00:00Currently, the U.S. military leadership is facing a significant shortage of personnel.
00:03There used to be 10 active four-star generals in the U.S. Army, but now that number has
00:07been reduced to five.
00:08First, let's take a look at exactly how many vacancies there are in the U.S. military
00:11leadership.
00:11Currently, there is no Army leadership.
00:13At the end of August 2026, Dan Driscoll, the Secretary of the Army, resigned after a personnel
00:16conflict with Secretary of War Hegseth.
00:18Even before that, Randy George, the Army Chief of Staff, was dismissed, so now both the Secretary
00:22and the Chief of Staff positions in the U.S. Army are vacant, and the Army is being run
00:25by acting officials.
00:26The Secretary of the Navy position is also vacant.
00:28In April, John Phelan, the Secretary of the Navy, clashed with Secretary Hegseth over
00:32shipbuilding projects and personnel issues and was dismissed.
00:35Currently, Undersecretary Hunkau is serving as Acting Secretary.
00:38David Hodney, the commander of the Transition Training Command, which oversees ground forces
00:41training and equipment supply, was also dismissed.
00:43Christopher Donohue, the commander of the U.S. Army, Europe, and Africa, has also been
00:45dismissed, or his successor has not been officially appointed for several months.
00:48And this is just the situation with active-duty four-star generals in the Army.
00:51Secretary of War Hegseth has dismissed or skipped the promotion of as many as 80 military
00:53officers.
00:54Of course, since taking office, Secretary of War Hegseth has said that he would reduce the
00:57number of active-duty four-star generals, positions, and National Guard generals by
01:00at least 20 each.
01:01And with the reorganization of the Unified Combat Command, he also said he would further
01:04reduce the number of generals and admirals by 10, in line with this policy that continue
01:07to dismiss or encourage the resignation of generals, and are not appointing any more.
01:11Secretary Hegseth has said that there are too many generals and commands in the U.S.
01:14military, and emphasized that he would reduce the command hierarchy to redirect budget
01:17and authority to frontline combat units.
01:19The Department of War explained that reducing these generals is also part of the downsizing plan.
01:22The problem is that Congress was quite dissatisfied with this.
01:25In Congress, Secretary Hegseth repeatedly made similar personnel changes without disclosing
01:30the reasons for dismissal, and former Army Chief of Staff Randy George was also dismissed
01:33in the same way.
01:34They have raised concerns with the Department of War, questioning why the promotions of
01:37people close to former Army Chief of Staff Randy George were blocked.
01:40That's right.
01:40As time goes on, people are saying that it's not about reducing the number of generals or
01:44commands to save the budget, but rather that Secretary Hegseth is trying to fill the
01:47U.S. military leadership only with people who are close to him and agree with his views.
01:50Jack Reed, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, commented
01:53that Secretary Hegseth is fostering a culture where dissent is punished and competence is
01:56pushed aside in favor of personal loyalty.
01:58In fact, U.S. media outlets have reported that Secretary Hegseth is focusing on an ideological
02:02war against woke, a term used to criticize progressive values, and is concentrating on his
02:06own.
02:06There is criticism that he is excluding military leaders who do not align with his vision,
02:10thereby hindering the Army's modernization efforts.
02:12Senior U.S. military officials have also told the media that during Secretary Hegseth's tenure,
02:16they have faced that kind of political pressure regarding issues related to the ideological war.
02:19For example, a U.S. Department of Defense official stationed in Europe commented that although
02:23Secretary Hegseth emphasizes technological reforms such as unmanned systems, he actually
02:27seems to be focusing more on cultural issues than on military modernization.
02:30The Axios report also assessed that as Secretary Hegseth strengthens his grip on the Department
02:34of Defense, internal turmoil is intensifying.
02:36In fact, until now, the United States has traditionally not allowed political leadership to intervene in
02:40the military personnel system.
02:42Measures were taken to ensure that the personnel system within the military could operate independently.
02:46The problem is that since Secretary Hegseth became Secretary of Defense, these kinds of
02:50interventions have continued to occur.
02:52Of course, the U.S. Department of Defense has also directly repeated these criticisms.
02:55Sean Parnell, spokesperson for the Department of Defense, explained that the claim that Secretary
02:58Hegseth is not focusing on modernization is completely fabricated.
03:01He argued that Secretary Hegseth is reducing bureaucracy and promoting innovation to strengthen the military's
03:05combat capabilities.
03:06However, concerns are growing even within the United States.
03:09What is particularly noteworthy is that not only the Democratic Party but also members
03:12of the ruling Republican Party are raising issues about the large-scale replacement of
03:16the military leadership while the war is ongoing.
03:18Even if we acknowledge that the Trump administration has the authority to push for military reform,
03:22it is necessary to carefully consider how the replacement of commanders during an ongoing war
03:26could affect the execution of operations.
03:28The military leadership is not a position where someone can perform all duties perfectly from the moment they are appointed.
03:32It takes a considerable amount of time to fully understand the operational plans and troop deployments
03:36in the assigned area, the status of weapon systems, and the cooperation system with allied countries.
03:40Especially in a military like the U.S. Forces, which conducts operations in multiple regions around the world simultaneously,
03:44the replacement of a single commander can affect operational plans and force employment in that area.
03:48In fact, the U.S. Army is currently experiencing such leadership gaps in several places.
03:51The position of Commander of the Denshin Training Command, which is responsible for ground forces' training and equipment supply,
03:56including the Patriot missile system, has remained vacant for several months since former General David Hodnay
04:01stepped down last April, with no successor yet confirmed.
04:03This position plays a crucial role in managing the Army's combat readiness and equipment operation capabilities.
04:08The prolonged vacancy of the commander is being pointed out as a significant concern.
04:12In addition, since former U.S. Army Europe and Africa commander Christopher Donohue resigned in early July,
04:16no successor has been appointed yet.
04:18There is also a continued vacancy in the key command responsible for keeping Russia in check in Europe
04:22and overseeing military cooperation with NATO allies.
04:24The problem is the timing of these vacancies.
04:26Currently, the United States is concentrating a significant number of troops and military equipment in the Middle East
04:31as it wages war against Iran.
04:32In this situation, each regional command must continuously adjust its forces and missions,
04:37and a command system capable of responding quickly to unexpected situations is necessary.
04:41However, if major commanders are continuously replaced and some positions remain vacant for a long time,
04:45each command will inevitably face greater burdens as they adapt to the new command system.
04:49What is even more noteworthy is that the United States cannot focus solely on the Middle East.
04:52In Europe, the United States must continue to monitor Russia,
04:55and in the Indo-Pacific, it must manage the movements of China and North Korea.
04:58Since the U.S. deploys forces in all these regions simultaneously,
05:00the longer a war drags on in a particular area,
05:02the more important the role of the command responsible for other regions becomes.
05:05Therefore, the concerns coming from within the Republican Party
05:07are expanding beyond simple dissatisfaction with the dismissal of a particular general,
05:10and are now focused on whether the U.S. military at war is maintaining a sufficient command system.
05:14Here, it's also necessary to look at why Secretary Hegseth is trying to reduce the number of generals and commands.
05:18Secretary Hegseth believes that the current U.S. military command structure has become excessively bloated.
05:23As the number of generals increases, the number of command levels also rises,
05:26and various administrative tasks and reporting procedures increase as well.
05:29This means that a larger portion of the budget and personnel that should be used by actual combat units
05:33could end up being allocated to running the command structure.
05:35That's why Secretary Hegseth is pushing for reforms to reduce the upper command structure
05:38and shorten the decision-making process so that frontline units can have more authority and resources.
05:42Since the U.S. military deploys forces around the world and operates numerous commands,
05:45the issue of improving the efficiency of the command structure is not a new topic.
05:48There have long been criticisms within the U.S. that there are too many high-ranking commanders
05:51and that the organization is overly complex.
05:53There are also valid arguments that, in order to allocate more budget to troops and weapons systems directly involved in
05:58actual combat,
05:58it's necessary to review the administrative organization and command hierarchy.
06:02Therefore, it's difficult to judge a policy of reducing the number of generals as a measure that weakens military power.
06:06However, the key point is whether the combat power of the U.S. military will actually be strengthened after the
06:10reduction.
06:10If eliminating the position of a general leads to the loss of experience and expertise necessary for operational command,
06:15the effect of the reduction could be different.
06:17Especially in the case of overseas commands, commanders who have long understood the military environment of their area of responsibility,
06:22relationships with allied countries, and existing operational plans are in charge.
06:26If a stable succession system is not established, it could affect the continuity of the organization.
06:30Therefore, when evaluating Secretary Hegseth's reforms, we should not only look at how many generals have been reduced,
06:34but also check what has changed afterward.
06:36We need to see whether the decision-making process has actually been shortened,
06:39whether more budget and equipment are being allocated to combat units,
06:42whether the speed of weapons acquisition and training has increased,
06:45and whether there have been any operational gaps during the process of changing commanders.
06:48For the reduced number of commanders to lead to real results,
06:50the actual capabilities of the combat units must be improved.
06:52On the other hand, if the number of generals is reduced but vacancies among commanders increase,
06:55appointments of successors are delayed, and even existing modernization projects are disrupted,
06:58then the problem is different.
06:59In this case, there could be a bigger debate about whether the reduction was for organizational efficiency,
07:03or if it resulted in weakened command capabilities.
07:05The standard for judging whether Secretary Hegseth's military reform has succeeded
07:08is not the number of generals, but whether, after the reduction,
07:11the U.S. military is able to move faster and more efficiently on the actual battlefield.
07:14If that's the case, what's important from now on is not whether you support or oppose Secretary Hegseth's reform.
07:19We need to watch for objective indicators that can actually confirm whether this reform is increasing the U.S. military's
07:24combat power.
07:24The first thing to look at is how quickly the currently vacant key command positions are filled.
07:28If the process is about streamlining the organization efficiently,
07:30unnecessary positions may disappear, but essential positions should not remain vacant for a long time.
07:34Like the Army Chief of Staff, or the Secretary of the Army for example,
07:36we also need to see how much of the budget and personnel saved through the reductions
07:39have actually been allocated to real combat units.
07:41If the number of generals or high-ranking commanders has been reduced,
07:43we need to check whether the resources saved have been invested in areas such as troop training,
07:46securing ammunition, operating weapons systems, and maintenance.
07:49If the budget does not actually lead to strengthening combat capabilities,
07:52the reform could end up being just a reduction in organizational size.
07:54On the other hand, if the size of the command has been reduced,
07:57but weapons acquisition is delayed, problems arise in training and maintenance,
07:59or the decision-making process in major operations becomes even more complicated,
08:02then doubts about the effectiveness of the reform may increase.
08:05Therefore, the actual changes that appear in the U.S. military over the next few months
08:08will likely become the most important standard for judging whether Secretary Hegseth's reforms have been successful.
Comments