Skip to comments.Cutting One-Fifth. Twice.
Posted on 08/04/2013 9:42:45 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday that he has ordered a 20% cut in the ranks of the Pentagons top military officers and senior civilians.
Beginning in 2015, and completed by 2019.
Well, as we used to say: speed kills.
The estimated 4,000 jobs at stake represent not only a fifth of those working at the highest levels of the U.S. military, but also represent about one-fifth of 1% of the U.S. militarys total full-time workforce.
Hagels warning shot of budgetary pain to come marks the first time he has revealed action called for by the Strategic Choices and Management Review he launched in March. Many Pentagon officials acknowledge the layering on of civilian oversight since 9/11 has been excessive, is unsustainable, and needs to be trimmed back.
A study by the Pentagons own Defense Business Board using highly-suspect Defense Department numbers shows that the defense secretarys own workforce climbed from 1,974 people on 9/11 to 2,708 a decade later.
Thats a 37% hike.
Cutting that 2011 body count of 2,708 by 20% would scale back the workforce to 2,168, 10% more than the 9/11 total.
Thats only a start, to be sure, but if and thats a big if comes from the top ranks, it will set the tone for additional cuts needed given the financial pressure that the Pentagon is facing.
That isnt going to fix the problem, Hagel said of the cuts at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida. But, yes, everybodys got to do their part.
Late Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman George Little elaborated in a statement:
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.time.com ...
it’s like working in a bank- everyone is a vice-president
Why not just cut 36% once? Sounds worse....
Even better would be to cut down by 20% and another 20% of ALL government employees. That would be the best thing for the economy.
How much is position elimination and how much is just getting new “more agreeable” blood in?
Which individuals are they going to get rid of and why?
Doesn’t eliminating positions means the people filling those positions will be out the door?
Will they use this for political ends, to get rid of religious people, conservative people, etc.?
Evryone who disagrees with Obama’s “Moslems are our friends” policies muust be gone.
this has been going on for far too long - look what we get for it...not much. Folks that make it hard on the field to take action - rules of engagement crap. Plus more guys getting hurt as people test ideas rather than rolling out real protection.
I agree. Sounds like he's cutting in the right places, NOT in active duty levels. EVERY department in the Fed. Govt could stand to be cut, because it has grown out of control over the past 50 years.
When I visited DC last year, I came to realize how very much DC exists to serve DC itself.
The men wear 1000 dollar suits and the women have 400 dollar dresses, shoes, and handbags.
>>The men wear 1000 dollar suits and the women have 400 dollar dresses, shoes, and handbags.<<
And those are just the *INTERNS*!!!!!
Did you also notice the oft used phrase [if you have the opportunity to roam the halls/cafeteria of the Capitol and rub elbows with these self-important elite: *Oh, I can influence that for you. or *I can get that for you....we just need 123 more signatures*
The business of the *people* is conducted in the most sleazy and corrupted fashion. Makes me fume and @ssplode.
There is some similarity here with things that took place under Carter. And...guess what....the military loses some of their most experienced.
“Stupid” is not a strong enough word!
I’m not interested in across the board cuts, especially in national defense.
I would start by cutting entire agencies, like Education, EPA, and others. I would eliminate a lot of subsidies.
Then I would look inside some of the remaining agencies for more cuts.
Easy to cut entire agencies by following the constitutional powers of the feds.
Today, the USN has almost as many Admirals (285) as it has ships (275). So, while the number of ships and associated operational personnel have been reduced, the overhead has not. It’s been expanding.
A part of the problem of overhead is the multi-dimensional matrix. There are commanders of operational units and their task forces. For example, in the Navy, you would have the commander of an aircraft carrier, an O-6 Captain, and the commander of the carrier strike group, an O-8 Real Admiral. In the Army, you would have the commander of a brigade, an O-6 Colonel, and the commander of the division of which it is a part, a O-8 Major General.
While there are even larger formations in the Army (Corps and Army), you eventually have Forces Command and Fleet Command in these two services, which aren’t operational units but “coordinating units.”
A second line of command (also coordinating units) involves function commands. This is not unusual in large and complex organizations, where a lot of work is performed by functional specialists within organizations (HR, logistics, etc.).
Then there is a third line of command in the military, called Theater Commands, such as Central Command. These are multi-national commands, which means they are very top heavy in officers drawn from the members of the multi-national coalition and from the different services.
So, the increasingly complex and now multi-national aspect of military operations has resulted in a huge overhead relative to a downsized force structure. As a result, even with a budget in excess of $600 billion, the military has to make deep cuts into personnel and weapon systems. If this were to continue, we’d wind up with only overhead.
Yet, Tommy Franks was able, quickly, to defeat the Talliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq with bold and ruthless execution of relatively simple plans. In that sense, our military is awesome. But, this business of re-constructing countries that were never constructed in the first place is impossible and we will go bankrupt trying to do it.
To put my two cents in as to how to down-size the overhead, the services should start the process of combining all of their function commands.
And yet my hog-at-the-trough Demwit senator still looks like this.
The “man of the people” look, LOL
Far too many chiefs and not enough Indians in DOD. This can be said of all departments in government. I have no problem making cuts in defense that reduce the overhead, but all I see is cuts in Defense. I don’t see any cuts in other areas of the federal government. Entitlement programs are the biggest part of the budget. That is where cuts will have to be made to get the budget under control. However, no one in Washington has the guts to do what needs to be done.
Man looks like he ate a few of the people!
We’re approaching the point of the British Admiralty around WW1 - when they had more admirals than ships.
The US military has near 1,000 flag officers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.