What do you think: Too many flag officers?
Published: August 26, 2010
The New York Times today has a piece on the backlash to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to slash the number of flag and general officers, as part of broader cost-cutting measures. The number of generals and admirals has grown by about 100 since 2001, and Gates has vowed to trim at least 50 from the ranks in coming years.
But critics have charged that the move won't really save significant money -- perhaps a few million dollars in a $700-billion-plus defense budget. And the Times interviewed several retired generals who argued the top officers' skills and knowledge is needed to keep the military prepared for future challenges, and bristled at the idea that they represent rampant government waste.
About 150 senior executive civilian positions will be trimmed too, under Gates' plan. He expects many of the lost jobs to be handled by "personnel of lower rank," noting that many of the tasks and offices that have been created in the last decade do not warrant a senior officer.
Generals' and admirals' staffs can range from a few personnel to a small army, and Gates said many of those troops doing the actual work in the offices can step in without the high-ranking guidance.
Do you think the military can dump 50 generals and admirals without losing any capabilities? Or do all those stars actually stand for critical skills and responsibilities?
Sound off in the comments section below.
Due to a switchover to a new comment system, this comment board is now closed.
