Posted on Aug 15, 2022
Is our Military bloated at the top and corrupted?
11.2K
247
42
60
60
0
I recently watched an interview with Col. Doug Macgregor, who stated that today's military largely exist to provide jobs for Generals. Today we have about 40 (4-star) Generals and Admirals across the military. In WWII when we had 12.2 million men under arms across the world, we only had 7 (4-stars). Today we have approx 1.1 million troops under arms. Many of our Generals today have more decorations than any General at any other time, but have they actually earned them under fire or for being valorous? So I pose the question, "Does this rank creep clutter the chain of command and add too many bureaucratic layers to decision making to be practical and constipates the chain of command and actually hurts our Armed Forces readiness?
Military service
Military History
Leadership
Readiness
Branch
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 27
25
25
0
15
15
0
Bloated? Yes.
Corrupt? Not so much. It is a different problem. Lemme esplain....
In today's military, Company grade officers (O1-O3) are "pure" leaders and staffers. Many of them may be brown-nosers, "yes men," etc. And while that usually doesn't hurt them, it generally doesn't HELP them, either. They are rated, first and foremost on their mission effectiveness. A Company grade officer that brooks no BS and gets the job done will be lauded. Even if the BS they refuse to brook comes from politicians, senior Officers, etc. (That is not saying they get a pass for refusing orders, but they *do* get a pass for looking at their boss and saying "It's a stupid F'ing idea, but we'll get it done.")
Field grade officers (O4-O6) are primarily leaders, but need to be politically savvy. They need tact, they start the networking, and they are building their reputation. By the time the make O6, they must be just as aware, if not MORE aware, of the external impact of their orders as they are of the impact on the mission and the Soldiers assigned. It is no longer enough to win, you have to win "pretty." Not only are Field grades worried about the hearts and minds of the local populace, they are worried about hearts and minds on Americans back home eading about / watching the battles in the media.
Today's Flag Officers are politicians. Period. Generals and Admirals care far more about what happens inside the beltway than inside the battlespace. Even when they are the person in charge of the battlespace. For some, this is the culmination of their efforts. For others (and my guess is that this group is the majority) the politics are a necessary evil. They politic because SOMEONE has to, and if they don't their troops will get shat upon. But whether it is by desire or by necessity, they all politic. The ones who don't never see their second star.
I was told be a very Senior COL that it was widely viewed that a LTC was a successful career. A COL is a VERY successful career. And 2 or more stars is a PHENOMENAL career. But retiring (i.e. being booted) with one star is viewed as an abject failure. Those who get their star and don't play ball, don't get a second one. They get booted to make room for those who will.
Corrupt? Not so much. It is a different problem. Lemme esplain....
In today's military, Company grade officers (O1-O3) are "pure" leaders and staffers. Many of them may be brown-nosers, "yes men," etc. And while that usually doesn't hurt them, it generally doesn't HELP them, either. They are rated, first and foremost on their mission effectiveness. A Company grade officer that brooks no BS and gets the job done will be lauded. Even if the BS they refuse to brook comes from politicians, senior Officers, etc. (That is not saying they get a pass for refusing orders, but they *do* get a pass for looking at their boss and saying "It's a stupid F'ing idea, but we'll get it done.")
Field grade officers (O4-O6) are primarily leaders, but need to be politically savvy. They need tact, they start the networking, and they are building their reputation. By the time the make O6, they must be just as aware, if not MORE aware, of the external impact of their orders as they are of the impact on the mission and the Soldiers assigned. It is no longer enough to win, you have to win "pretty." Not only are Field grades worried about the hearts and minds of the local populace, they are worried about hearts and minds on Americans back home eading about / watching the battles in the media.
Today's Flag Officers are politicians. Period. Generals and Admirals care far more about what happens inside the beltway than inside the battlespace. Even when they are the person in charge of the battlespace. For some, this is the culmination of their efforts. For others (and my guess is that this group is the majority) the politics are a necessary evil. They politic because SOMEONE has to, and if they don't their troops will get shat upon. But whether it is by desire or by necessity, they all politic. The ones who don't never see their second star.
I was told be a very Senior COL that it was widely viewed that a LTC was a successful career. A COL is a VERY successful career. And 2 or more stars is a PHENOMENAL career. But retiring (i.e. being booted) with one star is viewed as an abject failure. Those who get their star and don't play ball, don't get a second one. They get booted to make room for those who will.
(15)
(0)
CSM Bob Stanek
SFC Casey O'Mally MSG Darren Gaddy
Having worked as a nominative CSM at the two-star division level for three years under three different commanders (two 2-stars and a 1-star each with one year in position before moving on to a higher level position), I can confirm a few things about general officers in the military, in my opinion only, based on my six years experience as a nominative (General Officer) CSM. My comments below are based on experience with the GO community and not official policy or correct method of how they select general officers. Just an opinion...
First off, to make a couple minor corrections reference the initial question on the number of general officers during World War II and today. There were approximately 2,000 general or flag officers (GOs/FOs) on active duty between the three services (Army, Marines and the Navy, as the AF was still an arm of the Army until 1947) and during the six years or so of World War II (1939-45).
Also, understand that the numbers of GOs/FOs positions dramatically changed for multiple reasons, including the addition of at least seven or more critical 4-star billets (of any service) acting as Commander in Chief for regional command positions spread through-out the world. These positions didn't exist prior to the early 50s when the world became a more stable environment based on the US's military stance as a peace bearing overseer. Included with these command positions, they spread to all the staff officers under them that include a number of 1, 2, and 3-start billets as well.
That said, today there are approximately 1,100 active duty GO/FO positions for the US Military around the world between the six services (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and the newly formed Space Force). Generally, there can not be more GOs/FOs then positions, so you won't see any excess GOs or FOs like you did during the World War II time frame. Literally, a GO or FO must retire or pass away before their position is filled with a newly promoted general. There will be open positions and some personnel on a promotion list, but you will never see a "GO/FO" walking around with (P) behind their rank or name.
So is the military bloated with GOs/FOs. I'd say no. Are they more than in the past, NOT REALLY. Its a different world today compared to 80 years or so ago.
CORRUPT? = Well that is another issue. I don't believe the GOs/FOs as a group are corrupt although there might be individual exceptions. Most though are definitely politically influenced and in most cases career "motivated"!
I concur with much of SFC O'Mally's comments reference company and field grade officers for the most part except for O6s, others are minor differences that don't need discussion at this time for the lower ranking officers.
The big difference covers the O6s/COLONELs and most 1-Stars GOs. Almost all colonels process through positions first as a STAFF Officer and then into a position of brigade level leadership. And in most O6 cases (exceptions for the medical community doctors and nurses and some other minor non-military type careers) have asperations of becoming a General Officer, though few will openly admit it.
I have had numerous conversations with many O6s about career progression before and after selection boards, as well as offered opinion to my Commanders reference the couple dozen or so O6s under their leadership. Topics discussed include "political", mentorship, leadership traits and "biased and or toxic" commanders. In many cases, the O6s not selected for promotion to O7 feel that they were slighted by the commander or the board and say things like it was "political" and "toxic leadership" by their existing commander that prevented them from being selected for promotion. It usually is not the case.
Promotion to O7 is very much a "networking" situation more so than a "political" or biased selection. Selection boards for nominative officers (O7 thru O8) are based on "who knows whom" and the input from board members on who they know. Word of mouth is critical at that level. Most of the board members are unbiased in their recommendations and usually are based on discussions and personal knowledge of candidates being considered.
Remember the number of nominative officers are so few, it is a very closed knitted, and well connected community of extremely knowledgeable and intelligent personnel. Hard to put five board members on a selection board without at least one of the board members specifically knowing the candidate in question. The same works true but in an opposite manner when they have to conduct a court martial for a general officer in that its extremely hard to find enough GOs to serve on the MCM board as most GOs have a personal relationship with the GO being court martialed.
With all that, understand GOs are constantly viewed and monitored for performance more than any other level of officers. Getting to be a 1-star is difficult but obtainable, but getting to become a 2-star is far more difficult and so few make it. It is almost easier to win a lottery than become a 2-star GO. Any failure on their own part, or by any staff member under their leadership negatively affects the GO, even if they have no involvement with the negative action by the junior officer. I have watched a few well deserving 1-stars fall to this fate.
So politics aside, GO promotions are very much performance based probably more so then just about any other officer position, in my honest opinion. Do they care about what happens inside the Pentagon and other senior level commands, YES because they are subordinates as well, just like we are as common soldiers, marines, sailors, air men, coast guard sailors or other military personnel. Battlefield decisions in war or peace are monitored closely and factor into their next career move (whether a follow on staff position or another promotion). But in backroom conversations, they will voice that they prefer to leave independent careers with no more supervision then any other career military officer.
I agree that LTC (O5) level is considered a very successful career for most officers as the O6 level of competition is very fierce. On the enlisted side, the services have different levels of success. IN the Army, E8 (MSG or 1SG) is the critical point. For the Air Force and Navy E7 is that point. For the Marines, many consider a successful career once they reach E6 (SSG) in my opinion with other service members.
Hope that sheds some light on both subjects.
Respectfully
Bob S
CSM (R)
Having worked as a nominative CSM at the two-star division level for three years under three different commanders (two 2-stars and a 1-star each with one year in position before moving on to a higher level position), I can confirm a few things about general officers in the military, in my opinion only, based on my six years experience as a nominative (General Officer) CSM. My comments below are based on experience with the GO community and not official policy or correct method of how they select general officers. Just an opinion...
First off, to make a couple minor corrections reference the initial question on the number of general officers during World War II and today. There were approximately 2,000 general or flag officers (GOs/FOs) on active duty between the three services (Army, Marines and the Navy, as the AF was still an arm of the Army until 1947) and during the six years or so of World War II (1939-45).
Also, understand that the numbers of GOs/FOs positions dramatically changed for multiple reasons, including the addition of at least seven or more critical 4-star billets (of any service) acting as Commander in Chief for regional command positions spread through-out the world. These positions didn't exist prior to the early 50s when the world became a more stable environment based on the US's military stance as a peace bearing overseer. Included with these command positions, they spread to all the staff officers under them that include a number of 1, 2, and 3-start billets as well.
That said, today there are approximately 1,100 active duty GO/FO positions for the US Military around the world between the six services (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and the newly formed Space Force). Generally, there can not be more GOs/FOs then positions, so you won't see any excess GOs or FOs like you did during the World War II time frame. Literally, a GO or FO must retire or pass away before their position is filled with a newly promoted general. There will be open positions and some personnel on a promotion list, but you will never see a "GO/FO" walking around with (P) behind their rank or name.
So is the military bloated with GOs/FOs. I'd say no. Are they more than in the past, NOT REALLY. Its a different world today compared to 80 years or so ago.
CORRUPT? = Well that is another issue. I don't believe the GOs/FOs as a group are corrupt although there might be individual exceptions. Most though are definitely politically influenced and in most cases career "motivated"!
I concur with much of SFC O'Mally's comments reference company and field grade officers for the most part except for O6s, others are minor differences that don't need discussion at this time for the lower ranking officers.
The big difference covers the O6s/COLONELs and most 1-Stars GOs. Almost all colonels process through positions first as a STAFF Officer and then into a position of brigade level leadership. And in most O6 cases (exceptions for the medical community doctors and nurses and some other minor non-military type careers) have asperations of becoming a General Officer, though few will openly admit it.
I have had numerous conversations with many O6s about career progression before and after selection boards, as well as offered opinion to my Commanders reference the couple dozen or so O6s under their leadership. Topics discussed include "political", mentorship, leadership traits and "biased and or toxic" commanders. In many cases, the O6s not selected for promotion to O7 feel that they were slighted by the commander or the board and say things like it was "political" and "toxic leadership" by their existing commander that prevented them from being selected for promotion. It usually is not the case.
Promotion to O7 is very much a "networking" situation more so than a "political" or biased selection. Selection boards for nominative officers (O7 thru O8) are based on "who knows whom" and the input from board members on who they know. Word of mouth is critical at that level. Most of the board members are unbiased in their recommendations and usually are based on discussions and personal knowledge of candidates being considered.
Remember the number of nominative officers are so few, it is a very closed knitted, and well connected community of extremely knowledgeable and intelligent personnel. Hard to put five board members on a selection board without at least one of the board members specifically knowing the candidate in question. The same works true but in an opposite manner when they have to conduct a court martial for a general officer in that its extremely hard to find enough GOs to serve on the MCM board as most GOs have a personal relationship with the GO being court martialed.
With all that, understand GOs are constantly viewed and monitored for performance more than any other level of officers. Getting to be a 1-star is difficult but obtainable, but getting to become a 2-star is far more difficult and so few make it. It is almost easier to win a lottery than become a 2-star GO. Any failure on their own part, or by any staff member under their leadership negatively affects the GO, even if they have no involvement with the negative action by the junior officer. I have watched a few well deserving 1-stars fall to this fate.
So politics aside, GO promotions are very much performance based probably more so then just about any other officer position, in my honest opinion. Do they care about what happens inside the Pentagon and other senior level commands, YES because they are subordinates as well, just like we are as common soldiers, marines, sailors, air men, coast guard sailors or other military personnel. Battlefield decisions in war or peace are monitored closely and factor into their next career move (whether a follow on staff position or another promotion). But in backroom conversations, they will voice that they prefer to leave independent careers with no more supervision then any other career military officer.
I agree that LTC (O5) level is considered a very successful career for most officers as the O6 level of competition is very fierce. On the enlisted side, the services have different levels of success. IN the Army, E8 (MSG or 1SG) is the critical point. For the Air Force and Navy E7 is that point. For the Marines, many consider a successful career once they reach E6 (SSG) in my opinion with other service members.
Hope that sheds some light on both subjects.
Respectfully
Bob S
CSM (R)
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CSM Bob Stanek CSM,
I, personally, really appreciate your insight and thorough input. I would quibble with some, but I would be quibbling.
Thank you.
I, personally, really appreciate your insight and thorough input. I would quibble with some, but I would be quibbling.
Thank you.
(1)
(0)
MSG Darren Gaddy
CSM Bob Stanek - Thanks for you input CSM. Insight and experience often tells us so much more than what we hear or read. I've only really been around 1/2 stars, but they were super informed and intelligent. I guess with the scrutiny of everything also it has to be much tougher than I could imagine. Thanks again.
(1)
(0)
14
14
0
There's probably more generals than needed, but the current infrastructure requires more than 7 4-stars and the respective 3,2,1 stars. Regarding decorations -- everyone gets a trophy in our society, the military is no different
(14)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google