That was an interesting read.
Military is too top-heavy. Never really realized that, but it always did seem a bit odd that so many “generals” exist at all. I didn’t know much but even the Pentagon (not meant to be so) implies lots of “brass”. Have to have plenty to justify a building that big.
I understood that many “generals” were given the promotion to a one star, with the idea that they would retire with higher benefits. It seems that not all retired quickly ...
With the chaos caused by the Obama regime, lots of new “generals” were created to promote loyalists.
And under Bush, lots of new “generals” from the entire WOT.
IIRC, we still have fewer generals than Russia or NK, on a per capita basis.
Though I understand that Russia is learning the lessons of top heavy leadership the hard way.
“Pentagon (not meant to be so) implies lots of “brass”. Have to have plenty to justify a building that big.”
At the beginning of WW2, the War Department was spread out in numerous buildings across Washington, D.C., as well as Maryland and Virginia.
Back when it was built, they needed the size for all of the clerk-typists that made up the secretarial pool who typed all the memos, orders, field manuals, etc, etc.
With the advent of computers, the secretarial pool was cut in half. Unfortunately the void was filled with additional brass that popped up like mushrooms in a dung pile.