I realize I am stirring a hornets nest, but: We keep hearing about budget cuts. Why are there still so many GO's?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:42:03 -0400

This question is multi-part.

In the current age of technology, with the ability to pick up a phone and call across the globe in a fraction of a second, do we still need the number of GO's that we have? Do we need them in the levels that they are? I work in a command that has I believe 3-4 BDEs reporting to a 2-star, but no 1 star in the command. Never has been that I am aware of.

Response by MSG Martinis Butler made Apr 20 at 2014 2:48 AM

MSG Martinis Butler — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:48:26 -0400

I really don't see the need to have that much General Officers that we have. Perhaps someone some place needs a job and holding on to a slot that is not needed, but then on the flip side im not up there that high up on the chain to know all the ins and outs that is needed either. Like they say the grass always looks greener on the other side.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2014 3:02 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:02:25 -0400

I'm not gonna pretend I know how it works up there

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2014 11:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:30:21 -0400

If we're talking about saving money. don't General Officers make more in retirement than they do while on active service?

Response by COL Jonas Vogelhut made Jul 10 at 2014 1:59 PM

COL Jonas Vogelhut — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:59:35 -0400

Understandable, you look at the general officer positions from the perspective of a line unit soldier. How many do we need in our division or corps?

However, sit back and think more corporate. How many generals do we need to interact with our coalition partners? How many do we need to work with congress? How do we build the future of our Army unless we have senior leaders working acquisition, contracting, training, etc? Do you really want to leave those positions to be all civilian, even if some are retired military?

I have seen most general officers have an overwhelming schedule of requirements for their time and attention. Most have a huge scope of responsibility, and limited resources of people and funding to accomplish everything Congress (and America) wants them to do.

Response by Maj Ahron Oddman made Jul 10 at 2014 4:24 PM

Maj Ahron Oddman — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:24:34 -0400

Our branches, broadly speaking have way too many senior executives (Flag Officers), even for organizations as large as they are. Technology can certainly be leveraged to increase a General's span of control / influence. Furthermore, setting a strategy and letting his subordinate commanders execute should be a mantra that alleviates the need for other Generals downstream. Said another way, if Generals set strategy and make institution level decision, why would I want more Generals, or in other words more strategy setters between me and my subordinate commanders?
For example, the Commandant sets a strategy for the Marine Corps, then between him and my CO (a Colonel), there's say 15 Flag Officers that are going to reinterpret his directions, then modify it to fit my division's mission / capabilities, and before you know it, the Commandant has to wait 2-3 years for me to lift a finger executing his original direction.
This may be a very simplified parody of what happens, but my point is that senior executives make an organization more vertical, slow innovation and they ARE the actually inertia that exists in our organizations.