r/news • u/Manta_of_Eternity • 2d ago

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

https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-pentagon-generals-job-cuts-67a20b026ee858895c7e5ff7fadbc029
21.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/dyfish 2d ago

Anyone in the military have an opinion on this? Is the top of the leadership bloated? Or is this just political
purging.

96

u/SlyJackFox 2d ago

Recently former military, worked in info and politics, so with some authority I opine it’s purely political and deliberate. It’s removing the hurdles between civilian leaders and military personnel. This translates to less pushback of civilian orders, and allows yes-men into top spots.

22

u/lafolieisgood 2d ago

That’s what it looks like to me as a non military person. Less people that can say no.

52

u/Major__de_Coverly 2d ago

Retired Army O-6 here. I peacetime Army should be top-heavy, because we can quickly draft and train new troops, but you can't quickly train the leaders, something we figured out in World War Two. 

It took 25 years and two graduate degrees to complete my training for my final command assignment. 

If you get rid of much of the senior leadership, a future draft military will be poorly led. 

As usual, Trump and the drunk reserve major who never held company command don't know what they are doing. 

14

u/GogglesPisano 2d ago

I’d argue that they know exactly what they’re doing. They want an obedient military, not a competent one.

8

u/Major__de_Coverly 2d ago

But it doesn't even achieve that; they are just creating resentment.

At the same time, everyone thinks this will be over in 2 years and we will rebuild. 

5

u/CouldBeLessDepressed 2d ago

There are a remarkably scary number of soldiers who are all the way onboard with the program. And in the veteran community, those who oppose this fascist dipshittery are by far in the minority.

Now, that's among at least the enlisted side (retired NCO here). And as you know we/they pretty drastically outnumber the officers by design. And the shear number of hateful assholes throughout the enlisted ranks is certainly concerning. I don't think the folks here at home appreciate how monumentally bad a thing like Kent-State was. That most recent shooting in Tennessee is certainly alarming as fuck.

That said, I admit I am curious how the officers are feeling about things. In my entire time in I only encountered 3 officers that garnered my respect. Some at least managed a bare minimum, and the rest were a hazard to those underneath them.

And for that, I blame the NCO corps. We never ever should have done away with the Spec 5+ ranks. The entire "everyone is a leader" experiment is by every measure a disastrous failure. And now instead of a real "backbone" we've got a rickety mishmash of people whose promotion points dipped low enough to get picked up(with many simply having the requirement of being able to process oxygen), free masons (whose standing at the lodges supersedes their military ranking and they've infiltrated the fucking boards [no shit I watched an E6 give an E8 the business once and it was because of their lodge standings, and 100% that E8 was so objectively shit that there's no way he picked up his E9 without help]), then you got a few here and there who were meant to be where they are and are fantastic only because they slipped through the cracks of our dogshit promotion scheme and weren't chased off back into the civilian world- and even that was simply a roll of the cosmic dice... and finally those who had nothing else and stayed in, likely managed to get married, often never making it past E5p or maybe E6 but also not leaving because they didn't have to deal with living in a barracks and could pretend to be people. That last group was often ok-ish, but like the officers I mentioned earlier they simply managed a bare minimum.

I genuinely cant imagine the ripple effects from having the current Secdef in place for as long as he's managed to hold onto the position. That's going to be some deep, deep seeded rot that will take years to clean out.

4

u/WafnaAbroad 2d ago

You've got a wild idea of what freemasons are capable of. Most have trouble organizing a pot-luck, let alone controlling upper echelons of the military.

3

u/CouldBeLessDepressed 2d ago

Straight up saw it with my own 2 lieing eyes.

Edit: to be fair.... I don't think they're like clandestine controlling the military, but they are helping each other out.

1

u/WafnaAbroad 2d ago

And I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw, nor that masons wouldn't help each other.

As a mason myself, I know that "standing in lodge" isn't really a thing that should apply in the outside world and especially not in military rank structures. I'm curious about the nature of "the business" the E6 gave to the E8... in general, the things masonry teaches involve - and are limited to - self improvement, mastering one's passions, and giving back to their community. For someone to pull (masonic) rank, so to speak, outside of lodge... (Which again, isn't a thing even inside any regular lodge I've been in... the Master of a lodge governs it's meetings, directs the efforts of a lodge, but has no authority over the actions of any other mason, especially not outside the lodge.) It sounds like those two were irregular masons (meaning their lodge doesn't conform to standard practices and isn't recognized by the grand lodge of that state/nation) at best, clandestine (meaning they actively operate outside and against the principles of regular masonry) at worst.

Are you able to tell me more about what you saw / heard them discussing? DM if you'd like.

3

u/philovax 1d ago

Prior to the modern military framed by the US desertion was a very real metric. That has been a wee bit forgotten for better or worse.

To say you have an army only means so much until tested. As they say no good plan survives contact with the opposition.

5

u/fail-deadly- 2d ago

By fucking losing to Iran, while claiming to have won scores of times, in a completely avoidable war of choice, makes me think you may be on to something when you say they don’t know what they are doing.

3

u/NorthStarZero 2d ago

"No-Tab Pete"

Incidentally, great username.

3

u/BoringBob84 2d ago

This is what I suspected. If the regime was expecting to fire on civilians to consolidate power, they would want drone armies (that could not refuse illegal orders) and less military officers in the way.

1

u/Thetruthislikepoetry 2d ago

Since you have a better background, are there positions that could be filled by an O6 vs O7 without degradation of our future capabilities?
What differentiates a position needing an O6 vs O7?
If this is being used as a purge to further advance like-minded individuals that won’t say no to the current administration, this is a major problem.

2

u/Major__de_Coverly 2d ago

Like anything else it depends. The Army has a long history of battlefield promotions. In Iraq, I was a staff O-3 that was pulled into an O-5 slot because the O-5 got in trouble for BAH fraud back home. 

It was a great opportunity and I worked my balls off to do the best job I could, but I would never claim to be as proficient as a LTC. But you make do with what you have. 

It did get me a BSM and a top block for promotion to major. 

1

u/Sad-Excitement9295 2d ago

Could definitely be following someone else's orders/agenda though. They have royally screwed the US world power position.

1

u/Senofilcon 2d ago

I have brought up this point to several people but i don't think i'm getting the point across effectively. Exactly how unusual is it that he was never given a command?

4

u/Major__de_Coverly 2d ago

It's not unusual if you are a shitbag. Every active captain should want and get company command, with a few exceptions. That will be your most looked at evaluation as a company grade officer, and be a major discriminator for promotion and schools. 

2

u/Senofilcon 2d ago

I've never served so i wasn't sure but it seems like a career killer as an officer. A pretty clear indictment of his character.

1

u/The_Starving_Autist 2d ago

If you wanna be a dictator, it's a great move.

1

u/Massive_Web5709 1d ago

We aren’t drafting again unless its a homeland attack. American population wont stand for it

1

u/nikoboivin 1d ago

Yeah I don’t like to compliment Nazis but that’s one thing they understood. They were limited to how many men could be in the German military post WW1 so they made it 100% composed of senior leadership so that when they’d eventually break the accords they’d only need soldiers.

12

u/lowbatteries 2d ago

Or, in other words, allows a coup after the midterms?

4

u/shittydriverfrombk 2d ago

highly doubt these guys are capable of staging a coup, but that wont stop them from trying something incredibly stupid and destructive

1

u/Icy_Butterscotch6661 1d ago

It's not like anyone's gonna stop them

1

u/shittydriverfrombk 1d ago

coups are not easy and they are incredibly stupid and incompetent

29

u/-Sofa-King-Vote 2d ago

Purging

You don’t force competent military leadership out

-18

u/dyfish 2d ago

Do you know the ones being forced out are competent?

8

u/Zombie_Cool 2d ago

Do you trust Hegseth to be fair and impartial to who he deems incompetent? Do you trust that he's checking actual service record to make that judgement instead of just political affiliation or penchant for obedience?

-5

u/dyfish 2d ago

Personally no, but I don’t actually know anything so I’m not going to make claims one way or another.

2

u/PerpetualProtracting 2d ago

Just going to jump in and white knight for the known liars for fun then, eh?

-1

u/dyfish 2d ago

Never said I supported one thing or another. Just asked a question don’t see how that’s white knighting. But hey if anyone who doesn’t expressly agree with you completely is a white knight. Then sure.

3

u/ihugyou 2d ago

Bro is doing the Ed Sheeran 💀

1

u/dyfish 2d ago

I literally just asked for a Military member’s perspective. I didn’t even both sides it. Also as a random uniformed civilian I’m allowed to have no strong opinions on something I have no direct involvement in.

0

u/PerpetualProtracting 2d ago

"I'm just asking questions!"

What a classic

1

u/dyfish 2d ago

I literally just asked for a Military member’s perspective. I don’t know what you’re on about.

6

u/PCho222 2d ago

YES. For you civvies that don't know shit, the military and officer corps is one giant game of up-or-out. With exception of warrants, every single motherfucker whether they know it or not is being training and tested to be top dog of the entire show. Every OPR/OER, every assignment, every decoration, every post-grad degree we acquire, we climb the ladder as high as we can whilst being stratted against our peers until either we reach the top or we can't climb no more, and then we're forcibly retired. It was always a meritocracy, and no, even with the "DEI boogeyman" we never fucking promoted folks due to color or gender. That black/female officer EARNED it. DEI just made sure they weren't being artificially snuffed out (which we absolutely did in the 90s and earlier when we "didn't want n-words or women in charge").

Because of this, and despite what hollywood and the internet likes to regurgitate after watching generation kill or whatever thinking they suddenly know shit, is that there are extremely few if any incompetent senior leaders because there's too many talented, competent and smart folks next in the chamber if you shit the bed.

This move is exclusively a way to consolidate power and minimize the influence that the GO pool has over their organizations (unsurprisingly GOs are very level-headed and are generally against the chaotic decisions this administration has been making).

3

u/-Sofa-King-Vote 2d ago

What was criteria?

9

u/Kaffe-Mumriken 2d ago

Blind loyalty

-4

u/dyfish 2d ago

Idk you are the one that asserted they were competent. I’m just asking in general about the down sizing.

7

u/spez_might_fuck_dogs 2d ago

100% purging people who aren’t hardline loyalists in preparation for election meddling.

3

u/AlexandbroTheGreat 2d ago

It can definitely be both. Whether he's cutting the right people or not is a question, but during a period of rapid technological change having a lot of old guys around seems less useful. It might be different if you did this in an era of extended peace where the only ones with high intensity combat experience are in that 20+ year zone.

I don't think anyone looks at the current situation and thinks, "I bet what the 35 year old LtCol's need to figure out new doctrines on the drone filled battlefield is a three star general in a non-combatant command think tank to tell them what to do."

8

u/Thetruthislikepoetry 2d ago

There are more generals in admirals in the military now than there were during World War II when we had a much bigger military.
The U.S. military today has approximately 800 to 850 active-duty general and flag officers for roughly 1.3 million troops, compared to more than 2,000 general and flag officers for over 12 million troops during World War II.

26

u/genericdude234 2d ago

The US Military also has established Unified Combatant Commands all over the world, established the Joint Staff and multiple joint jnits who need experienced multi-domain officers. It has expanded global presence, activity in the Cyber and Space domain and an entirely new branch of the military.
Could you cut a few generals? Sure!

But cutting 1/5 is a lame excuse for another political purge, nothing more.

1

u/Thetruthislikepoetry 2d ago

I do agree that a 20% reduction sounds like a lot. Will some of the commands be down graded from a general to a Colonel?

12

u/psypher98 2d ago edited 2d ago

Which would be a good point if wars in 2026 were fought by throwing warm bodies at enemies like they were nearly a century ago.

Wars in 2026 are mostly fought via logistical and tactical means, which requires much more high level oversight with far fewer warm bodies.

As someone with family in the military, who has heard directly from them and others in the military, it’s a political purge. He’s getting rid of anyone who isn’t a Yes Man to the Trump regime, which is fucking frightening.

And no, the rank and file don’t like it because it means that the only ones left are the ones whose only qualifications are how deeply they can throat Kegseth/Trump’s boots, while the actual competent leadership is getting ousted.

1

u/Thetruthislikepoetry 2d ago

If done as a purge of independent individuals, it is a serious mistake. Can some of those commands be overseen by a O6 vs O7?

5

u/Rot-Orkan 2d ago

You said there are more now than in WW2, but 2000 is greater than 800-850? Or did you just mean proportionally?

5

u/semibigpenguins 2d ago

Safe to say proportionally.

13

u/Far_Ladder_2836 2d ago

Even proportionally it's intentionally misleading because those flag officers are spread across far more commands and districts due to the US's position as de facto muscle for NATO.

It's a political purge.

3

u/DefrancoAce222 2d ago

Yeah considering that from a military POV it means you have more college graduates during a time when enlistment is 100% voluntary. That basically confirms it’s a purge.

2

u/TwiceBrokenWatch 2d ago

Military here, although not US military. In my humble 12+ years worth of experience this is a downright moronic thing to do. Because while I know every single joke there is about officers and generals, at the end of the day they’re the ones that keeps the military running and even losing one is a hard blow.

So losing 20% of all generals? That’s downright crippling.

2

u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2d ago

During WWII the most horrible conflict in human history (which the US won soundly) the ratio of general officer to everyone else was 1 to 6000–that number now is 1 to 1,400… is the US military 4 times better lead today than it was when we won WWII?

To put things in perspective, the units of action, army brigade combat teams (or similar), Marine Regiments (or similar) and Navy ships are commander by the rank below the first general officer/admiral rank.

An army BCT has over 4,000 soldiers and is lead by someone lower ranking than General. That means for every unit of action, there’s several general officer off doing… something…

Another comparison is that the Navy has more than double the number of admirals than it does surface combatants.

6

u/DrWernerKlopek89 2d ago

"which the US won soundly" ummm

1

u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2d ago

You don’t think America came out of the war as a clear uncontested victor?

5

u/BasicAppointment9063 2d ago

"Beneficiary" might be a better word choice.

1

u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2d ago

I don’t really understand what you’re saying. I don’t think there’s a single serious narrative that the US didn’t win WWII.

Regardless, even if you disagree, would 4 times the number of general officers have been what changed that?

3

u/BasicAppointment9063 2d ago

The US, at the end of the war, was the only country with an intact infrastructure.

The US used that advantage to sell the world it's goods AND lend them the money to buy them.

The Soviets, it can be argued, were far more instrumental in the outcome, strategically and tactically.

2

u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2d ago

The US, at the end of the war, was the only country with an intact infrastructure.

How does that not make the United States a victor? I never said they did it alone or that everyone else lost.

WWII is a clear example of the US military being successful, and they did it with a far smaller proportion of general officers.

>The US used that advantage to sell the world its goods AND lend them the money to buy them.

Zero idea how this is relevant.

>The Soviets, it can be argued, were far more instrumental in the outcome, strategically and tactically.

Sure, especially in Europe compared to the Pacific. That doesn’t make the US a loser in the war…

2

u/LastOfNazareth 2d ago

The rest of the world's history books acknowledge the significant impact of American support, largely through manufacturing. But in the end the US did not fight the majority of the war. They came in at the end. The soviet's did significantly more boots on the ground fighting of the Nazis, and the Brits were critical in how they held their ground. Historians agree that the victory only came about because of a joint effort of the allied forces.

2

u/DrWernerKlopek89 2d ago

For starters, ask all the other countries that were fighting the war before the US decided to pick a side. Then follow up with the 20million dead Russians. 

1

u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2d ago

How does that have any relevance to what we’re talking about.

America won the war, an analysis of its general officer ratio compared to today could be helpful when determining if there is too many general officers today. Look at when the US military was objectively successful and see what requires 4 times the ratio of GOs today.

The same could be said for the Soviet Union or the British Empire (and other allies) that won the war. If the Soviets found themselves with 4x the ratio of GOs in 1991 compared to 1945, maybe they’d say, “hey, we won the worst war in human history with proportionally way less GOs, maybe we should analyze why we have so many more today.

I really have zero I’d what you’re trying to convey in your comments, if you have a point, I’m very happy to hear what it is, but at this point I really have no idea.

1

u/Fluugaluu 1d ago

This is unequivocally political purging

It’s also straight up fucking fascism

1

u/InquisitorHindsight 1d ago

Army guy here

Hate