MCG said:
That's a weak excuse. Both the US and UK achieve 17% across all services, and they too are accused of bloat.
www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/.../2012_Demographics_Report.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/.../uk-af-personnel-report-1-april-2013-revised.pdf
There is a matter of "economies of scale" at play: we do require
some people, many of them officers, to do HQ staff work that everyone, even me, agrees needs to be done and to do some of the that is imposed upon DND and the CF by the government. The fact that we have a small army makes the officer
ratio look bad ... but I remain convinced that even if, say, 17% is lower than we can, reasonably, achieve, 24%, which is what we have, is too high.
My first solution is to reduce the rank levels: make directors in NDHQ, and their equivalents in other HQs commanders/lieutenant colonels ~ that's our "first level"
executive rank and that's what a
director is in a HQ. If directors and equivalents are commanders/lieutenant colonels then directors generals and equivalents will be navy captains and colonels and we will need far fewer of them. Concomitant rank reductions can be and should be made ~ including,
in my personal opinion, at the very top ~ and we should be able to cut somewhere between 20% and 35% of flag and general officer and a similar number of navy captains and army and air force colonels. Thos people will, sooner rather than later, retire and the positions can be converted to
urgently needed able and leading seamen and privates and corporals.