The inflation of military generals and admirals

[blackangst1]

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:

Here's another quote from Eisenhower:

"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."

 

[Rainsford]

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.

The "needless" part was really what I was referring to. Obviously the military budget has gone up, as has the number of flag officers. But this thread is arguing that those increases aren't necessary. I don't see much of an argument for that...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The "needless" part was really what I was referring to. Obviously the military budget has gone up, as has the number of flag officers. But this thread is arguing that those increases aren't necessary. I don't see much of an argument for that...

There are at least two ways one can look at this. One is to note a fact, determine in advance it's significance and meaning then push an argument free from the analysis of possible causes, or first an analysis on possible reasons and determine if that fits known conditions and then weigh in on the merits as the last part of a rational consideration. I submit "needless" without looking at why that must be reflects the former process.

 

[Nebor]

Secretary Gates wanted to eliminate 102 flag officer positions, but congress stopped him. http://www.stripes.com/news/gates-memo-includes-cuts-to-102-flag-general-officer-positions-1.138794

I will say that with fewer soldiers making more important decisions that have strategic impact, the requirement for highly educated flag officers has increased. When you're maneuvering divisions across Vietnam, you don't need many generals. When you have ongoing contingency operations in 140 countries, you need someone on the ground that has the wisdom and experience of age & education.

Still, there are a lot of unnecessary GO billets, as evidenced in Secretary Gates memo. There's a Major General in "command" of AAFES (the PX\BX system,) for example. Maybe that's necessary, maybe it's not. I could see that one going either way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Congress controls the number of flag officers allowed;
The military can recommend a promotion to flag and within flag; but Congress must approve.

Blame Congress, not the military

 

[Nebor]

Congress controls the number of flag officers allowed;
The military can recommend a promotion to flag and within flag; but Congress must approve.

Blame Congress, not the military

That's what I said. DoD wanted to cut 102 flag officers, but Congress wouldn't do it.

 

[palehorse]

As a soldier, I wholeheartedly agree that we are currently way too top-heavy. Then again, I don't think that fixing this specific situation will do much to dent our budget issues. There are actually other more important reasons to trim the brass fat...

 

[Nebor]

As a soldier, I wholeheartedly agree that we are currently way too top-heavy. Then again, I don't think that fixing this specific situation will do much to dent our budget issues. There are actually other more important reasons to trim the brass fat...

When you're on a FOB with signs that say "SALUTE AREA FOR O-7 & HIGHER ONLY" and you find yourself saluting all the time, something is amiss.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I really don't have anything on the Army side, but, I do have something that could be worth taking into account on teh navy side.
I don't believe it completely accounts for everything, as I do think there has been some "rank inflation" to have more officers than really neaded, however, i don't think it's fair to ignore all the facts either.


For the navy, you can't just take into account # of ships ... Need to also take into account the sizes of the ships, and their capabillities...

Ships today are bigger than they were in the past.
Ships today are faster than they were in the past.
So, a ship today is a bigger asset than a ship may have been in the past.

In 1945, your average destroyer was a fletcher class with total displacement about 2500 tons.
During the 50s, destroyers grew, total displacement around 5000 tons.
In the 70s, new destroyers were being built even larger, total displacement of over 8000 tons.
Current Destroyers of the Alreigh Burke class range from 8300 to over 10000 tons of total displacement.

Now, during WW2, battleships which were HUGE pretty much became obsolete .... and cruisers have since proven to be of margainal use due to their vulnerabillity to air attacks .... so they are being phased out.... So some of the "biggest" ships are gone ...

But then look at aircraft carriers ...

In the 1930s, the Yorktown carriers were about 30,000 tons with around 2200 people onboard...
In the 40s, the Independance class light carriers were built, they were smaller, only about 11000 tons (converted from cruisers)
In the 40s, the Essex class carriers were built ... (and in service until 1991!), they displaced about 40,000 tons when full...
Current carriers are the Nimitz class over 100,000 tons. Over 5000 people onboard the boat... that's ENOURMOS
Prior to the Nimitz class

So, when it comes to the destroyer and the carrier, the ships have grown quite a bit in size. They take a lot more crew to run, and are much more capable vs a destroyer or carrier of the WW2 days.


Modern carriers have much better range and speed vs the pre-nuclear days, and are essentially worth many of the older ships...

So, while the number of ships may not have grown, the overall capabillities of the navy have grown, so it would seem like the command requirements to handle such capabillities would also grow ... thus, changing the ratio of Admirals to Ships.

 

[palehorse]

That damn Andre is a member of the union.

RAWR

Actually, Andre is probably the only person in the photo who is NOT in a labor union of some sort...

 

[palehorse]

When you're on a FOB with signs that say "SALUTE AREA FOR O-7 & HIGHER ONLY" and you find yourself saluting all the time, something is amiss.

LOL! Of all places, Bagram was the worst. You almost develop carpo-tunnel in a single day just walking up and down Disney!

I never saluted elsewhere downrange, consequences be damned.

 

[Craig234]

I really don't have anything on the Army side, but, I do have something that could be worth taking into account on teh navy side.
I don't believe it completely accounts for everything, as I do think there has been some "rank inflation" to have more officers than really neaded, however, i don't think it's fair to ignore all the facts either.


For the navy, you can't just take into account # of ships ... Need to also take into account the sizes of the ships, and their capabillities...

Ships today are bigger than they were in the past.
Ships today are faster than they were in the past.
So, a ship today is a bigger asset than a ship may have been in the past.

In 1945, your average destroyer was a fletcher class with total displacement about 2500 tons.
During the 50s, destroyers grew, total displacement around 5000 tons.
In the 70s, new destroyers were being built even larger, total displacement of over 8000 tons.
Current Destroyers of the Alreigh Burke class range from 8300 to over 10000 tons of total displacement.

Now, during WW2, battleships which were HUGE pretty much became obsolete .... and cruisers have since proven to be of margainal use due to their vulnerabillity to air attacks .... so they are being phased out.... So some of the "biggest" ships are gone ...

But then look at aircraft carriers ...

In the 1930s, the Yorktown carriers were about 30,000 tons with around 2200 people onboard...
In the 40s, the Independance class light carriers were built, they were smaller, only about 11000 tons (converted from cruisers)
In the 40s, the Essex class carriers were built ... (and in service until 1991!), they displaced about 40,000 tons when full...
Current carriers are the Nimitz class over 100,000 tons. Over 5000 people onboard the boat... that's ENOURMOS
Prior to the Nimitz class

So, when it comes to the destroyer and the carrier, the ships have grown quite a bit in size. They take a lot more crew to run, and are much more capable vs a destroyer or carrier of the WW2 days.


Modern carriers have much better range and speed vs the pre-nuclear days, and are essentially worth many of the older ships...

So, while the number of ships may not have grown, the overall capabillities of the navy have grown, so it would seem like the command requirements to handle such capabillities would also grow ... thus, changing the ratio of Admirals to Ships.

Oh, I agree with the point you make, but the charts are useful for a summary.

The article with a lot more detail is linked - if I post the article and not the charts, almost no one will read it.

I don't think your points negate the message the charts show, and you agree. Clearly there are numerous factors and some partial justification for some changes.

But as the nation is safer than ever, that's something to keep in mind as well.

It'd be nice to have some of the people who say they're concerned about wasteful government, as we all should be, pay a little attention to the military's waste.

Instead, they seem totally uninterested in billions and care only about social spending.

 

[palehorse]

But as the nation is safer than ever...

You keep saying that, so I just want to be clear... are you basing that statement on the total number of, or known capabilities of, current and potential threats? Or, is the statement based solely on our improved defensive capabilities?

 

[PeshakJang]

I don't think your points negate the message the charts show, and you agree.

A message you have failed to define or justify at every opportunity.

But as the nation is safer than ever, that's something to keep in mind as well.

The nation is more legislated than ever. Why do we have so many politicians? Stupid point is stupid.

It'd be nice to have some of the people who say they're concerned about wasteful government, as we all should be, pay a little attention to the military's waste.

Why don't you give two shits about the trillions in debt EVERY YEAR that this administration is piling up on god knows what, and instead choose to focus on the modest salaries of less than 1000 personnel? For ever general you find me, I will give you 10 government employees of equal or greater pay that are completely useless.

Instead, they seem totally uninterested in billions and care only about social spending.

And you obviously are totally uninterested in everything BUT military spending. An insignificantly small portion of that spending, at that.

Save234

 

[Nebor]

LOL! Of all places, Bagram was the worst. You almost develop carpo-tunnel in a single day just walking up and down Disney!

I never saluted elsewhere downrange, consequences be damned.

Bagram was hell. Garrison rules for saluting, but 20,000 people packed into a few square miles and you're saluting non-stop. I know some people that spent a full year there, they develop sneaky routes that keep them out of traffic.

If you're not already familiar, you'll probably appreciate I Love Bagram.

 

[palehorse]

Bagram was hell. Garrison rules for saluting, but 20,000 people packed into a few square miles and you're saluting non-stop. I know some people that spent a full year there, they develop sneaky routes that keep them out of traffic.

If you're not already familiar, you'll probably appreciate I Love Bagram.

LOL! That's some funny sh*t! I only spent 2 months there out of 12 (2004), but even back then it was a REMF nightmare...

 

[monovillage]

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.

I found your blog, pretty interesting.
http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/

 

[EagleKeeper]

I really don't have anything on the Army side, but, I do have something that could be worth taking into account on teh navy side.
I don't believe it completely accounts for everything, as I do think there has been some "rank inflation" to have more officers than really neaded, however, i don't think it's fair to ignore all the facts either.


For the navy, you can't just take into account # of ships ... Need to also take into account the sizes of the ships, and their capabillities...

Ships today are bigger than they were in the past.
Ships today are faster than they were in the past.
So, a ship today is a bigger asset than a ship may have been in the past.

In 1945, your average destroyer was a fletcher class with total displacement about 2500 tons.
During the 50s, destroyers grew, total displacement around 5000 tons.
In the 70s, new destroyers were being built even larger, total displacement of over 8000 tons.
Current Destroyers of the Alreigh Burke class range from 8300 to over 10000 tons of total displacement.

Now, during WW2, battleships which were HUGE pretty much became obsolete .... and cruisers have since proven to be of margainal use due to their vulnerabillity to air attacks .... so they are being phased out.... So some of the "biggest" ships are gone ...

But then look at aircraft carriers ...

In the 1930s, the Yorktown carriers were about 30,000 tons with around 2200 people onboard...
In the 40s, the Independance class light carriers were built, they were smaller, only about 11000 tons (converted from cruisers)
In the 40s, the Essex class carriers were built ... (and in service until 1991!), they displaced about 40,000 tons when full...
Current carriers are the Nimitz class over 100,000 tons. Over 5000 people onboard the boat... that's ENOURMOS
Prior to the Nimitz class

So, when it comes to the destroyer and the carrier, the ships have grown quite a bit in size. They take a lot more crew to run, and are much more capable vs a destroyer or carrier of the WW2 days.


Modern carriers have much better range and speed vs the pre-nuclear days, and are essentially worth many of the older ships...

So, while the number of ships may not have grown, the overall capabillities of the navy have grown, so it would seem like the command requirements to handle such capabillities would also grow ... thus, changing the ratio of Admirals to Ships.

W/ respect to ships, it should still be the same.
1 or 2 Admirals per battle group
1 or 2 Admirals per combat organization
Usually 3-4 per command organization.

Regretfully, there will be a civilian preforming a duplicate job alongside or near the location of the Flag officer (w/ exception of battle group)

And the same applies to the other branches.

 

[gingermeggs]

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.

I like to think of it in a pyramid shape at its most functional; it has a broad base.
Now most modern organizations throughout the western societies have become Isosceles at best and obelisks at worst.
I believe it's the dumbing down in education and the lowering of standards, together with a splash of nepotism inside the peer group in the corps/govs/orgs(baby boomers).
Laws have helped this occur to with more and more laws comes the need for great oversight.
Seems personal greed, perceived risk and risk management has over taken cost benefit analysis, competence and the old fashioned start at the bottom, no matter what your background is!

I wonder what Ol' General Patton would think of the administrative state of the military, the country and the corporate sectors.........maybe they didn't defeat the nazi's after all???

 

[Lizardman]

http://www.g2mil.com/tenured.htm

Most servicemen agree the US military has too many Generals and Admirals, collectively referred to as "flag officers". Does the US military need 919 active duty flag officers serving the equivalent role of corporate vice presidents? That's one flag officer for every 1536 servicemen. Since the 9-11 terror attack, the Pentagon has added 4 additional four-star flag officers, 23 extra three-stars, 5 extra two-stars, and 12 extra one-stars. We have as many flags officers commanding the 1.4 million GIs today as we had during World War II when 12 million were in uniform

This article was written in 2009. The military is indeed too top heavy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

http://www.g2mil.com/tenured.htm

Most servicemen agree the US military has too many Generals and Admirals, collectively referred to as "flag officers". Does the US military need 919 active duty flag officers serving the equivalent role of corporate vice presidents? That's one flag officer for every 1536 servicemen. Since the 9-11 terror attack, the Pentagon has added 4 additional four-star flag officers, 23 extra three-stars, 5 extra two-stars, and 12 extra one-stars. We have as many flags officers commanding the 1.4 million GIs today as we had during World War II when 12 million were in uniform

This article was written in 2009. The military is indeed too top heavy.

It is all the additional command & support organizations that did not exist during WWII

 

[gingermeggs]

http://www.g2mil.com/tenured.htm




This article was written in 2009. The military is indeed too top heavy.

They are pay offs for a cover up.

 

[palehorse]

You keep saying that, so I just want to be clear... are you basing that statement on the total number of, or known capabilities of, current and potential threats? Or, is the statement based solely on our improved defensive capabilities?

*crickets*

Craig?