"The US military has 43 4-star generals or equivalent" Topic

43!
In WW2, the Big One, when we had 13 million military personnel, a grand total of 4 emerged.
Now, we have 1.2 million personnel, with 43 four star officers.

link

That includes 2 in the Space Force.

Discuss among yourselves.

I heard that on a local talk show.
A caller said 44. "That can't be right!" I thought. I know that show gets nothing but blowhard malcontents calling in. That's what makes it so entertaining, by the way.
So I Googled. He was wrong. "Only" 43.

How big is the Space Force? 5,000 maybe?

Must be due to inflation.

According to Wikipedia Space Force is 6,434 strong. 19 of these are generals:

link

2 x 4 star general
6 x 3 star generals
3 x 2 star generals
8 x 1 star generals

There are also 3 pending nominations for new positions;
1 x 2 star
2 x 1 star

So there will be 22 general in Space Force overseeing a force with the manpower equivalent to a reinforced brigade.

I am surprised there's no 5 star general in Space Force.

I think the US Air Force alone has 81 or so 4-stars – with a total service strength of about 330,000

Again, according to Wikipedia, there can be no 5-star generals. Eisenhower was the last. George Washington was posthumously promoted to the equivalent of 6-star.
It is fit and just that nobody can surpass that.

Without getting political, it seems like of officers polished the handle on the big front door.

Even allowing for the exponential increase in specialization in the armed forces, this is a lot of brass. The Space Force especially seems like the cart before the horse.

I like having Admirals as in Star Fleet. It sounds less 1950s than Space Force.

Well, if anyone should have a lot of star ranks, I guess it should be the Space Force.

Again, according to Wikipedia, there can be no 5-star generals. Eisenhower was the last. George Washington was posthumously promoted to the equivalent of 6-star.
It is fit and just that nobody can surpass that.

Yeah but Space Force!

Everybody gets a trophy.

We go to war, everybody gets a star.

Well someone has to pay for the overpriced toilets …

I have no words …

In part, this is because we are a big player in alliances, and because we are, one of our officers is usually in command. The US Army NATO commander has to be at least of equal rank to his senior subordinates, and I'd guess that the senior Bundeswehr officers are 4 star equivalent, so our guy has to be a 4 star.

Grelber

Grebler,

It's not just active combat command generals who are 4 stars, there's also commanders of logistics, systems development, nuclear propulsion etc.

Also vice commanders are also 4 stars.

And whilst I can understand head of SACEUR has to be a 4 star, what about head of USAFE?

And note some of these generals aren't even located in the same geographic region they are meant to be responsible for:

1. Central Command (Middle East/South Asia) – HQ in Florida!
2. Africa Command (most of Africa) – HQ in Germany
3. South Command (Latin American) – HQ in Florida,

Some of these commands have virtually no resources either.

Eg Southern Command has virtually no resources or bases. It's Fleet (4th Fleet) has no permanent ships assigned either and it relies on deployments from other Fleets (usually Pacific based 3rd) and it's very rarely more than 3-4 ships.

Literally South Command's main job is drug busting, although most of the assets for this are civilian law enforcement or coast guard! Oh and humanitarian interventions.

Same with African commands – noting US Army and Naval Forces in Africa were merged with European command in 2020.

Again African operations are limited in scope – mainly training and liaison, logistics support, some special forces. It has one permanent base in Africa – in Djibouti.

So you have multiple 4 star generals commanding virtually nothing.

Not to defend the number of general officers, but the days are gone when there was a relationship between the number of generals and the number of troops under their command.

I'll use the SOUTHCOM example arealdeadone mentioned, and it also applies to AFRICOM…keep in mind those two commanders may not have a lot of troops but they deal with dozens and dozens of countries and their respective militaries. Their rank enables them to deal with the commanders of foreign militaries, who are four star equivalents, and their national leaders.

Obviously there are a lot more factors that determine this, and it would require a lot more discussion than we can give it on a social media site. :-)

By the way the Australian military is worse.

Australian Army is 48,249 men (only 29,711 active, rest are reserves). The army has only 1 deployable division with brigades with a second division forming an administrative unit for various reserve units.

There is 184 generals in the Australian Army which equates to a ratio 1 general for every 271 soldiers. If we just look at active duty, it's 86 regular officers and 29,511 regular personnel for a ratio of 1 general for every 343 soldiers).

link

raylev3,

Very relevant point.

So their role is more of a senior military attach้ than a military commander?

Well someone has to pay for the overpriced toilets …

And someone has to approve the purchase, and one to countersign that, and a third to keep them up to date on positions in the toilet company for when they retire.

The 5 star rank was created as theater commander in WWII to match out other foreign commanders. There were 5 army and 4 navy with 5 star rank in WWII. There have been no more created since WWII.

Side note I saw one report that Venezuela has a total of over 3000 generals. I guess they can be trusted?

I hate those cheap bags of soldiers too. You could always cut the bases off the un-needed ones and use them as casualties.

C. Northcote Parkinson explained this 80 years ago.

John, pretty sure Bradley outlived Ike. You can only trust wikipedia so far.

MY favorite is most of them have Silver star(SOD) or Bronze(miley) star without "V' for valor.

I was sloppy. 65 years since Parkinson published the article, and 62 since the book. Wikipedia quotes it as (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals," and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He noted that the number employed in a bureaucracy rose by 5–7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."

That sounds correct, and I don't have time this morning to scan my copy. Nothing I saw in decades in the military-bureaucratic complex contradicted Parkinson.

link

Interesting article looking at ratios, effectiveness of decision making etc

So our largely peacetime/low intensity and distant conflict oriented military has evolved into something akin to France's military prior to WW1, and perhaps in the interwar period as well where leading officers knew that political connections and maneuverings were the key to advancement, not necessarily military competence. They would attend the right schools, know the right people, say the right things, do some time in a Colony leading troops against local insurgencies and attending social functions to get a few blings for the dress uniform -- and kiss and backstab their way to the top.

Is USMC Lt Col Scheller's treatment after daring criticize senior leadership for the Afghanistan fiasco our military's Dreyfus Affair??

Or am I being too cynical and disillusioned here??

Eisenhower was not the last Five Star General. Dwight D. Eisenhower – December 20, 1944.

There were two more promoted after him.

Henry H. Arnold – December 21, 1944
Omar N. Bradley – September 20, 1950

General Bradley's term of service ended at his death in 1981. General Eisenhower's ended at his death in 1969.

Don't you guys study history?

Don't you guys study history?

The replies in this board tend to get opinion heavy and are notable fact and history/context deficient. See the post immediately above yours equating a notorious historical scandal where a Jewish descent officer was falsely sentenced to life imprisonment for treason by a 24 year old government struggling with crisis and struggles with a military still entrenched with monarchists to a guy who got booted for his Facebook posts and may or may not face some discipline.

ardo … your post is on target when discussing why there are "so many" 4 star ranks in the US forces. ⭐⭐⭐⭐

raylev +1 … Again … demonstrating knowledge and reason over opinions with limited knowledge, etc. in many cases on the topic. But that would limit freedom of speech, USA bashing, etc., if no one could or would commented on topics like this. So go for it !

MY favorite is most of them have Silver star(SOD) or Bronze(miley) star without "V' for valor.

Generally GENs don't get "Vs" at their level. Usually younger troops, NCOs and junior officers do things to get "Vs". Many in very dangerous situations in direct combat, etc. So if a GEN didn't get one when a trooper, NCO or junior officer, he probably won't have one. Having a Silver Star with "V" may not be a discriminator in a senior officer's capabilities(?).

Note many have a CIB or CFMB and now the new Combat Action Badge[CAB] for non-Infantry [along with Combat Field Medics Badge]. IMO the CAB should have been awarded much earlier, like WWII ! Those CIBs, CFMBs and CABs, holds a lot of weight as well as Silver and or Bronze Stars, IMO. E.g. My Father, a WWII Vet with the 90ID had a CIB, Silver & Bronze Stars + Purple Heart.

Also note Milley has a star on his CIB, that means he served in 2 Wars below the rank of GEN, AFAIK.

Note I do not has a CIB, I was awarded an Expert Infantryman's Badge. Also known as a "learner's permit" … Meaning I have not seen the elephant🐘 but am skilled enough to do so … maybe … 🤔

That includes 2 in the Space Force.

Discuss among yourselves.

Will do ! 👨‍🚀👨‍🚀

From Military.com today – Space Force –

link

One can say what they want about the Space Force. At a Mil Ofc Assoc, of American meeting we had an unclassified briefing from a Space Force officer, she was a former USAF O-3.

IMO Space Force, albeit too many see this type of unit like GW's Space Marines[yeah I painted bunches of them !], etc. It is far from it. Their mission is and will come into being an important asset as tech, etc., in this theater increases. Much of what they do is classified, AFAIK.

I'm sure when the Tank come out during WWI and afterwards had it's detractors, etc. Space Force may be that way for some. IMO it is shortsighted, etc., to not see how this newest branch of the US military is/will be very useful. Regardless at this time how many GENs it has or will …

I hate those cheap bags of soldiers too. You could always cut the bases off the un-needed ones and use them as casualties.

Sell'm on eBay ! 😎

See the post immediately above yours equating a notorious historical scandal where a Jewish descent officer was falsely sentenced to life imprisonment for treason by a 24 year old government struggling with crisis and struggles with a military still entrenched with monarchists to a guy who got booted for his Facebook posts and may or may not face some discipline.

It is relevant because despite whatever punishments were inflicted upon Dreyfus, the core is the same -- the top brass wanted to protect their own and CYA, so they destroyed someone else to deflect from their failings. They were highly political officers, as are the current top brass in the US Military. Yes, that's always been true to an extent but now it's naked partisan politics, rather than "standard" internal office politics.

And who has been held accountable for Afghanistan so far? Nobody at the top. Oh, and the young Marine who made headline photo news rescuing a baby in Kabul had the temerity to attend a Trump rally out of uniform and at which he made no criticism of the Chain of Command -- well the USMC leapt into action to investigate him and prepare possible charges! Is that how a healthy military acts??

My fear is that our top brass are presently akin to the staff assembled by General Gamelin in 1940…

"I hate those cheap bags of soldiers too. You could always cut the bases off the un-needed ones and use them as casualties."

Nah, they can be used for mortar crews… ;-)

Our only hope is that Russia and China are equally afflicted with such bureaucratic bloat. I'm hopeful of this, because Parkinson's Law is as immutable as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Once a 5 star rank is given they carry the rank till they die. All 5 star generals were created in WWII (sort of).

Omar Bradley was made general of the army after WWII but I suspect it was due to him being made chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With at least two 5 star generals in active service it avoided a junior officer given orders to a senior officer.

This thread gives a false impression of the US Military

The US has over 1.3 Million active service members, almost 800K in reserves and a Budget of 706 Billion dollars, you need CEO's and executives to run that size operation, I challenge any of you to find a company that has less executives with that size workforce and budget.

I served in Southcom, Remember it was stationed in Panama until we left that country, nothing is static, the military is very flexible and looks best for future force projection.

+1 ELJoeK … Very good points ! 👍👍

Non military, but in civvie street, some management got promoted 'Sideways'… to positions where they can do less damage… but too expensive to 'Fire' them.

There 'can' be 'benefits' for a plethora of high ranks… IF they are of a 'suitable mind' to an organisation or Service… they will sit on committees or get Directorships… influence.

Not in favour, but… 'way of the World'.

or get Directorships

Oh wait … thought that was Dictatorships ?(!). AFAIK it has not happen in USA … yet …

Bureaucracy and the nasty habit of promotions with years, disregarding merit, and even more of suitable real useful "positions" linked to that rank.
All western armies have frown like what was called in mockery Mexican army. It is the same in civil administration. Remember (as for the French) each goes with secretary,driver, attach้s etc. A huge expense when added.
A huge waste.

"Non military, but in civvie street, some management got promoted 'Sideways'… to positions where they can do less damage… but too expensive to 'Fire' them."

If I ran a huge corporation, I'd have one store/office set aside where I'd send the 'troublemakers'. There they could carry on with their games, drama, etc, leaving the rest of the company alone. The cost of bonuses, etc. to entice (transfer) them there would be way more than offset by the savings of eliminating the damage they could cause. With any luck, the worst customers would also go there… ;-)

ElJoeK you have more generals now than in WW2 when military was 12 million strong.

Email the Pentagon and let them know … 😎

Well that explains the level of incompetance at that job level currently. I would hazard a guess that several dozen or more worthies on the TMP website could do a helluva lot better job than these over priced doormen.

OK lets set the record straight,

"ElJoeK you have more generals now than in WW2 when military was 12 million strong."

There were almost 1100 Army general officers in WW2 and those are just Army, Today combine its 653 total so honestly you can google this stuff and get the numbers.

"Well that explains the level of incompetance at that job level currently. I would hazard a guess that several dozen or more worthies on the TMP website could do a helluva lot better job than these over priced doormen."

Honestly you know better, give me a break. How many of you know General officers or worked closely with them. These officers are groomed and trained, the ones I worked with and for took everything in and made the best decisions on the information available, playing with toy soldiers don't make you an expert.

Regarding the number of generals. We have seven active army commands: First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth; but only four active corps commands: I Corps, III Corps, V Corps, and XVIII Corps.

First off the active army commands are not active fighting commands they are force providers to the 11 Unified combatant commands, 8 geographical and 4 functional. You cannot take the military structure of WW2 and make a comparison today.

ELJoeK +1 Again, very true … Some don't get it. GENs just don't command Divs, Corps, etc. But separate commands that are not in Divs, Corps, etc. but support those Divs, Corps, etc.

BTW a Div. has 3 GENs, the Commanding GEN, the GEN for Ops and the Gen for Support. Just like in a Bn. You have the Bn Cdr, the Ops Officer and the Log Officer. Been there … done that – S3 Air & S4 …

Goggle it if you don't know what those are, you can't really be talking accurately about the number of officers in a US unit if you don't understand – S1, S2, S3, S4, BMO, S5 …

And yes … WWII is not always a good comparison to today's military.

I'll admit that in the later period of the Cold War, I was always a little afraid that in a nuclear exchange, the Soviets might NOT nuke the Pentagon. I had this vision of a small number of surviving fighting commands being inundated by dozens of three- and four-stars demanding immediate reports.

I don't know how many generals of each grade would be optimum. Presumably it varies with tech level and force structure. And there will be some inefficiency in any system--jobs or ranks created to pacify someone. We can't help that. But I'm sure the creation of large high-ranking staffs combined with modern communications creates troubles at lower levels we haven't recognized yet, let alone attempted to solve.

Robert Piepenbrink, I take your point, but you do know that retiring and /or separating officers and noncommission officers are in high demand by major corporations because of their efficiency.

There is no bloated staffs, maybe on TV, while not perfect tell me who could have conducted a evacuation of Kabul (crazy as the press shown) No other than the US military.