How one general interprets the Army’s selection of new one-stars: Too much infantry, and way too many exec assts

By Lt. Gen. David Barno, USA (Ret.)
Best Defense chief Army correspondent

After a bit of reflection, here’s my two cents on the Army’s newest one-star list, released on May 24, plus a few thoughts on finding the right people to become our most senior strategic military leaders, as well. 

Here are the raw numbers: 34 selectees, including 8 Infantry, 2 Armor, 2 SF, 1 Air Defense, 3 Aviation, 2 Signal, 2 Engineer, 2 Intell, 1 Chemical, 3 Logistics, 2 AG, 1 Space Ops, 1 ORSA, 1 Strategic Plans, and 3 Acquisition.

Some thoughts:

First, at 34 names, the new Brigadier General list is very small — the BG list chaired by General Petraeus in 2008, for example, had forty selectees, a fairly typical number. My guess is that at least 3-4 additional officers have been selected but are “held up” for public release due to ongoing investigations — often the case, but seemingly more so in recent years. A slowing of senior GO retirements since the 2007 advent of 40-year/100 percent base pay retirement for generals may also be stopping up the upper end of the pipeline, providing fewer options to bring on new one-stars. 

Second, the published list has zero Field Artillery officers and zero Foreign Area Officers — amazing! Again, I suspect FA might have one or more officers “held up” who will pop later.

Third, eight Infantry officers out of 34 is a big number this year –likely in keeping with the prevalence of infantry brigade commands in our two COIN-dominated conflicts. Even though I am a former career infantry officer, I find this troubling — and the two Armor officers selected represent a branch has become more and more infantry-centric. Even more so, the Army apparently selecting no FA officers is unsettling.

Finally, it’s jaw-dropping to see the number of selectees who are serving in all manner of “executive assistant to” one of the four-stars or their civilian equivalents among the names on this list. This is never uncommon, but this year it seems almost dominant.

Some perspective: Only about one half of these officers, no more, will be promoted in the coming years to Major General. Ten years from now — unless the culture and norms of the Army change — the ten or so future Army four-stars will come from this list, or ones very much like it. 

More precisely, those future four stars will come from the remaining combat arms, logistics (for maybe one four star), and intelligence (maybe one) officers on this BG list who have made it up to three stars. But the new generals who were chosen as staff specialists (foreign area, acquisition) and have left the combat arms or other branches to become career staff officers pretty much need not apply for future 4-star positions. 

So from this group of 34 brigadiers ten years hence (and in joint jobs, from their Navy, USAF and USMC contemporaries) must come the 10-12 four star combatant commanders, CSA, VCSA, perhaps a CJCS or VCJCS, AMC commander, CYBERCOM, FORSCOM, and TRADOC commanders. Big thinking strategic leaders, all.

But note: not only will half of these newly minted brigadiers never be promoted again, but those that pick up a second star will only continue on to the highest levels if they get to command. And BTW, no “functional area” staff officer types — FA59 Army Strategists included — are going to be able to get key commands that will inevitably go to the “operators.” And in truth, in today’s Army if you don’t command a division or a corps, you simply don’t make four stars. This bench narrows very quickly at two-star level, starting from an already pretty small lineup at BG.

So, I would hypothetically challenge those with in-depth knowledge of this new BG group: Who among this newly anointed one-stars has the kind of experiences in their first 25 years service that will equip him or her for those future 4-star jobs? The developmental education? The broadening assignments? Evidence of vision and strategic aptitude?

Who among them — especially in combat arms — is postured by dint of their first 25 years to be competitive for those very different strategic roles demanded of our future four-stars? And given the relentless tactical assignment pattern for our maneuver types, how many officers with strategic talent even survived to make this BG list? How many of that very small group will survive 2-and 3-star command and staff jobs to be sitting on that “bench” of potential strategic talent ten years from now? More importantly, will they be the right ones?

How should the Army leadership broaden its bench of future strategic leaders? Can it change the command track to bring back those that have been “off ramped” into being permanent (if very bright) staff officers? Or can the Army figure out how to avoid “brain drain” from the combat arms into these esoteric staff specialties? (It’s the one reason I tell my FA59 friends I don’t like their specialty: “Every one of you smart folks going into 59 drops the combat arms IQ average by one point.”)

To connect this question to our discussion of the new Army BG List: We remain a military and a nation at war. Our combat commanders are carrying great weight in this long conflict, and their skills deserve our utmost respect and recognition. But their battlefield talents may not identically correlate with those skills that we will need in our future strategic leaders. Skilled tacticians are highly prized in the military culture, but they may or may not have the right “strategic DNA.” These groups — great tacticians and great strategic leaders — are not identical, and they may not even overlap a great deal. And I’m not sure anyone knows.

As I scroll though this latest BG list, I hope that its members were not chosen primarily to recognize those who are our best warfighters and “gunslingers.” In CSA Marty Dempsey’s football analogy, these are the top-notch “Linebackers,” and they have mostly dominated the recent selections for Brigadier. Yet it’s increasingly apparent that our future requirements for strategic leaders will demand three- and four-star generals who include a spread of skilled tight ends, deep safeties — and a couple of agile quarterbacks. And we quite frankly haven’t figured out how to convert a cast of Linebacker generals into these vastly more complicated positions on the 4-star football field.

A final stray thought: the last-minute shuffle that vaulted the talented, but brand-new, Army Chief Dempsey into backfilling the Chairman’s position should give us pause. Its ad hoc feel suggests that we may need a much deeper bench of strategic leaders across all the services, and a more deliberate and resilient succession process. How we arrive at that objective, and where both this year’s Army BG list and later GO selection and development processes fit into that goal ought to be given some very serious thought. 

But in the meantime, my very best wishes to each of these 34 new Army Brigadiers. The Army’s future is entirely in your hands — and you are in for a very exciting ride!