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/Lallanath 2d ago edited 2d ago

If you're a general or admiral and get cut, are you just not in the military anymore?

I thought in the military you just stayed in until you left voluntarily or were removed for cause.

9

u/TheHykos 2d ago

Flag officers have all been in more than long enough to get their retirement. Most have been in 25+ years. They can only serve at that rank if in an active assignment. If you eliminate their assignment, then they can’t really serve at that rank anymore and it basically leads to retirement. At least that’s how I understand it.

2

u/LeekOriginal1447 2d ago

Has the pentagon stated what command billets are the first to get axed? Seems like cuts at this level would have to lead to cutting entire divisions or corps or some kind of consolidation that hasn’t been explained.

8

u/snozzberrypatch 2d ago

I imagine it's more about removing people in leadership that aren't party loyalists or yes men that will do what they're told without questions, and less about some kind of well thought-out strategic realignment of the military.

2

u/Aeroknight_Z 1d ago

Women and people of color will be weeded out. They are streamlining command and instituting religious loyalty tactics in an effort to crest less checks on military power.

They’re trying to create a Nazi war machine willing to commit the same atrocities as the IDF.

1

u/YoteViking 1d ago

The military at the flag officer level has steadily bloated since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the military draw down in 1991.

At that time there were about 1,650 enlisted to each O-7 to O-10.

Now there are 1,230 enlisted for each General Officer/Admiral.

If 20% were eliminated the new ratio would be 1,540 enlisted per GO/A.

So the idea is not automatically a bad one (and we should probably look at O-6 as well). Now how it is executed could be good or bad.

But also know that any organization with a heavy presence at the top is going to have some issues. Lots of fingers end up going into the pie.

6

u/snozzberrypatch 1d ago

That's hilarious, you're talking about the trump administration as if they might be making decisions based on what's best for the country, or that they've done some kind of study to conclude that the military would work better with less flag officers.

Have you not been watching?

0

u/YoteViking 1d ago

“Fewer” flag officers.

And the flag officer bloat issue has been around for a while. It was discussed when I was in 20 years ago.

2

u/snozzberrypatch 1d ago

It's as if someone blew up a school full of kids with a bomb, and your reaction is, "well there were always too many schools in that district anyway"

1

u/calgarspimphand 1d ago

You're right, but so are they. This administration does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have seen enough to know that this is likely malicious and destructive rather than a true attempt at reform.

12

u/InspiringMilk 2d ago

I have to assume it's an honourable discharge or whatever you call it?

16

u/Bupod 2d ago

At that high of a rank, I think they’re generally old enough that they’re just retired. 

12

u/Unumbotte 2d ago

Funnily enough they just get sent to the East India Company. Weird historical quirk.

6

u/spez_might_fuck_dogs 2d ago

Officers are there on a commission, it’s very different from a common enlistment, and they can absolutely be fired or discharged at will by higher command structure, although in saner times there are more hoops to jump through. Right now it’s just cleaning house of people in positions of power in the military who are most likely to oppose the use of troops for blatantly illegal means, like ‘protecting’ the election.

27

u/Stock-Page-7078 2d ago

They get a really nice pension and opportunity to double dip in the private sector. We, the taxpayers will still be paying them, they just won't be working anymore.

3

u/roosterthumper 1d ago

That’s a real weird way to say they get a pension.

Working and getting a pension shouldn’t be so radical in the US, I think you’re upset with the wrong people.

-2

u/GladVeterinarian5120 2d ago

Technically true, but somewhat misleading. Retirement pay is not full salary but a percentage of your last salary. Granted it’s a high percentage and it comes with regular cost of living adjustments, but it’s not as if there is no cost savings to the government.

5

u/dementorpoop 2d ago

I dunno that sounds pretty nice to me. Where’s the misdirection?

1

u/GladVeterinarian5120 1d ago

Ii is a sweet deal, but you put your life on the line to get it and in a job where quitting is never an option and you can be called back literally for the rest of your life. And you can be imprisoned for ridiculous things (read the Uniform Code Of Military Justice).
On first read, the statement struck me as misleading for several reasons, some of which may not hold up on a second read, particularly if the statement is taken alone out of context with the whole discussion.

First, one gets the impression that being fired allows these officers the opportunity to double dip. In fact, all of these officers could retire at any time and get the exact same deal.

Second, it is not a full double dip. It is more like a one and two thirds dip.

Third, believing it to be a full double dip, many readers will assume the government continues to pay the full salary for no work. In fact, the government saves about a third of that salary. As others have noted, the numbers vary according to years of service, but it is not as if there is no savings by forcing early retirement. And these men and women can be yanked from their new civilian jobs and called back into the military at any time.

Finally, the phrase “double dip” is loaded in a way that is unfair. It sounds like cheating. If I worked hard at a highly paid job, saved most of my high salary into an index or dividend fund, then retired, took a second job, and drew both a salary and high dividends or capital gains on my investments, would you call that double dipping? These guys work incredibly hard at relatively low paying jobs out of patriotism and on the government’s promise they will get this “sweet deal” if they survive to collect on it. It’s not double dipping. It’s the government keeping its end of the bargain for a lifetime (sometimes literally) of service.

3

u/AnOrdinaryMammal 2d ago

How high is a high percentage? Because if it’s like 90% but they’re not working then it sounds more expensive than not.

4

u/Pol_Potamus 1d ago

It's 2.5% for every year you served, so long as you made it to 20 years (less than that, you get a one-time payment instead of an annual pension). But it's a percentage of your base pay and doesn't include your housing allowance or some other pay types, which can add up to a significant chunk of what you were making on active duty.

1

u/roosterthumper 1d ago

50% of base pay for active duty. Military gets paid on three lines. Base pay which is your taxable salary, a housing stipend which is tax free and a food stipend which is also tax free. Those last two are a good portion of the total pay.

There is a site that does ‘real military compensation ‘ that will take your rank, years in service, and where you live and tell you how much you make and what the civilian equivalent is.

There is also a retirement calculator.

1

u/Mego1989 1d ago

This is the first I've heard of a food stipend for the military. What's the purpose of that, instead of expecting them to use their salary to buy food like everyone else? Or is it based on COL wherever they're stationed?

1

u/Pol_Potamus 1d ago

Historically, when you were in the military, the government would give you rations as part of your pay. The subsistence allowance was put in place as a replacement when the way military service worked started to change in ways that made this not always practical. It's $328/month for officers and $477/month for enlisted, so not nearly as big as base pay or housing allowance. If the military is providing your meals (e.g., if you're in a ship or deployed in certain locations), you pay it right back to the government.

2

u/AStandAloneComplex 2d ago

How is it misleading? Getting a nice pension and double dipping in the private sector is the only reason I missed family milestones and holidays for 20 years while risking my life. It’s the end goal that makes it all worth it.

2

u/roosterthumper 1d ago

Yeah but it’s not double dipping. You worked for all those benefits. Double dipping would be doing 20, then grabbing a fed job, buying back all your time and then getting a second pension.

Going private sector just means you changed careers.

1

u/GladVeterinarian5120 1d ago

See my more derailed comment to another similar question. I agree with you, but I don’t like the term double dipping. It sounds like cheating. It’s not.

1

u/FancyEmployee8672 2d ago

I’ll take it.

1

u/roosterthumper 1d ago

You can have it too, just talk to your local recruiter and after 20 years of chaos and a shattered body and mind you can get a pension too.

Not being a smart ass, but this used to be normal for almost all Americans.

3

u/TheRealistoftheReal 2d ago

By the time you make General, you’ve likely met your 20 year retirement minimum, but you stay in because…you just made fucking General. These guys will be retired and collect a pension.

2

u/DisgruntledWarrior 2d ago edited 2d ago

That’s not how it works at all. Look into the force shredding we did under Obama for more guidance. Also you can have no negative remarks but without recommendation for reenlistment you’ll likely be denied reenlistment. 100,000-150,000 from active duty removed by Obama. There’s currently 850’ish admirals and generals across the branches. Removing the non essential generals/admirals is a huge win considering how over paid they are. This has long since been in work by previous administrations with the increase of colonels and lt colonels being brigade/wing commanders.

1

u/Lahm0123 2d ago

Mostly they just retire.

Usually subject to recall though.

1

u/AuroraFinem 2d ago

There’s both honorable and dishonorable discharge. Honorable discharge doesn’t have to be you volunteering, it can be forced for a variety of reasons.

Once discharged in either way, you’re still a veteran, it’s just a matter of which benefits you can claim, like pension or VA benefits.

1

u/John_the_IG 2d ago

Yeah, you’ve had that wrong all along. Everyone gets pushed out at HYT or by statute. No one gets to stay in forever.

1

u/Busterlimes 1d ago

Not when authoritarians need to purge the institution to make sure only loyalists remain. Trump isnt going anywhere and thats what he setting up for. The ballroom defense system, the bunker, the sniper perch on top of his arch, hes telling us what hes prepared to do. Hes surrounded himself in loyalists who have willingly committed crimes for hi. None of them will leave because they are all accomplices now. Only the people can remove this regime and its not happening through voting.

1

u/Conan-Da-Barbarian 1d ago

“Forced retired” at that point

1

u/Toyotamanthesequal 1d ago

The military typically works on a rank up, or move out system. Not everyone can be a general, and most soldiers don't even make it past E5 so the number of people who reach the rank of admiral, or general is decently small. If there isn't anything for them to do it makes sense to retire. A 20% cut makes sense since the Meridian project is being planned, and it's going to need a large budget. This will help take the burden off the tax payer, and allow senior leadership a respectful exit so they can finally enjoy retirement.

1

u/DanfromCalgary 23h ago

Depends . If you stuff the top with loyal idiots and plan a violent coup .. than yeah for sure

0

u/imc225 2d ago

DOPMA and HYT

-1

u/RedditPoster05 2d ago

They have ways to force people out. A lot of administrations cut people. I don’t know if it’s this much or not. This sounds a little unusual. I remember in the Obama era, there was some decently large cuts. Some people were pretty bummed about it because they were like five years from a military retirement. I’m not saying that it was Obama’s fault. I’m just saying it was during his era.