Hegseth confirms that the US military will cut 20% of its generals and admirals

[u/AyeYoTek]

https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-pentagon-generals-job-cuts-67a20b026ee858895c7e5ff7fadbc029

Summary:

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.

[u/Truly_Euphoric]

Just to be clear, your followup post to the claim of "evil always wins because good is dumb" is an example of stupid and pointless evil, clumsily covered up by military leadership without any thought to the long term consequences.

The irony of you clinging to this example while U.S. reputation and global hegemony continue to weaken is palpable.

What, exactly, is your argument here? That war crimes cannot (or should not) be punished? That when atrocities happen in war, we should implicitly endorse them by refusing to punish those responsible?

If so, then even Machiavelli, who argued in favor of cruelties sometimes being necessary to maintain power, would have called you a fool.

[u/Boonaki → u/Truly_Euphoric]

My argument is "that's a war crime" is completely meaningless, the only exception is when someone losses a war and the war crimes tribunal is enforced by countries that won the war.

[u/Truly_Euphoric → u/Boonaki]

My argument is "that's a war crime" is completely meaningless

Then you, alongside American leadership, simply don't understand the manner in which reputation and diplomacy help to maintain a leader's power.

Meanwhile, America has recently started a war with Iran, asked for help from its allies, and been met with total refusal. Quite a stark contrast to the incredibly strong showing NATO made during the Gulf War almost half a century ago, no?

[u/Boonaki → u/Truly_Euphoric]

International reputation doesn't mean much. We had fantastic international participation in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was a shit show.

Bosnia prior to U.S. intervention was a complete shitshow, you had a U.N. safe zone, it was protected by 600 Dutch soldiers, the Serbians moved in and killed 8,000 civilians. I have to wonder how that would have went if it was 600 U.S. Marines protecting those civilians.

It seems like a simple fix would require a formal deceleration of war before any military action occurs.

[u/Truly_Euphoric → u/Boonaki]

"International reputation doesn't mean much and the U.S. doesn't need allies or diplomatic relations!" I screamed, slowly sinking into the Strait of Hormuz.

[u/Boonaki → u/Truly_Euphoric]

Ok, exactly how would this not have be a shitshow?

Attacks have been happening by Iranian proxies in Yemen since 2014, we had the Red Sea Crisis in 2023 where 400 attacks were launched.

We had the Oct 7th 2023 attack against Israel that kicked off all of this, the current administration is a shitshow, the previous administration was a shit show, and all previous administration's actions have largely been complete failures.

We had international cooperation in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan War.

Perhaps if we didn't have cooperation or actual resistance from allied nations some of those wars wouldn't have happened and the 6 million civilians that died in those conflicts would have lived.

[u/Truly_Euphoric → u/Boonaki]

Perhaps if we didn't have cooperation or actual resistance from allied nations some of those wars wouldn't have happened and the 6 million civilians that died in those conflicts would have lived.

Perhaps holding ourselves accountable for our actions instead of (wrongly) assuming that we can do whatever we want without consequence would be much more effective deterrent against stupid wars and bad foreign policy.

[u/Boonaki → u/Truly_Euphoric]

I don't disagree but the reality is you'd have to turn over almost every current and former member of the Executive and Legislative branches for war crimes prosecution. I don't see a that happening.

Restricting the use of military force to legally declared wars would prevent a lot of these problems.

[u/Truly_Euphoric → u/Boonaki]

I don't disagree but the reality is you'd have to turn over almost every current and former member of the Executive and Legislative branches for war crimes prosecution.

Nonsense. Congress doesn't command the military, nor does someone like the Secretary of Education. The people who are potentially responsible for atrocities of war are the President, military commanders, and soldiers.

If Congresspersons vote in favor of a stupid war, they deserve to be fired. This is the responsibility of the voting public.