete and utterly worthless thread. Is this all you got lately Craig?

 

[PeshakJang]

The issue isn't the salaries of the flag officers. It's the growth of the bureacracy, the military-industrial complex they represent, which is growing a lot - AFTER the cold war.

You base everything in your comments on complete conjecture and have no substance whatsoever to support your position, which you haven't even clearly defined. You throw out phrases like 'military industrial complex', coupled with a bunch of facts on rank, and somehow think that your point is valid. You've ignored every other point that's been brought up, and smugly assumed yourself. Typical from pseudo-intellectual like yourself.

You come across like an ass with your tone.

The phrase 'pot meet kettle' doesn't come close to capturing the sense of this comment.

Yes, there are some scientific benefits to military spending sometimes - which are hugely inefficiently obtained -

How can it be hugely inefficient if the government is funding and directing it?

but there's also the 'horizontal expansion' of waste that adds nothing to 'scientific research'. Ordering $20 billion of a product we don't need has the same scientific payoff as ordering $5 billion.

Present some quantitative facts to support this position. It has nothing to do with anything you've posted so far. I could simply use the Democrat argument that ordering $20 billion of a product with government money would create $30 billion in economic benefit, hence we should do it. Prove me wrong.

But your apparently delusional ideological blinders are made clear when you say "Larger military isn't a real issue."

The phrase 'pot meet kettle' doesn't come close to capturing the sense of this comment.

Yes, it is, in countless ways - including diverting people and resources from better use.

Another typical Craig post. Full of conjecture and assumptions, devoid of intellect. He takes a position in the shallow end of the pool and insists that anybody deeper than him is a liar. When I point at the sky and tell him it's blue, he finds a way in his own mind to convince himself it's green, and labels anybody who calls it blue an idiot.

Truly the epitome of a useful idiot.

 

[her209]

The military has gained layers and layers of bureaucracy, and this is not a good thing. It's what seems to happen inevitably with any organization, of which the government as a whole is the finest example.

Make its easier for denialbility purposes.

 

[soundforbjt]

This thread reminds me of this picture.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Make its easier for denialbility purposes.

An answer that has not been considered is that the role of the military has expanded and therefor so have administrative complexities. I submit that the numbers in question correspond with that fact.

 

[her209]

This thread reminds me of this picture.

(snip)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That damn Andre is a member of the union.

RAWR