The Army Now Has the Most 4-Star Generals on Duty Since World War II

The Army Now Has the Most 4-Star Generals on Duty Since World War II

The Army now has more four-star generals serving on active duty than the Army and Air Force combined had during World War II.

Army Col. Christopher Coglianese, the chief of Future Operations at Army Futures Command, tweeted this month about the milestone, which the service has only hit once in the past.

"Last time we had that rank density was April 1945, when we had four five-stars and 13 four-stars," Coglianese said, adding pointing out that at that time the Air Force was known as the U.S. Army Air Force.

I wonder if COL Coglianese is tweeting that because he's proud of a new milestone or embarrassed by it and wants to call attention to it.

Embarrassed would be my feeling. There is nothing great about an Army that costs a fortune and can't win wars, but still makes plenty of room at the top for "leaders."

The Army currently has some critical MOS shortages right now, including cooks, occupational therapists, Cryptologic Intelligence Collectors, and of course, special forces and linguists. They can't fill those positions but will make sure every general slot if filled.

This is a sign of a failing Army. This institution needs deep reform.

 

Gotta find something for the multitude churned out yearly by the military academies, Generals plan battles, sergeants win them.

 

Rank inflation, like school 'administrators' out numbering teachers 3 to 1 in many school districts. Have to x number of blacks, x number of women, x number of hispanics, along with a few who can carry them all. Meanwhile they dump all kinds of lower ranks with heavy experience because they hit the '28 and out' milestone. In the '90's they didn't even let many with 14+ years get their 20 in. Soon they will have to make room for a tranny or two at the top.

 

1) The U.S. Army has for the most part since the end of World War Two been only the third most expensive branch of the U.S. military. Following the Navy and Air Force in that order.

2) The Army not being able to win wars is almost entirely a function of politics not capability.

 

Perhaps part of the problem is the rigid system requiring employees to sign many year-long contracts. Let's also not forget you lose the right to a jury trial if you become an official member of the armed forces, even if you are only working in the kitchen or translating things in an office.

 

Only if the politicians don't interfere.

 

What about the Rear-Admiral numbers?

or ...

Queens?

 

I would disagree that the Army's failure to win wars is entirely a function of politics. Do the Generals have a plan to win in Afghanistan that's simply sitting on a shelf ignored, because Trump, Obama, and Bush turned them down? I sincerely doubt that.

 

Losing right to a jury trial? That's a new one on me. But I don't know how you have a functioning military without contracts to recoup the training. What's your idea on that?

 

"Winning" in Afghanistan has almost nothing to do with the military. It would involve nation building.

If you want a military win, carpet bomb the country with nukes. It's mostly not a country, the way we think of as being a country. If a foreign army isn't there, they'll just go back to fighting each other.

 

Nukes eh? I'm thinking...

 

Although they vehemently deny it, the U.S. military is as political as any other part of American society. "The generals" are not going to propose a plan that

1) They know will never be approved.
2) They know might wreck their careers for suggesting it.
3) Is fraught with all kinds of dangers that they can't calculate.

 

Then I'm really unclear why we need so many of them if they're that useless.

 

Who says the generals are "useless"? I'm sure almost all of them have duties that have to be done assigned to them. But just because they have a job to do and even if they do it well doesn't mean they are "war winners".

Generals (and admirals) can fight a war. But whether it is won or not depends on politicians.

 

Our army isn't failing. Our politicians aren't letting us fight the wars like our army did in the glory days. It's so difficult to fight an enemy that hides in civilian clothing and hides behind their children. Nobody wins.

 

Is there a plan for winning that the politicians are stopping?

 

Have you looked at the rules of engagement U.S. soldiers and airmen have to follow?

 

That's not a strategy.

 

It shows the horrendous levels of restrictions American military personnel are expected to conduct themselves by though.

Like I said, American generals and admirals are not going to promote any strategy that they know will not be implemented and that might well cost them their careers anyway.

 

Which is why I think at some point, we have to seriously think about how long we'll throw lives away for a holding action, and if it's worth it. The truth is, we've lost the war. If the American people knew that was all we were going to accomplish in Afghanistan they probably would have wanted US troops out of there after the battle of Tora Bora, when Bin Ladin got across the border.

 

Well if they are all risk averse I'm not sure why we need so many.

 

Virtually all modern general officers as "risk averse". Do you really want those in direct command of soldiers, sailors, and airmen to be careless?