This from SecDef Pete Hegseth during an interview with Shannon Bream,
“We won World War II with seven four star generals, Shannon. We have 44 today … Has it created better outcomes or not? We’re challenging a lot of assumptions at the Pentagon to streamline what we do so that we get as many resources as possible to the warfighter.”[1]
So, stop talking, Pete, and start firing people. Arithmetic says, 44-7 = 37. I’m waiting to see 37 generals fired. Otherwise, it’s all just talk and you’re no different from your predecessors.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/02/23/pete-hegseth-pentagon-trump-administration/
Let's help him out. Here is the Wiki list of Navy Four stars.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_four-star_officers
My picks:
1. Navy nuclear power, downgrade to three-star
2. Navy Europe/Africa, downgrade to three-star
Next up, three stars
China has 30 on-duty top rank generals (3 stars) on its 2 million troops and ~500K central government controlled armed police force.
ReplyDeleteThe three-stars mostly need consolidation.
ReplyDeletehttps://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_three-star_officers#United_States_Marine_Corps
The navy has:
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4)
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Development (N7)
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources (N8
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities (N9)
I'd merge two of those. It's like someone dreamed up jobs for three-stars!
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_three-star_officers#United_States_Marine_Corps
ReplyDeleteMarines don't need a three-star in charge of "information" and strategic forces it don't have. Probably don't need even a one-star for this.
Deputy Commandant for Information (DCI) and
Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Strategic Command (MARFORSTRAT)
And it don't need two three-stars in Quantico for education and training and development. Merge them.
Commanding General, U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM)
Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration (DC, CD&I) and Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC)
TECOM, MCCDC, and the Warfighting Labs need to be merged under the game 3 star in order to develop COPONS and make our training mirror our doctrine and our future procurement priorities mirror our doctrine.
DeleteJust downgrading positions (4 to 3 stars, whatever) doesn't solve the problem. We have too many flag billets, period, and therefore way too many flag officers.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy organization has become bloated. I'm convinced part of the reason the service is such a dumpster fire is because there are so different many offices and flags in the mix that, ultimately, no one is responsible.
The fleet has shrunk drastically yet the shore establishment is at least as big as it's ever been. What's wrong with that picture? We need to cut, condense, and streamline the Navy structure. That also means reducing the brass significantly.
"means reducing the brass significantly."
DeleteYes but that's only part of the problem and not even the main part. The main part of the overall problem is that the Navy is executing far too many non-combat functions such as the various DEI, environmental, legal, public relations, legislative affairs liaisons, regulatory, etc. Most of these need to be eliminated so that the Navy can return its focus to warfighting.
It's not just the flag officers that need to go; it's the functions, as well.
Start with US Navy Korea, with a 1-star who commands nothing.
Deletehttps://www.g2mil.com/chinhae.htm
If you want to think bigger, close Gitmo, or give it to the Army for prison lovers. It requires more Navy manpower than an aircraft carrier and provides no real value.
Deletehttps://www.g2mil.com/closegitmo.htm
I also did a video about closing Gitmo.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHo8KtRYCsQ
Trump talked about it for holding illegals, but wiser heads explained that idea was stupid.
The Navy needs legal staff. It may not need as many legal staff as it has, but it needs some. An organisation full of aggressive young men is inevitably going to find they commit some crimes. Military forces need their own legal systems because some things that are rarely important in civilian life are very serious to the military. Sleeping on sentry duty is the simplest example, but there are plenty more.
DeleteOne of the greatest books I ever read on this subject was Edward Luttwak's, "The Pentagon and the Art of War".
ReplyDeleteHe's been hitting the subject of too many flag officers since he wrote this book in 1984. He believes strongly in small officer corps (4% to 6% range vs today's 15% to 20% range of all personnel) and very few flag officers. Currently it is one for every 600 to 800. He advocates 1 per 6,000 - and if you want to get really austere: 1 Flag officer per 10,000!
The Navy currently has 334 Admirals. Going to 1:6,000 would reduce that down to just 50 Admirals total. It's doable but the biggest change would have to be the (overdue) elimination of the entire Combatant Commander structure and replacing it with the simpler structure Gen. Colin Powell advocated. Each service would head one of the 4 commands:
Army: C-in-C Atlantic
Navy: C-in-C Pacific
Air Force: Strategic Command (Nuclear Missiles)
Marines: Special/Contingency Operations
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/02/24/americas_awol_defense_spending_1093338.html
ReplyDeleteby Major General Don McGregor ret.
" Awol Defense Spending "
1) Bloated Bureaucracy
2) The Cost of Defense Spending
3) Modernizing the Force
4)Global Security Commitments
5) Readiness Concerns
6)Misaligned Priorities
7) Lack of Accountability ( Pentagon has failed 7 straight audits. )
Recommendations
1) Streamline Bureaucracy
2)Reform Defense Spending:
3) Reassess Global Security Priorities
4) Enhance Accountability
"A more potent, more efficient military does not require ever-increasing budgets but a commitment to more intelligent, transparent spending. Through these reforms, the United States can better defend itself, maintain its strategic edge, protect its citizens, and continue to lead on the world stage."
( From what CNO has stated & what has been articulated here, the Navy needs a major transformation.)
A number of posts have pointed out the poor state of the Navy . Wish the new Defense Secretary the best .
Deleteand his new team !
DeleteWell, I don’t know what he meant by we “won with 7 four star generals”, but people seem to interpret as there were *only* 7 four star officers.
ReplyDeleteObviously in WW2 there were a lot more than that (And Don’t forgot to correctly count 5 star officers as well). So I’m not sure what his point is? That he gets his facts from poorly informed sources? That he can’t use Wikipedia?
Actually, I didn't think there 7 four-star generals in WWII. History Answers website lists only 4:
Delete"During World War II, the four-star generals in the United States Army were George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Henry H. Arnold."
"Obviously in WW2 there were a lot more than that"
Where are you getting that from?
There were more. Bradley and Patton were both 4 stars, for instance.
DeleteThe four names listed above were all FIVE star generals, I believe.
Here's a list. If you count all who held the rank from Sep 1, 1939 - Sep 1, 1945, there's a total of 16.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals
I'm not sure where the number 7 came from. Maybe at any given time there were no more than that?
Anyway, I think his point was: we didn't need a lot of 4-star generals to win WW2 and we have way too many now. I'm not going to argue that.
I looked at the list of four star generals from WW2 that were provided in the wiki link above.
DeleteDouglas MacArthur DOR: 21 Nov 1930
Malin Craig DOR: 2 Oct 1935
George C. Marshall DOR: 1 Sep 1939
{John L. Hines DOR: 15 Jun 1940}
(Hines was 82 years old and retired at the time of this promotion)
Dwight D. Eisenhower DOR: 11 Feb 1943
Henry H. Arnold DOR: 19 Mar 1943
Joseph W. Stillwell DOR: 1 Aug 1944
Then there was 9 promotions in March of 1945, two more in April and another in September.
I suppose those last 12 could be considered WW2 ?
But they didn't contribute to winning the war at those ranks.
Lutefisk
Lutefisk: of the seven US 3-star generals who are listed as serving in WW2 before the end in Europe, Hines was as you note promoted after retirement, Craig according to Wikipedia retired in 1939 after being Army Chief of Staff, in which post he "opposed any mission for the Air Corps except that of supporting ground forces, also actively opposed the movement for a separate air force, and also refused to acknowledge the superiority of a four-engined bomber over all other types. This caused the cut back on planned purchases of B-17s to procure smaller but cheaper (and inferior) twin-engine light and medium bombers such as the Douglas B-18." Not clear that he did all that much towards winning the war, during which he headed the Army's Personnel Board, a worthy but not necessarilyn4-star post.
DeleteAs for Joseph Stillwell, his contribution to winning the war is not always regarded as positive.
Like I said, people are interpreting it to say we only had 7 four star *officers* which is obviously incorrect. Its possible the SecDef literally meant four star generals, but that would be a bit weird unless you think the Army won the war all by its lonesome
Delete"...Craig according to Wikipedia retired in 1939..."
ReplyDeleteand also from wiki:
"Craig's retirement was short-lived, however. On 26 September 1941, with war on the horizon, he was recalled to active duty to head the War Department's Personnel Board, a body responsible for selecting individuals who were to receive direct commissions in the army. He headed the board until shortly before his death.
Craig died at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C., on 25 July 1945..."
His rank had clearly been earned back when he was Chief of Staff of the Army.
Regardless, I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your post.
The majority of the promotions were done on consecutive days in March, 1945. Almost all of those guys served in Europe where the fighting had pretty much wrapped up.
Although technically correct, I think it's disingenuous to say that we had 16 four star generals during WW2.
Lutefisk
We did, indeed, appear to have four 4-star generals who were combat active. The remainder were promoted a few to several weeks before the war ended in Europe and cannot count in any meaningful sense as 4-star generals of WWII.
ReplyDeleteThe larger point is, of course, the ridiculous number of 4-star generals we currently have especially relative to the number of soldiers they command. We had around 11 million soldiers in WWII. We currently have around 1 million in the Army.
A LOT of generals need to be terminated from service. THAT'S the point of this discussion.
Agreed!! Out of curiosity, I did a quick skim for Admirals, (only spent a minute on it admittedly), and it looks like there were about 10 that wore 4 stars during the war for at least some period of time...
DeleteAnd not only Generals/Admirals... imagine how many bodies can be found and reoriented to somthing better than fetching coffee, when the dozens of bloated and redundant staffs are dissolved!!!
DeleteIm sure the Navy could fix their sea billet shortage right there after deleting the extra flags!!
Relative to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, per statute, there are eight 4-star positions, one CJCS, one Vice CJCS, and one each for the commanding general officers for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and the National Guard. Plus, per statute, there is a 4-star vice-commander for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force for another five 4-star slots. Then, presumably by statute, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is a 4-star position too.
ReplyDeleteThat all totals to fourteen 4-star positions.
"Joint Chiefs of Staff, per statute, there are eight 4-star positions"
DeleteI'm not sure that's correct. According to 10 U.S. Code § 152,
"The Chairman, while so serving, holds the grade of general ..."
Note the wording. It doesn't say they must be a general to be appointed, only that they nominally hold the rank while in the position and it doesn't specify the number of stars.
"Joint Chiefs of Staff, per statute, there are eight 4-star positions"
Trump's current nominee for CJCS is Lt. Gen. Dan Caine who was retired and was a 3-star.
I believe that section reads, "The Chairman, while so serving, holds the grade of general, in the case of the Navy, admiral, or, in the case of an officer of the Space Force, the equivalent grade, and outranks all other officers of the armed forces."
DeleteI think it's clear that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a 4-star position.
As for LTG Dan Caine, the statute allows the President to appointment who he wants as he sees fit.
"General" is the 4 star rank after Lt. General, Major General and Brigadier General.
ReplyDeleteThe Sec Def should announce that he will be transported by boat along the Potomac, with Admirals rowing. Or they can resign. Their choice.
ReplyDeleteIf not enough resign then he can announce that in future the galley slaves will be whipped. Or they can resign.
And if that doesn't work each can be tied to a chair in his office while a stereo repeatedly blasts out Gilbert and Sullivan's "Now I am the ruler of the Queen's navee". No one could survive that with sanity intact.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfao1s3Tiek
I guess in the end I couldn't care less if we have one admiral or 50 as long as the incoming leadership can figure out (1) why we can't build the ships we need (quality and quantity); (2) why we the ships we do build aren't properly maintained and kept operationally ready, and (3) why our staffing level and training are inadequate.
ReplyDeleteYou fix all that, you deserve as many stars as you want. I don't really care.
Back more to the original post... To be fair, with Hegseth not already being a Pentagon prince, it would take a bit of time figuring out who and what to cut. Slashing indiscriminately would probably create chaos. Don't misunderstand, I'm all for cutting fat, starting at the top. But if I got the job tomorrow, Id still take a month or three to get a handle on how to streamline the DOD and branches effectively so that there wasn't widespread paralysis, or things that needed done that suddenly werent. The DOD is a massive maze of commands and programs, probably the most complicated organization on the planet. Sure, it doesnt necessasarilly need to be, but, as much as it'd be neat to see a headline about 3-500 flags suddenly being unemployed, I think that it'd take a lot of research and reorganization to do it right. Plus, there'd also have to be collaboration with, and work done by Congress in the restructuring, because of positions that may be mandated by law.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, DOGE does some of the legwork on all this, although I DO have concerns about some of Elons opinions concerning systems, combat capabilities, and what near and far future combat might look like. But regardless, things can't really get worse than they are now...
The Trumpsters might have as little as two years in which to effect their revolutionary attempt to restore the Republic - less if Trump is assassinated.
DeleteSo I understand the urgency they feel. There will be mistakes, no doubt - but there always are when humans are involved. It would be good to keep the number as low as they can. It would be good to apologise handsomely and reverse any demonstrated errors.
Pressing on also serves, I imagine, to keep their enemies off balance. Given how numerous and unscrupulous those enemies are in Washington and throughout the federal apparat, this may be justification enough for swift action.
I am not a fan of Trump but I am sympathetic to much of what it seems his people are doing. And I loathe his opponents such as Mrs Clinton, Mrs Pelosi, and President Vegetable.
Who knows? It's even conceivable that DJT will turn out to be a great man. Acton said that great men are almost always bad men. Thank God for the "almost".
DOGE can fire 1/2 the staff, the Chinese War is no longer
Deletean issue. Rebuild time is not issue, there is no one for the USN to fight.
The US takes the canal and Greenland, the US and China
make an arrangement, HK style for Taiwan.
The Russian get Ukraine. Everybody is happy.