From: "Rich Gauszka" 

 Congress limits the number of General Officers that can serve on active
duty ( not Rumsfeld )

Total flag officers is 875. Percentage of commissioned in Flag rank 4.3% .
Commissioned is 202,605

also there are mandatory retirment  provisions. Limit table and other good stuff at

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

The mandatory retirement age for all general officers is 62 (this can be
deferred to age 64 in some cases). Under the law (10 USC, Sec 635), an
officer who has been promoted to O-7, but is not on the recommended list to
O-8, must retire five years after promotion to O-7, or 30 years of active
duty service, whichever is later.

An O-8 must retire five years after being promoted to O-8, or 35 years of
service, whichever is greater (10 USC, Sec 636).

The Secretary of the Service Concerned (ie, Secretary of the Army,
Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force) or the President of the
United States, can defer the above mandatory retirements, up until the time
that the officer reaches the age of 62 (10 USC, Sec 637).



"Gary Britt"  wrote in message news:44414169$1{at}w3....
> Your link shows total active duty personnel by rank with generals at just
> under 1000.  Today's military is designed to be composed of not just
> active duty but reserve personnel.  That will put generals over 1000.
> When you total active duty, reserves, national guard, and retired, its
> thousands Bob. Rumsfeld was correct.  You should have kept listening.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:44412ac4$1{at}w3....
>> http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:444129c3{at}w3....
>>> There are thousands of Generals Bob.  Almost 2000 active duty generals,
>>> and must be thousands more retired.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:44411aec$1{at}w3....
>>>> Rumsfeld also said there are thousands of generals/admirals, which I
>>>> know is exaggerated to say the least, and I stopped listening to him
>>>> after that.....
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:44411a0a{at}w3....
>>>>> Generals brings us back to the change adverse whiners
and incompetents
>>>>> and passed over for promotion people who are speaking
out to hawk
>>>>> books and to promote their feelings against the
military reformation
>>>>> that Don Rumsfeld has been pushing since coming into office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:443ffe69{at}w3....
>>>>>> So none of the Generals have any experience either?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1842182&page=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Batiste is one of six retired generals demanding
Rumsfeld step down,
>>>>>> breaking a long tradition of the military steering
clear of politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We have nothing to gain by this. There's no
political agenda at
>>>>>> all," Batiste said. "We've been loyal
subordinates. This is all about
>>>>>> soldiers - service men and women - and their families."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Batiste led the First Infantry Division in Iraq in
2004 and 2005. He
>>>>>> retired from the military in November 2005,
passing up a third star
>>>>>> and a chance to be second in command in Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message news:443ff67c$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>> It doesn't say anything in there about having
any defense
>>>>>>> department/military operations and strategy
expertise now does it.
>>>>>>> Doesn't even indicate interest in military stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:443ff261$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>> Gee Gary  I would have thought the
Lexington Institute your cup of
>>>>>>>> tea. It's not the liberals that are turning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Lexington Institute believes in
limiting the role of the
>>>>>>>> federal government to those functions
explicitly stated or
>>>>>>>> implicitly defined by the Constitution.
The Institute therefore
>>>>>>>> actively opposes the unnecessary intrusion
of the federal
>>>>>>>> government into the commerce and culture
of the nation, and strives
>>>>>>>> to find nongovernmental, market-based
solutions to public-policy
>>>>>>>> challenges. We believe a dynamic private
sector is the greatest
>>>>>>>> engine for social progress and economic prosperity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:443fe9ee$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>I bet he understands it a hell of a lot
better than Loren Thompson
>>>>>>>>>and the entire Lexington Institute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a general thinks a policy is so
wrong that it puts his troops
>>>>>>>>> in needless and senseless danger, then
he should have the courage
>>>>>>>>> of his convictions; resign his
commission publicly and make known
>>>>>>>>> at that time the specific reasons for
his resignation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise its just money hungry book
hawking and change adverse
>>>>>>>>> and/or disgruntled EX employees of the military.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:443fe058$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>> The Bushies will have to purge the
officer corps soon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060414/cm_rcp/the_knives
_are_out_for_rummy;_ylt=A86.I2ELwT9EM18BjgT9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5b
nN1YmNhdA--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Loren Thompson, a military
analyst of the Lexington
>>>>>>>>>> Institute, told the Christian
Science Monitor that while some of
>>>>>>>>>> the rancor towards Rumsfeld can be
attributed to his well
>>>>>>>>>> publicized efforts transform the
military, "much of the officer
>>>>>>>>>> corps thinks he simply doesn't
understand technology or
>>>>>>>>>> operations in sufficient depth to
grasp the consequences of his
>>>>>>>>>> policies, and yet he routinely
uses his position to quash
>>>>>>>>>> dissent."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:443fcfcd$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine that Monte has
absolutely no clue of the psychology of
>>>>>>>>>>> bureaucracies and the petty
grudges of people who don't want
>>>>>>>>>>> their bureaucracy changed.
Anyone with a brain whose ever worked
>>>>>>>>>>> in a large organization knows
full well and first hand how
>>>>>>>>>>> change adverse some people can
be.  Rumsfeld has been reforming
>>>>>>>>>>> and changing the military, its
operations, its budgeting, its
>>>>>>>>>>> programs, its structure, etc.
since first coming to office.  If
>>>>>>>>>>> he didn't make a few change
adverse generals upset then THAT
>>>>>>>>>>> would be something to worry about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Over the past 5 years 100's
and 100's of generals have retired,
>>>>>>>>>>> been passed over, been pushed
out of the military and only 4 or
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 out of these 100's come
forward to bitch when it is in their
>>>>>>>>>>> own pecuniary and petty
interests to so do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only a non-nuanced imbecile
(i.e. Monte et al) would consider
>>>>>>>>>>> these people anything but
petty change adverse, passed over for
>>>>>>>>>>> promotion, bureaucrats.
Seeking revenge on the guy who isn't as
>>>>>>>>>>> milk toasty as the incompetent
defense secretary's to whom they
>>>>>>>>>>> grew accustomed under Clinton.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't reply Monte, we know you
have no defense to these
>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Monte Davis"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>
news:glcv32db4qtplkv84l9fnm2g6nmgr5t85e{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mark"
 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Imagine that, as we
crossed the Rhine...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine that neither
Victor nor Mark has a clue about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>>> between WWII and Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Or, more likely, that
they do -- but find it ideologically
>>>>>>>>>>>> useful to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore them)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5