U.S. Military’s Inflated Brass is Burden on Taxpayers, POGO Tells Senate Panel

[FarCenter]

The U.S. military has grown top-heavy in recent years with more generals and admirals doing work that could be performed by lower ranking officers than at any point since the Cold War ended, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) told a Senate panel today.

The average general and admiral has nearly 500 fewer uniformed personnel under their command today than they did in 1991. The Navy and Air Force have led the way in padding the ranks of their top brass while cutting more than 70,000 enlisted personnel and lower ranking officers, as well as reducing the number of aircraft and ships. In fact, the Navy is close to having more admirals than ships for them to command, POGO National Security Fellow Ben Freeman said.

“This progression towards a more top-heavy force is not without its consequences,” Freeman told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel. “It is a burden for both taxpayers and military commanders. The cost of officers increases markedly with their rank, so taxpayers are overpaying whenever a general or flag officer is in a position that could be filled by a lower ranking officer.”

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-wds-20110914.html


Senior officers enjoy base salaries of $227,232 a year and have 500 fewer people under their command than 20 years ago.

[Donnachaidh]

1. Chop From the Top.

Go through EVERY federal agency and start *sharing* the sacrifice with salary cuts, etc.

[happyslug]

4. A fact I heard in the early 1990s, as the Cold war Ended, Enlisted ranks to Officer was 1:6,

One officer to every six enlisted ranks does NOT sound that bad, but during WWII, the rations was 1:13, i.e. for every Officer there were 13 enlisted personal.

We also have to remember, that NCOs (Sargents and Petty Officers) are counted as ENLISTED personal NOT Officers in that ratio.

When I was in, we rarely saw an officer, most were doing was Lieutenants should be doing, kissing up to the Colonel so they can get promoted. The Company was run by the First Sargent, the Officers were technically in command, but they left the First Sargent run the Unit. Now, as you entered Battalion and higher command structure, you ended up with more and more Officers. This is were the NCOs and Officers intermixed. During Vietnam, General Westmoreland had a rule, while everyone had to service one year in Vietnam, Officers had to spend six months at Headquarters, either before or after servicing in the field. This seems to be the General Rules as to Commissioned Officers, they exist NOT so much as to lead the enlisted ranks, but to guide them and direct them to do what has to be done (This follows General von Moltke's the Elder's policy of "Mission Tactics" giving the decision on how to do an mission to the person doing the mission, even if that means a private. The purpose of officers are to direct and guide such missions and to make sure the lower ranks KNOW what the mission is and to co-ordinate the actions of the enlisted ranks. Von Moltke's is suppose to have called the Union Army of the US Civil War an "Armed Mob", and then told his officers that is what he wanted the German Army to be, a Mob, directed by the Officer Corp to an objection. A Mob tends to have a mind of its own, and tends to move as one, even as the Mob does NOT have a leader. That is what Von Moltke's wanted the German Army to be and at the same time having the Officers being able to direct that Mob to the objectives wanted.

In many ways, Officers since von Moltke's time have been to make sure the Enlisted ranks have the supported they need, food, ammunition, artillery, naval and Air Support in addition to Guidance. To make sure the "Mob" is feed, clothed and has weapons and ammunition takes up a lot of time of any army, and that is the prime mission of most officers even during war time. Thus this is something a person with rank has to do.

My problem is how many officers do you really need to perform these functions? Till 1947 NCOs could and did fly planes (Since 1947 only Commissioned Officers could become pilots, NCO pilots made prior to 1947 could still fly, at least one flew till the early 1970s, when the Navy finally phased out it last Flying boat), why does it take a Commissioned Officer to fly a plane? The M1 tanks cost almost as much as a Jet Fighter, but is operated by Enlisted Ranks. Tractor Trailers, operating over rough terrain as part of a Supply system, have to navigate almost to the same extend as a pilot, yet all of them are enlisted personal. As to the Fighters, the people working on the Planes, all enlisted personal, have to be able to operate it to work on it, but they can NOT be pilots?.

The problem with the Officer ranks, is we have to many officers doing jobs enlisted ranks could do at less pay. In non-glamorous position, tank crewman, tractor trailer operator, etc, officers do NOT want these position so they stay reserved to enlisted ranks (And to Warrant Officers, who tend to be highly trained ex-enlisted ranks), We need to re-think who is an officer and why, as while as cut out most of them as duplicating jobs enlisted personal can do.

[msongs]

5. forward he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died - that's what officers do nt nt

[FarCenter]

6. and the General sat, and the lines on the map / moved from side to side n/t

[L0oniX]

2. ...and who knows what Top Secret US gov is costing us.

[Johnson20]

3. If IRC

we've "been there, done that" once before in the 70". What needs to be watched is any future reduction in force (RIF) goes up as well as down.