Read the whole thing but this struck me as crazy...
The Naval Vessel Registry lists 245 active hulls as of June, 2011. The same registry lists 268 Flag Officers: 243 Active, 22 Active Duty for Special Work, and 3 Full Time Support. Last time I walked the Naval Station piers, only three ships had broken an Admiral’s Flag at the masthead.
What has me pounding my head is the idea that every US Navy ship could be commanded by an Admiral. I was high and to the right and ready to post in the comments section how freaking insane that is and why someone hasn't done anything about it.
Then I thought about the Marine Corps. From various sources, the word is that the Marine Corps is capped at 80 general officers.
80.
Eight - Zero.
For a force that at its height in modern history might have numbered 202, 000 men.
That's roughly a General for every 2500 Marines.
A General for every 2500 Marines! Say it out loud and see if that makes sense to you.
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? (I don't even want to look at the number of Colonels.)
We won't be lean. We won't be expeditionary. We won't be the Marine Corps that the nation deserves until we get as savage when it comes to promotion and retention at the top as we are at the bottom...by my estimation we could cut at least 1/2 these billets with no difficulty.
We should do it today.
At one point in the 90's I heard that the US Army in Europe had drawn down the combat elements but left the generals in place. It got to the point where there were enough generals to command every battalion still in place. I wonder if its gotten any better...
ReplyDeletewell it looks like we're back to the future then. i never hear that story about the Army in Europe but that's insane.
ReplyDeletethe big problem i see is that the Marine Corps looks like its following that lead.
this is SHAMEFUL!
my dad spent 20 years in the army, then retired and served 3 more years just a few years ago as a volunteer recall during the height of the Iraq war. i remember asking him one time if he had ever aspired to a general and he essentially said he was a good solider, and becoming a general was very political and he wanted to be known for his ability to be a good solider and not his politics, so he didnt want to do the ass kissing it takes to get those ranks, even though he was offered a spot as a major at the pentagon. he turned it down adn retired so we could stay where we were because he didnt want to move his family to DC from georgia, especially since we knew the medical people there to help with my disability. if only more
ReplyDelete"generals" had a fraction of the honor my dad does. theres a good quote from Aristophanes who said "Ah! The generals! They are numerous but not good for much!" so they must have had the same problems in the third and fourth centuries BC :)
yeah i hear ya Joe.
ReplyDeleteand i think your dad was right about the politics of it....but while your quote at the end of your statement probably sums it up quite well historically, that doesn't mean that we have to accept it today.
especially in the Marine Corps. i mean, all propaganda to the front...all chest thumping to the front....the Marines are suppose to be the "warriors elite".
our tooth to tail ratio must be in the mud.
oh i agree we shouldnt have to accept it, and some pruning would definitely be advisable! theres another quote, "a surgeon must cut in order to cure", people want to talk about waste in government, and they talk about wasteful DOD programs but never ask about the wasteful positions. i wonder how much this is jsut a cold war relic though. we needed alot of people when we had a much larger army (sorry i dont remember the size of the USMC during the cold war) but even though we have decreased the size of the military substantially we havent decreased the number of flag officers. congress would be advisable to have some sort of ratio, for so many x units (divisions, brigades) along with other commands, there are y number of generals, and cap that number and only in special circumstances can it go above that.
ReplyDeletealso one of the problems could be, and i might be wrong is those below generals must retire after 30 years, and generals dont have to. how this makes no sense. if someone joins at 18 - 22 (assuming maybe they did some college first), that would be 48-52, still VERY able with a wealth of experience, yet without stars, they must retire if i am not mistaken.
i'm still trying to figure out the staffing issue.
ReplyDeletethe tip of the spear...the MEU's are commanded by Colonel's. we have MEF's forward deployed in Afghanistan and MEB's rate Brigadier or Major Generals and MEF's Lt or Generals.
it still doesn't account for the 80 spots if you look at the unit structure (including schools).
we obviously have some guys doing stuff thats pure staff work.
i guess we're really talking Pentagon politics. if the Air Force or Army has a general on one side of the table then its not 'advantageous' to have a Col or Lt Col on the other side.
thats the only excuse i could think of and its still doesn't satisfy.
i wish i knew the answer on this one.
my other thought is that with the Marine Corps push to be a separate service, that this might have been one of the results. instead of the Navy picking up some of those billets, they reverted to the Marine Corps which is making us top heavy...just like everyone else.
and from what i have heard about some complaints is that we have alot of people at the top, and alot of younger guys, but the middle of the command is suffering. so many are rushing for promotions we may not have a strong NCO corps or middle officers. i personally dont think we give enough credit to those NCOs.
ReplyDelete@ Solomon: "it still doesn't account for the 80 spots if you look at the unit structure (including schools)."
ReplyDeleteAre you including all the joint billets that fall outside of the structure of the individual services?
one more concern i have, and this might be below the belt argument but if the military wants to cut costs, why not let the excess number of generals just retire, and cut down on the healthcare costs. they bitch personnel and healthcare is eating their budgets but keeping generals is keeping people who are most likely to have health issues.
ReplyDelete