What do YOU think of the President pushing Congress to reduce 3, 2, 1 Star Generals by 25%?

SPC Terry Martin — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:27:49 -0400

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2016 9:29 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:29:48 -0400

Makes sense if they are walking brigade sized elements...less stars needed.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jun 15 at 2016 9:29 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:29:55 -0400

The Generals earned their pay, reduce it and you may be next.
OOPS, misread that one thought it was about pay.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Jun 15 at 2016 9:31 PM

MGySgt James Forward — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:31:00 -0400

A Blanket cut may do more harm than good. In the Corps we don't have that many to begin with. Would need to see a study on "Why" this needs to be accomplished. Cutting for no reason is not very smart. Semper Fi.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 15 at 2016 9:58 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:58:56 -0400

Let's just hope we still have a military by January 2017.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2016 10:24 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:24:50 -0400

In the Army we are crawling with General Officers that are doing jobs that could easily be accomplished by Colonels.
I'd like to see way fewer Flag Officers in Staff billets. Seems like it is a place to park GOs until a command pops up.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jun 15 at 2016 10:47 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:47:05 -0400

I am for it, so long as it makes sense, AND the selection process for who leaves is with the Joint Chiefs and not with POTUS. I don't want the POTUS (this one or whoever the next one is) to have the power to make it look like a loyalty purge.
With fewer troops you need fewer Generals to command them.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jun 16 at 2016 12:04 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:04:27 -0400

That is only to free up more $ for his favorite give-aways! SPC Terry Martin

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Jun 16 at 2016 12:20 AM

SGT Tony Clifford — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:20:17 -0400

I would say that if the general is in a redundant position or on not really fitting for his grade it should reflect in his OER and that's all they really need to do. Kind of like being rated in a position beneath your grade as an NCO on th NCOER is like a kiss of death for your career. If the BG, MG, or LTG isn't doing the work of a BG, MG, or LTG he isn't performing at the level he's being paid for.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 16 at 2016 12:29 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:29:37 -0400

Is President Obama's directive supported by any rational?

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 16 at 2016 1:15 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 01:15:16 -0400

I would reduce some of those 4 star gurus too

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 16 at 2016 3:07 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 03:07:37 -0400

The President is cutting back on the military at all levels when the threats around the world are increasing.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 16 at 2016 8:25 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:25:30 -0400

SPC Terry Martin The number of General Officers should be determined by the force structure and level of responsibility required for the position, not some knee-jerk opinion or arbitrary across-the-board salami slice of a certain percentage.

A good start would be to standardize rank/positions across the various components. For example, Military Police brigade commanders in the Reserve Components are Brigadier Generals, while they are Colonels in the Active force. In addition, some positions/ranks are "elevated" in joint commands and combined command to match (and many times out-rank) the other services/countries personnel.

This needs to be seriously studied by active or retired senior military officers, not civilians/politicians.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Jun 16 at 2016 9:56 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:56:24 -0400

We've got something like 42 GOs at Fort Bragg alone. And you figure that each Division HQ has at least three,maybe 4 generals: the Commander, the DCG-Ops, DCG-Sustainment and maybe a "DCG-Interoperability" just to make it even. Given the pyramidal nature of these staffs, it seems that we could probably accomplish at least as much with less. Markedly less in some cases.

That said, I am not certain that President Obama's decisions on matter such as this are as sound as they could be.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 16 at 2016 11:55 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:55:38 -0400

I don't have enough information to give a solid thumbs up but have seen enough in my career to know we're top heavy. Given that, there's a problem with picking a number vs. determining a number. You'll undershoot and not solve much or overshoot and harm the military. Then there will be the massive food fight with implementation. I'd suspect the support side (logistics, facilities, medical, etc.) will suffer a much higher pro rata loss because the warfighting side will assert their superior importance. If you're going to knock down flags, then the whole structure down to O-5 should be put on a diet. I've been in an O-5 job where I knew a good O-4 could/should be doing it but the O-5 billet was a force structure requirement for mobilization as my "realm" would expand greatly.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jun 16 at 2016 12:30 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:30:31 -0400

I'm for it. Can't speak to exactly how it is now, but back in the 80s we suddenly saw 1 stars becoming Wing Commanders. Why? Colonels had been doing this job quite well for years, but a "Reorganization" suddenly said a general was needed. If nothing else we can help with budget issues by reducing the number of generals. It's a cost cutting move that is seen in the civilian world all the time

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Jun 16 at 2016 1:06 PM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:06:44 -0400

Simple - "BS!"

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 16 at 2016 1:30 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:30:39 -0400

The promise to reduce flag ranks by 25% was made years ago by Hagel. Each and every one has to have the appropriate staff and prestige costs associated with the ranks. How many rifle toters could be kept in service at the cost of a single General or Admiral? The number of Flag Ranks has grown to a point that a Bird Col. is like a Major in the past. Civilians work for seven levels from the lowest worker to the top, and that works fairly well when used.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 17 at 2016 10:19 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:19:44 -0400

I see no issue with it. Every other rank is making cuts, it only makes sense to make cuts at the top as well. That being said, with the amount of money saved from their salaries, we'd be able to increase the size of the bottom ranks a little quicker if we needed to shore up our numbers again.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2016 10:00 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:00:11 -0400

Why not, the powers that be have no problem stripping out E6 and E7 with 15-18 years of service under the guise of the QMP program. I have seen some reasons and while some are justified... DUI.. duh.. 4/4 NCOER, NO in Values section, I have seen more that are... really?
A15 11 years prior as an E3 (for missing duty), 3/3 NCOER, GOMOR for face book posts, basically anything. If the Army has to dig back 11 years to give a reason to kick you out at 17.... something points to >>we dont want you to to get a paid retirement<<

(no this did not happen to me, just got my retirement orders today!)

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2018 3:57 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:57:38 -0400

The number of GOs and Flag officers grew dramatically during Operation Desert Storm. Force Structure should drive manning but there may be an argument made that GO and Flag billets have increased as a means of politics more than from necessity.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 9 at 2020 9:58 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 09:58:31 -0400

An old commitment doomed from the beginning.

Response by SGT James Murphy made Mar 9 at 2020 12:17 PM

SGT James Murphy — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:17:39 -0400

Too Many chiefs to begin with. Everyone knows the First Sgt is the one that Runs the Outfit! 8-) Oh... Boy.... Now I started Something.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2020 12:21 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:21:07 -0400

Far above my grade, PFC.