Cuts to General Staff

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
I remember reading a while back that the U.S. Marine Corps had less Brigadiers than the British Army, despite being bigger in size.

Its only fair that, in times of drastic Civil Service cuts, those at the top should be sacrificed too. Instead of what normally happens in the Public Sector - they get rewarded for failure and moved sideways to rinse and repeat.
 
Doesn't the US tendency to put Colonels in command of BCTs and other such roles account for some of that? Looking at the correspondence between 1*s may make it look worse than it is.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
Doesn't the US tendency to put Colonels in command of BCTs and other such roles account for some of that? Looking at the correspondence between 1*s may make it look worse than it is.

I don't think it is actually possible to "make it look worse than it is" though apparently the Navy does appear to see that statement as something of a challenge rather than an embarrassment.
 

Petardier

War Hero
US Army is bound by law as to the proportions of officer ranks. It's one of the reason for company level being commanded by captains. Only 'separate' (ie independent) brigades are commanded by Brigadier-Generals, other brigades are commanded by Colonels.
 
About time they had a pruning of the dead wood.
 
Not sure what the journo definition of Senior Officers is - is it 1* and above? On my little travels around MOD there seems to be a growing population of OF5s as well.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Pruning 1* and above is easy - no appointment to go to - directed retirement. However, what happens to they work they were doing? Does it go away? The vast majority of 1* that I worked with/fpr in MOD and at other HQs were working very, very long hours. Thus, if there is to be a 'cull' of 1*, the sS and the MOD has to change the way it does its business, adn scale back expectations - across the board.
 

jim30

LE
If i remember correctly, us 1* posts and abovs are subject to congressional approval and headcount. This means US of5's tend to have much higher responsibilities than their UK equivalents. Great to see a bbc exclusive involved by reading the mod press release from the other day about CGS speech!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Pruning 1* and above is easy - no appointment to go to - directed retirement. However, what happens to they work they were doing? Does it go away? The vast majority of 1* that I worked with/fpr in MOD and at other HQs were working very, very long hours. Thus, if there is to be a 'cull' of 1*, the sS and the MOD has to change the way it does its business, adn scale back expectations - across the board.
Exactly.

If you just remove individual posts, someone else has to step up - with the knock-on effects being felt a long way down the chain.

In order to really make a difference, we have to find away to chip away at the vast number of little fiefdoms - and the nugatory processes that sustain them.
 

naked_mole_rat

Old-Salt
Surely there is a minimum number of Generals required in Army regardless of how many troops you have? You then need to start adding extra generals on top of this pro rata as your force size increases.

@irl_sgt how many generals do the IDF have for their 7500 troops? I don't know myself but I am willing to bet that on a pro rata basis you have more general staff than the Brits. But as I said this would be a false assertion anyway.
 

mso

LE
Pruning 1* and above is easy - no appointment to go to - directed retirement. However, what happens to they work they were doing? Does it go away? The vast majority of 1* that I worked with/fpr in MOD and at other HQs were working very, very long hours. Thus, if there is to be a 'cull' of 1*, the sS and the MOD has to change the way it does its business, adn scale back expectations - across the board.

Once again someone has fallen into the trap of confusing long hours in the office with quantity and quality (i.e. value) of productive work.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Once again someone has fallen into the trap of confusing long hours in the office with quantity and quality (i.e. value) of productive work.
No I'm not, but I get it that more staff - of any rank - generate more staff work. However, the oft-portray 'General Melchett' image of bibendous General rank officers, resting on their laurels (and their gout-ridden feet) is simply not true; not these days; not for the last two decades, at least. As I said, major changes about the way the MOD conducts its business (already heavily 'streamlined') would have to be made. Yes, a number of posts could be 'down-ranked' but with the 3 services hemorrhaging officers at OF3 - 5 level - especially those with the drive and intellect for some of these posts - that would, arguably, compound the problem.
 
Exactly.

If you just remove individual posts, someone else has to step up - with the knock-on effects being felt a long way down the chain.
One of the (many) reasons I submitted my Notice To Terminate.

1* and up seem to have some kind of mantra that we will do more with less - however if we can do that, why haven't we always done that? Or, work gets pushed down the chain with the verbal undanstanding from above that they recognise that returns won't be submitted, work prioritised (and in some cases ignored) but in reality when it isn't done the result is the same. AGAI or disciplinary proceedings, and a mark against the individuals name.
 
Top