Senior Officers Are Not the "Villain"

[rangerrebew]

Senior Officers Are Not the "Villain"
By Steve Wills
May 09, 2025
 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plan to cut 20% of four-star officers and 10% of the rest of the general and flag officer community is yet another in a long series to manage what has been perceived as an excess of senior military leaders in the U.S. armed forces.

Critics of current flag officer numbers some times compare current rosters of admirals and generals to the much smaller number of such leaders relative to enlisted personnel during the Second World War. Large numbers of flag and general officers have been said to reduce efficiency and limit warfighting potential. Having more admirals and generals produces more retired officers in those ranks who often get accused of trying to influence defense acquisition choices as members of corporate boards after they retire. The real villain in this process is not the senior officers but rather the explosion of joint and interagency staffs since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the inception of the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986. This growth in joint and interagency positions has in turn demanded a larger number of senior leaders to manage them. Any meaningful reductions in the general and admiral ranks must begin with a look at the staff swamp that created them.

The number of admirals and generals relative to the overall number of troops has been the operative question in flag officer limitations for decades rather than their overall numbers, which by the end of World War two were in the thousands of officers. Before 1980 the military services controlled officer promotions, and the Army and Navy employed quite different systems of officer management. The 1980 Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) mandated common officer management processes across the services, using an “up or out” system that forced officers out of service earlier than in civilian careers. It also imposed some initial caps on numbers of flag officers which had risen over the Cold War, not so much in overall numbers, but instead relative to the overall number of people in uniform. DOPMA stated that no general officer appointments that created more than 25% of all flag and general officers above two star rank could be made. In 1987, Congress replaced the ad hoc grade cap exemptions, many of which had occurred since DOPMA, with a general mechanism allowing up to 15 percent of all three- and four-star grades to be transferred between services by offsetting any increase in one service with a corresponding decrease in another service, keeping the total number constant.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/09/cut_staffs_before_flag_and_general_officers_for_real_savings_1109414.html

[rangerrebew]

"Calls for flag officer reductions appeal to many constituencies, from defense budget hawks intent on cost reductions to some veteran groups who think current U.S. leaders are like the much-maligned “chateau generals” of the First World War. Real savings in defense spending, and the support that comes with that takes time, and can be achieved through a deep dive into the nation’s vast defense bureaucracy rather than high-profile cuts in high-ranking leadership."

But when Trump, via DOGE, tries to do exactly this, editorialists, reporters, democrats, and rinos call him a villain.  The bottom line is anti-Trumpers are not necessarily pro American and, in fact, may be anti-American because he's doing the things needed to make America great again.