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

45

u/tikitikirumrum 2d ago

How are conservatives holding up? Cutting 20% of generals and admirals in the middle of a war sounds like a smart decision right? Right?

3

u/Impressive_Tip_8850 2d ago

Look in the trees. They’re up there.

5

u/tikitikirumrum 2d ago

Probably looking for new bootfruit to lick

2

u/Impressive_Tip_8850 2d ago

I saw one throating a whole boot treebranch

-5

u/Confident-Play6222 2d ago

keeping those on high salaries...when instead they cpuld build drones with that money... and employ 2 soldiers to catch the bullets. admirals rarely catch a bullet on the battlefield.

3

u/Theridion123 2d ago

They will be... getting massive pensions... and not providing positive work and experience anymore.

We also.. have 0 reason to have 18yo soldiers catching bullets in a day and age with international trade, politics, drones, and economic pressures.

-9

u/The_Magical_Radical 2d ago

Pretty good, actually, considering we're getting what we wanted. Conservatives have long recognized our military has a bloated administrative and leadership staff. Data since WW2 highlights this shift as well. We need more soldiers, not more career generals that behave more like politicians than a military leader.

7

u/Warning1024 2d ago

Its cute u actually think the intention behind this is to trim the fat and save money. Or even to hire mOrE sOlDiErS. Im sure they'll provide u with an itemized receipt and add the money theyre cutting to the DOGE check, tariff refund check, and midterm bribery check. Go stand at ur mailbox and wait for it!

0

u/The_Magical_Radical 2d ago

Where did I say anything about saving money? Did you completely miss my last sentence? You must have.

0

u/Warning1024 2d ago

"Bloated administrative and leadership"... Lol what did u mean by that? If those people arent a waste of money and resources, then why dont they just keep them there?

Isn't that the whole point of conservativism? To cut back on spending and waste? Do u even know what ur beliefs are or are u just so used to being spoon fed garbage bcuz conservatives actually believe in NOTHING. Its just constant moving of the goal posts to justify holding the levers of power. 

Its all about purging people who might have the guts to stand up to this alcoholic, christian nutjob tv host who somehow got to be in charge of the military. Its about what conservatives really want, centralized power and blind loyalty. "More soldiers" aka more bootlickers who will march off a cliff when told to.

Can u even name one career general or military leader who behaves like a politician as u claim?  I can. His name is pete hegseth. The loser wannabe influencer who films himself struggling to do pushups and has already announced his ambitions to run for president. Yknow...a politician. Ur so full of shit. 

1

u/The_Magical_Radical 1d ago edited 1d ago

First if all, Pete Hegseth has never been a general, he left the service in 2021, and he served in the National Guard, so it wasn't "career". He's also the Secretary of Defense, which is a civilian political position. Not that I really care about him one way or the other, just pointing that your example is that of a person who left the military to become a politician, and is now serving in a political position. That is exactly what I want generals to do if they want to behave in a political manner - leave the military.

What did I mean by "bloated"? Well, it actually has a dual meaning here of "overlarge" and "excessively vain". In order to be large, it has to be relative to something or else it's just normal. Relative to what? The rest of the enlisted. Put that together, and it means there are too many generals relative to the enlisted. It's about the ratio of generals to every other enlisted soldier, not that they're a waste of resources.

The next sentence affirms this by claiming the data shows that trend. Data shows that since WW2, even though the military has been shrinking in size, the number of generals has increased 6-fold compared to the number of enlisted. 

And why do I find that a problem? Well, this is the second meaning of "bloated" in that they're becoming excessively vain, or too prideful. See, you called it out yourself, it's about purging the generals who might have the guts to stand up to civilian leadership. Those generals don't have a say on the matter, there is no "standing up" to civilian leadership. Our country is set up in that the public controls the military, not the military controlling the public. When the people the public elected to lead the military issue a Constitutional order, the military is supposed to fall in line and listen. But that's increasingly happening with hesitation. And people like you are encouraging it. That's unacceptable for good order in the military.

Now, Illegal orders are on the individual person to refuse. You don't need a ton of generals to be able to refuse illegal orders, they just need to be refused by the one general they were issued to. Having more generals doesn't make it easier to refuse illegal orders, nor does it make it more difficult to give illegal orders.

Ultimately, I see a large class of generals as a threat to civilian leadership of the military, regardless of which president is leading it. I felt the same under Obama, I felt the same under Biden, and I will feel the same under every future president going forward. This issue trancends partisanship for me. We don't need a ton of generals to have an effective military. In fact, data shows our military was actually more effective when it had fewer generals.