# The Cost of a Top Heavy Military



## BloodStripe (Mar 16, 2015)

http://www.thirdway.org/report/star-creep-the-costs-of-a-top-heavy-military

The data is a few years old, but we now have 20% more three and four star Generals than at the end of the cold war. Meanwhile, there is roughly 30% fewer active duty military members during that same time period.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 16, 2015)

The article is flawed IMO, in that it doesn't i.d. the 4-star billets, and recommend some for elimination.
Everyone wants a reduction in GO Billets, but no one wants their favorite GO Billet cut.
State Department needs to hire retired 3/4 stars and use them for the various conferences AD GO's now attend.
I'd shit can USAFE/PACAF and flat out eliminate 1/3 of the staff positions.
I'd send 1/3 of the non GO Staff jobs to ACC, and the remaining 1/3 non GO Staff to the theater AF's.
ACC would lose it's warfighting status, and concentrate on Equipping, training and validating forces.
Numbered AF's would be the highest AF component in theater (these are 3-star slots).
I'd slowly, surely reduce the numbered AF to one per combatant command.
I'd look at the Combatant Commands to see if we could start reducing those, or at least drop from a four star to three star Cdr.

I am sure the Army and Navy could do the same.


----------



## reed11b (Mar 17, 2015)

Can't agree more. Army is full of garbage "commands"as well. Space Command?, Cyber Command? HRC! (Oh to nuke HRC) etc etc.
Reed


----------



## busdriver (Mar 17, 2015)

DA SWO, curious about your reference to ACC having war fighting status.  It doesn't have that now, but I'm assuming you know that and are referring to some kind of influence you don't agree with?  

I think there's definitely some merit to bringing staff positions back to ACC, most staffs are undermanned at the FGO level (lot's of retired civilians, some really retired; this is also where that fighter pilot shortage you hear about is actually happening) and having a healthy "hub" would be helpful.  PACAF has already done that to some extent.  I still don't fully grasp the role of a NAF vs COCOM, at least not in the modern AF construct.

Unfortunately joint/inter-service fights are what drives the rank structure up.  If the AF needs to argue a position vs the Army, having a lower rank hurts your argument, regardless of content; and yes that is stupid and sad all at the same time.  Same problem with competing interests within the service (Space vs Cyber vs Bombers vs Fighters, etc etc) and it's still sad and stupid.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 17, 2015)

I haven't looked at the study, but concentrating on just the numbers isn't the answer.  Things are a little more complicated now than they were in the Cold War, and a LOT more complicated than they were WWII.  Some of the rank inflation is due to the complexity of the jobs that exist now that didn't exist in the past.

Even jobs that existed in the past are more complicated; JSOC used to be a 2-star command and in just the time I"ve been in it got raised to 3*.  We need to take a look at each job, not just at the overall numbers.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 18, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> I haven't looked at the study, but concentrating on just the numbers isn't the answer.  Things are a little more complicated now than they were in the Cold War, and a LOT more complicated than they were WWII.  Some of the rank inflation is due to the complexity of the jobs that exist now that didn't exist in the past.
> 
> Even jobs that existed in the past are more complicated; JSOC used to be a 2-star command and in just the time I"ve been in it got raised to 3*.  We need to take a look at each job, not just at the overall numbers.


But other organizations keep the same level as they shrink.
We also need to ask if an organization has a star just to get a good seat at the table? If so, the solution might be to slap the guy sitting at the head of the table.


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2015)

ACC is the devil. I know of one instance where it told AFCENT to pound sand, jamming an unnecessary program into theater over AFCENT's (CENTAF at the time) objections. AFCENT had to man and support something it didn't want in the first place which also causing second- and third-order effects, some of which effected operations. I'm working with another where ACC is taking the oversight and requirements to a new level of micromanagement which has resulted (surprise, surprise!) in an increase in uniformed, GS, and contracted personnel.

ACC may be THE Air Force, but it inserts itself where it doesn't belong. My limited interaction makes it seem like a playground bully, kind of a "We're ACC and we're better than you so you will do what we say."


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 18, 2015)

busdriver said:


> DA SWO, curious about your reference to ACC having war fighting status.  It doesn't have that now, but I'm assuming you know that and are referring to some kind of influence you don't agree with?
> 
> I think there's definitely some merit to bringing staff positions back to ACC, most staffs are undermanned at the FGO level (lot's of retired civilians, some really retired; this is also where that fighter pilot shortage you hear about is actually happening) and having a healthy "hub" would be helpful.  PACAF has already done that to some extent.  I still don't fully grasp the role of a NAF vs COCOM, at least not in the modern AF construct.
> 
> Unfortunately joint/inter-service fights are what drives the rank structure up.  If the AF needs to argue a position vs the Army, having a lower rank hurts your argument, regardless of content; and yes that is stupid and sad all at the same time.  Same problem with competing interests within the service (Space vs Cyber vs Bombers vs Fighters, etc etc) and it's still sad and stupid.


ACC may not be a warfighting command, but COMACC supervises the NAF Cdrs.
The Warfighting NAFs should report to the Air Staff and shouldn't even own aircraft/wings until deployed.


----------



## busdriver (Mar 18, 2015)

DA SWO, I don't think that's an official connection I've certainly been wrong before but the NAFs are a subset of the combatant MAJCOMs.  ACC being the unofficial daddy rabbit and a "school yard bully" probably comes from it being the "lead MAJCOM" which means it manages things like munitions allocations, as far as ramming an unwanted program into a COCOM, I got nothing.  That shit shouldn't be happening, I'm actually curious how it did so without an RFF.

Micro management and excessive oversight is the devil in general and certainly not limited to one MAJCOM over another.


----------

