WASHINGTON - Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army officer, is familiar with the perks and pitfalls of power. He commanded tens of thousands of troops at Fort Benning, Ga., managed budgets exceeding $2 billion in Iraq, and oversaw layers upon layers of staff members who helped manage both his professional duties and his personal life.
He has experienced the full range of lifestyles that come with military leadership.
Today he lives on a pension worth 75 percent of his military salary, with health benefits that cover everything except dental and eye care for himself and his wife.
"We are well-compensated, and we live very comfortable lives," Eaton said, referring to the military's most senior leaders. "But when you look at all the things going on around a general, the nation is getting a very, very high return on its money."
People are also reading…
Not everyone at the Pentagon agrees. Two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced an effort to improve efficiency that, among other things, takes aim at the military's corps of generals and admirals. He ordered his staff to cut at least 50 positions and made clear that he would be happier if more were cut.
Pentagon officials said the measures were aimed at more than a number. Gates said he wanted to flatten a bureaucracy that had experienced significant "brass creep," swelling to "cumbersome and top-heavy proportions."
Beyond that, officials said, Gates wanted to push back against a culture of entitlement that had allowed some senior officers to pad their lifestyles.
According to the Pentagon, there are now 963 generals and admirals leading the armed forces, about 100 more than on Sept. 11, 2001.
Meanwhile, the overall number of active-duty personnel has declined to 1.5 million from 2.2 million in 1985, even though the Army and the Marine Corps have grown since the Sept. 11 attacks, to carry out the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Retired generals and former civilian officials at the Pentagon said generals' commands and lifestyles varied according to rank and assignment, though the most senior uniformed leaders enjoyed privileges not unlike those associated with chief executives in major private businesses.
