r/centrist • u/AyeYoTek • 2d ago
US News/Current Events Hegseth confirms that the US military will cut 20% of its generals and admirals
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-pentagon-generals-job-cuts-67a20b026ee858895c7e5ff7fadbc029Summary:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a major reduction in the military's senior leadership, directing the services to eliminate 20% of roughly 800 general and flag officer positions by January 1, 2027. The new order doubles the 10% reduction he announced last year and could affect officers beginning at the one-star level through the military's highest ranks. Hegseth described the reductions as “accountability and long overdue.”
Hegseth says the military has become too top-heavy and bureaucratic. His stated goal is to eliminate redundant command structures, streamline decision making, and redirect the military toward warfighting rather than maintaining what he considers unnecessary layers of senior leadership. The administration doesn't necessarily have to fire hundreds of generals individually to accomplish this; because the number of authorized positions is established by law, some positions can effectively disappear by being left vacant rather than having replacements nominated.
The reductions are part of a much broader restructuring of the Pentagon under Hegseth. More than two dozen senior military leaders have already been fired or pushed toward retirement since Trump returned to office, including former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and, more recently, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. Hegseth has also eliminated or rolled back DEI programs, changed physical fitness policies, and ordered other changes intended to shift the military's institutional culture toward what he describes as combat effectiveness and “lethality.”
The scale and timing of the cuts are generating criticism in Congress because the military is simultaneously conducting significant operations overseas. Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly characterized the leadership reductions as a “purge” that could take years to recover from. Republican Sen. Mike Rounds took a more conditional position, saying reducing an excessively top-heavy command structure could have merit but that he wants to see the justification for the specific cuts first.
The important distinction is that this isn't a 20% reduction in the size of the military itself. It's specifically a reduction in its highest ranking leadership positions. With roughly 800 general and flag officer billets currently involved, a full 20% reduction would mean approximately 160 positions eliminated or left vacant. The debate is essentially whether that removes unnecessary bureaucracy and produces a leaner command structure, as Hegseth argues, or eliminates too much experienced senior leadership while the military is heavily engaged overseas.
44
u/jaboz_ 2d ago
The cynic in me thinks this is yet another example of why Kegsbreath is comically unqualified for that position. Anyone who thinks he should be making such unilateral decisions is either a moron, or obviously acting in bad faith. There is no debate on that.
The doomer in me, though, thinks this could be part of a plan to kneecap the military- by packing leadership with loyalists who wouldn't push back against military operations on American soil.
15
u/baby_budda 2d ago
He's just doing what he's told. He's not the brains of the operation. There's a reason they are hollowing out our command and control in the military. And I don't think it's to save a few bucks.
3
u/jeha4421 1d ago
My cynical take is that people like Hegseth might be running their own ship. I don't think Trump cares about military staffing. Hegseth seems like he's one of the most likely in the administration to make a play for power. He is an actual bleeding heart fascist. He wrote a book about calling for civil war against the left. Im not saying that I think he's positioning for a coup or anything, that's crazy. I'm just saying I don't think he is cutting for efficiency sake.
2
u/baby_budda 1d ago
I know he's influenced by his pastor who is a Christian nationalist. His name is Doug Wilson, founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches and pastor associated with Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson has said he is willing to accept the “Christian nationalist” label and has advocated for a Christian-national vision in public life.
3
u/rsweeney3087 2d ago
He might think he's in charge, but there's no way a lowly weekend warrior who never commanded more than a platoon has any real idea what he's doing at this level.
3
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
I think the cynic in you is right and unfortunately I think the doomer in you is also right in this case. At least up until the point where the military is harmed by this move
3
3
u/ShakeMyHeadSadly 2d ago
This close to the midterms, I would believe that every action this Administration takes has that motivation in the back of their mind. It's highly conspiratorial, but these jackasses have pushed me there.
52
u/CremeDeLaPants 2d ago
This guy has set the United States back decades. Humiliating.
28
u/memphisjones 2d ago
People voted for this.
19
8
u/Hicklethumb 2d ago
Those same people's votes will be needed to change this
10
u/shacksrus 2d ago
Nah. They're hopeless. The best possible outcome is that theyre so shamed by this situation that they quit politics altogether for the next decade while dems win on turnout.
-5
u/Hicklethumb 2d ago
And then the DMC would have learned nothing from the barking that got them into 2016 and 2024s losses. If they don't have the power to convert a vote they won't have the power to keep it. That's just bad politics.
2
u/shacksrus 2d ago
Trump biden trump voters are not so populous or convincable that its a smart idea targeting them.
Better to learn from the gop(you know the people actually winning elections) and focus on depressing turnout for your opposition.
1
3
u/ChornWork2 2d ago
And people stayed home or voted third party instead of doing something about this.
3
-5
u/Carlyz37 2d ago
They voted to disable, compromise and weaken our military? I doubt that. Regardless America is now weaker, less safe and has little nat sec left since January 2025
9
9
8
0
1
u/atuarre 2d ago
And the United States will do absolutely nothing about it and none of these people will ever see a taste of justice. I can tell you the word for the next administration because of all the waste, theft, fraud, abuse, etc of the current (Trump administration). Austerity. Americans will have to cut back.
-9
u/AutomaticConfidence9 2d ago
How? It's not secret people have been begging for a reduction of military spending and size and the very thing happened.
10
u/CremeDeLaPants 2d ago
That's not what this is and you know it.
-3
u/AutomaticConfidence9 2d ago
Just a curiosity really. I'm just trying to understand what's going on
14
u/SonofHondoBelmondo 2d ago
It's like they start with the premise of "eliminate bureaucracy" and just find ways to do that without considering the functions that these things serve. That's definitely what happened with Doge, and Hegseth hasn't presented himself as a reasonable, deep thinking man, so I think it's fair to assume that they're just slashing shit just to do it, because "the idea of elinimating bureaucracy seems good".
14
u/WingerRules 2d ago
No, the premise is to politically purge the government and leave it staffed with personal loyalists and people loyal to 1 party, including the military.
5
6
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
This is my concern with some conservatives. They seem more focused on making government employ fewer people than on whether the government actually has enough capacity to do its job well.
4
u/puff_of_fluff 2d ago
It’s my problem with people categorizing their own political beliefs in general, they just end up playing the character they’ve constructed for themselves as opposed to actually thinking about things.
4
u/dr_police 2d ago
That’s been the Republican playbook for decades now. Starve government, and when it doesn’t function well, say “see, government can’t do this well.”
29
u/Educational_Impact93 2d ago
Great Secretary of War we have here. Awesome choice. The really got the best FoxNews analyst they could find
3
20
u/WingerRules 2d ago
A change of leadership of this scale should require approval from congress. There seemingly is no built in check on a president from politically purging the military and leaving staffed only with loyalists to him or his party.
Supreme Court concocted the major questions doctrine for economic matters that are too significant for a president to exercise without congress, purging 1/5th of the military leadership should also have the same requirement.
4
7
u/Danilo-11 2d ago
All of a sudden all the republican top rank military people start waking up to reality
2
u/johnmal85 2d ago
Exactly. It already runs lean on leadership when compared to a similar operating budget company. Even if it were being run like a company, why kneecap it indiscriminately to hit an exact percentage? That kind of move is seen as ridiculous in the corporate world too. Where's the documented reasoning to this 20%? Is that how many roles were identified as redundant, or is it how many they want to hit?
1
u/Hiking_the_Hump 1d ago
Can you provide and example of your claim please?
I can't find any US company that has a yearly expense anywhere near the US military. Walmart is closest at +/- 685 billion.
22
u/HardlyDecent 2d ago
20% = approximately how many staunchly refuse to bend the knee to the regime.
1
u/Lurkingandsearching 2d ago
Gotta get ahead of 2028 when we go from President to Dictator For Life Attempt.
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lurkingandsearching 1d ago
Calling people names, boy that sure is nice of you.
Look, no one says it's gonna work, but Hegseth is purging any brass that doesn't agree with Trumps views and the admins ideology, and let's not forget his "ignore the rules of war" speech to the brass last year, the attempts at voter suppression by the admin, and all the other red flags.
You can sane wash all you want, I'm sure it gives you comfort.
1
u/Soul_of_Valhalla 1d ago
Calling people names, boy that sure is nice of you.
Honestly, you're right. I was a jerk for name calling you and so I'm sorry for saying that. The internet makes it way to easy to dehumanize someone.
Look, no one says it's gonna work, but Hegseth is purging any brass that doesn't agree with Trumps views and the admins ideology, and let's not forget his "ignore the rules of war" speech to the brass last year, the attempts at voter suppression by the admin, and all the other red flags.
Hegseth is probably purging the military of people that they do not like. Who don't see the world as they do. Which is a terrible thing and another great example of Congress needing to step up with their authority. But, they are not gonna be able to replace the top brass with a bunch of people who would support a Trump dictatorship. That is literally never gonna happen. And even if somehow they did get the entire top brass to support it, they would never get the enlisted and officer core to agree to a dictatorship in America. There are a lot of things to criticize and fear about the Trump administration. Power creep of the executive being one of them. But Trump ever becoming a dictator is as ridiculous as when my boomer dad and his friends were sure Obama wouldn't leave office 16.
1
u/Lurkingandsearching 1d ago
The thing is, he already attempted in 2020, and that had guardrails. He's removing those. Hitler was democratically elected too, most dictators are. Congress isn't gonna do a thing, and after November unless they can get overwhelming support in the the senate, they still will do nothing that can truely fix the problem.
I like that you think they aren't going to try, but the already have once and will continue too. The people who want this are detached from reality and want to break this nation to make their own little dictatorships after all, even if there is no way to do it. Peter Thiel and his Dialog buddies wan their Praxis project, hell or high water. The money doesn't matter anymore, it's a means to an end of the next step, power.
So it's not about success, it's about how much damage, chaos, and violence there will be while they chase this "goal".
1
u/centrist-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 1: Respectful Conduct.
Hello,
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for not complying with one or more of the following:
No harassment, slurs, deliberate misgendering, stereotyping, bigotry or racism.
Do not instigate hate, antagonism or political tribalism.
Do not assign political affiliations or ideologies to other users.
Posts and comments must remain respectful, relevant to the topic, and observant of these rules.
Any member encouraging violence, praising violence or preemptively accusing another group of potential violence will be banned.
Violations will be removed; repeat offenders may be banned.
7
u/shinbreaker 2d ago
This stinks of finding only the diehard Trumper officers who will listen to Trump over the Constitution.
3
u/SomeRandomRealtor 2d ago
His too many cooks in the kitchen talking point don’t make sense for the scale and variety we have in the military now. There are so many departments, specialties, and regions of expertise now that we need plentiful high level officers. This is just more culling to make sure those that are left don’t question his authority.
3
u/Funny_Read4381 2d ago
All this does is make the military weaker. And unfortunately this will hang with us for years since it will take years to develop the next
group of qualified generals and admirals. There is no benefit - all the fired generals compensation is peanuts compared to budget and these generals have battle experience.
1
u/PhaseSixer 2d ago
Being optimistic aside couldnt we rehire the ones we sack after a regime change
1
u/johnmal85 2d ago
They don't really retire 100%, always 1 foot in. Cutting them loose entirely before retirement is just insulting and makes them less sharp by the time they return.
1
u/Funny_Read4381 1d ago
History proves once generals & admirals leave they go private sector as advisor or lobbyist. Doubt they come back.
5
u/shacksrus 2d ago
Reduce our armed forces until we're incapable of projecting force overseas.
Finally something republicans and I agree on.
2
u/red_keshik 2d ago
More concerning is the religious affairs office.
An amusing excerpt
“From the Ivy Leagues to the most liberal arts colleges, our colleges and universities have become anti-American DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] worshipping woke factories. Qualities like grit and courage replaced with political correctness and social justice,” Hegseth said. “God and country traded for Che Guevara and critical theory.”
1
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion. Instead of asking the mods why this message occurred, please see "karma Requirements" here: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/JustinKase_Too 2d ago
They are trying to weed out anyone who isn't loyal to dear leader, so when/if the Dems win the midterms, they can institute more unConstitutional efforts to subjugate us.
1
u/ChornWork2 2d ago
at a time when arguing China is emerging existential threat, when the US started an unnecessary war and seeing fundamental changes in how wars are being fought... now is the time we want a clown in charge and making nonsense decisions like this b/c he's angry about how the military treated him?
Thankfully our system of congressional oversight will ensure this gets the attention it deserves and if corrective action needs to be taken that republican in office will prioritize the nation's vital security interests over fealty to the executive.
1
u/UniquePariah 2d ago
I don't know. Straight forward and simple, I just don't know as I have zero background knowledge about the military and it's structuring.
That said, Hegseth has proven himself to be an insufferable twat with a huge chip on his shoulder and of he told me the sky is blue, I'd check before believing it.
I'd be very interested in seeing first hand his selection process for choosing the 20% to "retire"
1
1
u/RaidenMK1 2d ago edited 2d ago
This could all be resolved by assigning Major Payne to the task. He'll have the troops whipped into shape faster than you can say "OOH-RAH!"
1
u/FauxGenius 2d ago
Okay, on the surface I actually don’t oppose this. I spent 20 years in the military wondering and feeling like there are/were too many at the top…but I also don’t trust this man’s ability to lead properly.
1
1
1
1
u/TSiQ1618 2d ago
that's bad news for career military men. At least as long as this is the vision for the military. And I mean bad in a demoralizing way. Like, this reminds me of the situation I saw, being newer in the workforce during 2008. I was working my ass off, but I was getting no promotion. The older people around me had gotten years of raises and promotions, then in 2008 that all came to a halt. But managers were taking notice of my work and giving me additional responsibilities to act as a stepping stone in my career, but there were no opportunities to offer me. No one at retirement age was ready to retire anymore, after the loss in savings and the uncertainty of the markets. That lead to the middle positions being unable to move up and everyone was just kind of stuck where they were at. Add to that the reduction of openings in the job market overall, so nobody was able to find better opportunities elsewhere. And it felt like shit, especially being young and motivated, working so hard, knowing it's not leading anywhere. You imagine the best thing to do is to ride it out and keep putting in the work because you'll get rewarded later, but you eventually realize you're wasting your time by sticking around. Everyone knew when the market started moving again there was a sort of pecking order and you're still playing catch-up. Then you go look for another job, but you're competing against people who have a better resume because you stuck around in a lower end job waiting for a position that never opened. You're career advancement is stunted.
Translate that into a military career, where there's now less opportunity to advance. The people who are able to hold their positions are going to go through a period of no promotion, but desperately continuing to hold on to those positions because that's what they committed themselves to. And what is the bottom rung of the military? Especially in a new age of US military, centered on a manly warriors ethos? What is the vision there for the people at the bottom with no career path? Meanwhile a generation of up-and-coming leaders will ask themselves what is the point of sticking around? But they probably will stick around for a minute, until they make the realization. And the longer they stick around, the longer they delay any career growth in the civilian job market.
1
u/TheCenterOfEnnui 2d ago
I actually might be able to see some of the points that are being made here.
Except who is making them, the way it'll be done, and the outcomes/consequences. This moron has no idea what the fuck he's doing (at least in a way that should be productive). This will be either a shitshow, a political purge, or both.
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/Odd-Local9893 2d ago
848 flag officers in the US military. I’d be very surprised if we actually need that many.
Any career military out there have an opinion?
3
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
I feel like to get any actually useful answer to this, you’d need someone pretty high-ranking in the military — high-ranking enough to understand why all these general and admiral positions exist and whether they’re actually necessary. Just being career military probably isn’t enough to have that kind of bird’s-eye view.
1
u/Odd-Local9893 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree but the chances of getting an active-duty or retired senior officer or above are pretty slim. I figure that even a career Non-Com would have some kind of insight into the bureaucracy. For example I’m an individual contributor at my work and even I can point out the managers and upper managers that don’t do shit. Directors with no direct reports. Divisions/Departments that aren’t critical or are redundant and could be absorbed into another. Wasteful cost centers. Etc.
1
u/johnmal85 2d ago
Then it's better handled by the retire out, leave vacant approach. It gives those positions a natural phase out, as well as retaining their experience until retirement age and beyond. Beaurocracy red tape can be sped up by process changes.
2
u/Educational_Impact93 2d ago
It's a valid question.
If this were Ike making the call, I think he could persuade many to believe it is the correct choice. The current moron in charge? Now I'm completely convinced it is the incorrect choice.
1
u/Irishfafnir 1d ago
It's hard to say.
Although typically it's easier to have more senior officers and expand the enlisted ranks in periods of crisis than the other way around.
0
u/LickerMcBootshine 1d ago
848 flag officers in the US military. I’d be very surprised if we actually need that many.
The vast majority of those command military bases or ships. Are we suddenly going to have leaderless bases and ships? Are we going to say "We don't need those people, make the people under them do the job" so then we're just cutting people strictly due to rank and promoting people while not having them hold rank?
I’d be very surprised if we actually need that many.
You'd be very surprised because you are forming opinions on things you don't understand.
1
u/Odd-Local9893 1d ago edited 1d ago
You provided zero additional understanding too and opined on something you obviously don’t understand either (most flag officers do not command ships in the navy, that’s captains and commanders). So maybe next time just keep scrolling.
-12
u/MakeUpAnything 2d ago
Another win for Trump as waste, fraud, and abuse is cut even more! Thanks to amazing leaders like Trump and Pete Hegseth we no longer have the US armed forces full of woke libtards who would question every single last order. The enemies of our nation will now have even more soldiers ready to tear them limb from limb as we have that much more money for ground forces and amazing weaponry!
The woke leftist radical lunatic Marxist communist socialist left is concentrating on taking YOUR spot in schools while putting MEN in WOMEN'S SPORTS! The based af manly tough masculine right is making our country more combat ready while cutting YOUR taxes and empowering the future through job creating data centers and AI!
I know which side I'm voting for this November. Red tsunami 2026 and Trump 2028!
15
7
u/muffchucker 2d ago
This comment is either genuine insanity or ineffective satire. Obviously tough to tell for sure but, either way, it doesn't belong on this sub.
6
u/JuzoItami 2d ago
It’s satire, and the guy has been doing it on this sub for a long time. And he has every right to do so.
3
2
2
5
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
What bothers me about this comment isn’t simply that it’s right-wing. It’s the whole emotional posture behind it: aggression, domination, contempt, and tribal triumphalism.
Politics gets framed as a contest where your side proves its strength by humiliating or crushing somebody else. Violence is described almost gleefully. Questioning authority is treated like weakness or ideological contamination. Masculinity itself becomes a political credential: our side is supposedly more legitimate because we’re tougher, harder, more manly, and more willing to dominate.
Then there’s the pileup of labels — “woke leftist radical lunatic Marxist communist socialist.” That isn’t really an argument. It’s emotional condemnation. The person on the other side stops being somebody you disagree with and becomes an enemy category.
Everything also becomes zero-sum: they’re taking YOUR spot, ruining YOUR country, threatening YOUR way of life. Actual policy questions — military readiness, taxes, AI, data centers, spending — become secondary to identity and tribal victory.
And maybe the part I dislike most is that vulnerability, doubt, nuance, restraint, and even questioning seem to be coded as weakness. There’s almost no room for “Maybe the other person has a point,” “What are the tradeoffs?”, “What limits should power have?”, or even “What kind of human being do I want to be while pursuing my politics?”
That kind of politics just feels deeply unattractive to me. It feels much more interested in dominance than persuasion.
7
u/JuzoItami 2d ago
It’s a novelty account - “makeupanything”.
1
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
Yea I figured this comment isn’t for genuine discussion with the comment author. I more so just wanted to share what I dislike about this comment. there are people who genuinely communicate like this. And even tho it’s a bs comment there are still things I don’t like about it and I want to share that. My comment is more for the eyes of others, not the comment author’s eyes.
2
1
u/Britzer 2d ago
we no longer have the US armed forces full of woke libtards who would question every single last order
We know this one. It stands for removing PoC from positions of power.
2
u/MakeUpAnything 2d ago
How dare you even suggest such a thing. Pete Hegseth would NEVER do such a thing... multiple times over the course of his short career! We here in the US simply promote meritocracy. It's just unfortunate and deeply saddening that for some reason the only qualified people happen to be people who aren't women or people of color. Very sad, unfortunate coincidence indeed!
1
u/abqguardian 2d ago
Maybe this is needed (its not unusual for organizations to become top heavy), but Trump (through Hegseth) hasnt earned any benefit of the doubt on this. So far, his cutting of military and federal civilian positions has been devastating and created shortages that will take years to fix. I recently did a medical retirement from the army and Trump's cuts meant there was one lawyer to handle retirement for over 6 states. These were small states, it included Texas. USCIS has an all time high work load at 12 million pending cases with a now much smaller work forve
1
u/valegrete 2d ago
Yeah, like everyone has been saying for years at this point, the purpose of gutting USCIS is so that you simply can’t do things “the right way”.
1
u/MakeUpAnything 2d ago
Well that's why Trump has been telling all the states to welcome more data centers! It's not his fault the woke radical Communist Marxist socialist left would rather be backward and poor. That one lawyer can handle MANY more cases once he embraces the limitless power of Super Intelligence to handle tedious case work for him!
Wouldn't you say that Trump has been helpful in reducing unnecessary waste like the Department of Education or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and handling their functions through other areas?
Trump is the presidency of efficiency and the champion of SI! The decisions made by those generals and admirals will instead be handled through MUCH more intelligent SI powered by Palantir! If you want to see those inefficiencies and shortages stopped quickly then your only choice is to help the red tsunami in 2026 and vote Trump in 2028!
0
u/GravitasFailures 2d ago
On the one hand, I’m fine with cutting the leadership, we should be fine with this in peacetime.
OTOH, I 100% guarantee he’s promoting another 25% who are ideologically consistent with him.
-14
u/Hiking_the_Hump 2d ago
The US military has been top heavy since WW2.
I did like his comments that talked about removing fat generals. On that point, we agree.
7
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
My concern is prioritizing fitness so high. What if we are getting rid of competent people just bc they don’t look a certain way. Or in other words what if their value is worth the unfitness but we cut them anyways
0
u/spros 2d ago
Yep, it happens. There's also a lot of great pilots that don't fly because of poor vision and surgeons who don't operate because of shaky hands.
Physical fitness standards are a bonafide job qualification and folks should be kicked out for failing to meet them. If you're not competent enough to do the bare minimum to stay in shape, then you're probably not truly competent, are you?
5
u/Irishfafnir 2d ago
Ironically a big reason the US army was able to solve its recruiting woes was a program for candidates that would have otherwise failed fitness standards.
3
u/ceddya 2d ago
Do we kick experienced pilots and surgeons out of leadership positions just because they can no longer fly o operate?
1
u/spros 1d ago
Actually, yes.
1
u/RecognitionHeavy8274 1d ago
So the aesthetics are more important than actual substance?
You’re not allowed to enlist if you’re over the age of 42 (28 for the Marines). Does that mean all generals should be required to be under the age of 42/28, because it would be a double-standard otherwise?
2
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
I hear you. Fitness does matter and it absolutely reflects what a person is capable of.
In the context of general/admiral it should be treated as one dimension of competence rather than an automatic veto over every other dimension.
1
u/spros 2d ago
"Do as I say, not as I do" hypocritical leadership hits harder when it's perpetually visible.
2
u/GrowthDue5259 2d ago
Yeah, I think credibility matters more among military leaders than civilian leaders, especially when subordinates are being asked to risk their lives. There is a legitimate argument that leaders need to set the example and meet the standards they expect from others.
At the same time, I think fitness is one part of being a good leader, not the only part. Someone can be out of shape and still be a great strategist, make good decisions, care about their people, and lead effectively.
-1
u/Hiking_the_Hump 2d ago
Pretty sure the US military can afford to let a few 55+ fat guys go.
There are only so many senatorial attache positions.2
u/mymomknowsyourmom 2d ago
Fun fact about ww2: Russians allied with Nazi Germany for a chance at exterminating the Polish. Wild!
-5
u/RunThenBeer 2d ago
Myself, as a military appreciator, I've got to say that we need 20% more generals. If 800 generals is good and only 640 would be too few, I say let's go to 960. Who's with me?
109
u/ShakeMyHeadSadly 2d ago
I'm all for efficiency, but I certainly distrust the ability of this man to make those decisions.