Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Weighing the Brass
One of the hardest-hit areas being discussed in federal budget talks is the Pentagon, which would take an automatic $20 billion cut in January under sequestration. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel proposed a 20 percent cut in his own office’s budget, but command headquarters around the world doubled in cost from 2007 to 2012, the Government Accountability Office found. And while Hagel’s predecessor, Robert Gates, said at least 50 generals and admirals should be eliminated, few of the cuts have occurred. Should a top-heavy military reduce the number of its highest-ranking officers?
* (the) top brass = 고급 간부들/ hard(est)-hit = 심각한 영향을 받은/ sequestration = 일시적 강제 관리, 가압류/ predecessor = 전임자; 이전 것(모델)/ admiral = 해군 장성  

 군대의 고급(상급) 장교의 수는 줄어야 하나요?

1. Trim the Top, Like Most Innovative Organizations
With cuts coming, the best junior officers will see a surfeit of generals and seek a future elsewhere than in a top-heavy bureaucracy.

2. Why Cut the Leaders We May Soon Need?
The past isn't a model for the future. More troops and money on the battlefield might not be the most efficient allocation if more drones are used.

3. The Costs Are Crippling
The bureaucracies that surround top commanders have grown drastically, and the taxpayer-financed perks these commanders enjoy is immense.

4. Cuts Are Needed, but Shouldn’t Affect Diversity
The number of minorities serving in the military's highest ranks has risen, but there are still so few, that cuts, without care, could almost eliminate them.

Sample Essay

The Costs Are Crippling

The U.S. military is more top-heavy than it has ever been, and this bloat is a threat to national security. It slows decision-making and wastes money better used combating 21st century threats.

The bureaucracies that surround top commanders have grown drastically. Since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001, military and civilian positions at the combatant commands that some of the military’s approximately three dozen four-star officers oversee has increased by about 50 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office. The number of support personnel that top generals and admirals command has grown so much that the ratio of civilian personnel to troops is higher than it has ever been.

War-fighters looking to make quick decisions on the battlefield are buried beneath this colossal bureaucracy.

“In some cases the gap between me and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers,” bemoaned the former secretary of defense, Robert Gates. The result, according to Gates, is “a bureaucracy which has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur.”

In addition to stymieing military effectiveness, the cost of the top-heavy military is immense. Just the basic pay and compensation of a four-star officer costs taxpayers more than $225,000 a year. When they retire, each of these generals and admirals can cost taxpayers over a million dollars a year. The taxpayer-financed perks these commanders enjoy is immense and, as a Third Way report documents, includes: mansions, private jets, chefs, gardeners, drivers, personal assistants and even string quartets for dinner parties.

But the greatest costs are from the expansive bureaucracies that have grown beneath these top commanders. According to the G.A.O., the cost to taxpayers of the combatant commands many of these generals and admirals sit atop more than doubled from 2007 to 2012 — topping $1 billion.

Despite efforts to curtail this problem, the trend toward a more top-heavy military has continued. This threatens the effectiveness of the brave men and women who fight to defend our nation, and wastes money the Pentagon needs to combat 21st century threats. Curtailing the bloated Pentagon bureaucracy isn’t simply a matter of promoting efficiency or eliminating waste, it’s a national security priority. Failure to act now will result in a military that’s more expensive, less effective and less capable of defending U.S. interests.