MGD,
Just to get my credentials out of the way to start with, I am not one of the senior officers likely being referred to and I am never likely to be one. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that we have probably shared the same bird table at Bastion. In my case, CR almost certainly means ceiling reached, so I don't even have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.
We are indeed top heavy and as you rightly say, thinning out some of the medal-hunters and yes men is probably a good thing. But I would ask you to re-read my post, very specifically the part of the article I quoted at the top. If anyone thinks a bonfire of the generals will stop with the generals, I think they are mistaken; this will go right down the commissioned ranks and have a far greater impact than the headlines suggest.
Imagine the scenario: Mr Slater makes his comments about pruning the top ranks. The top ranks eager to preserve pensions, knighthoods and potential future directorships close ranks and argue that you can't do that without adversely impacting on the promotion pyramid. Fine says Mr Slater, we'll get rid of more officers down the pyramid to maintain career prospects, but you lot are still in the firing line. At a stroke, the MOD civil service and the Treasury get exactly what they want - the opportunity to make even further cuts, either axing posts full stop or replacing military personnel with civil servants and contractors.
And that is the crux of my post. This will be a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. Slater and his chums believing that military personnel are too expensive are handed even more of us on a plate than they had intended to cut in the first place. We will be left with expensive contractors and civil servants who you either can't deploy or refuse to deploy without significant expense. I have seen it happen in Iraq; I fought to get a capabilty on line during ops only to be blocked by the contractors refusing to come in country in without their company first renegotiating T&Cs. The Armed Forces are just that - armed forces, not civil servants or contractors. If you are relying on civil servants and contractors to carry out a military role, I'm afraid the politicians may well end up with a rather nasty surprise. A recent article in Janes Defence Review analysed the increasing use of contractors in the military, looking specifically at ISR as a case study. There are quite a few civvie UAV operators out in theatre, mostly doing launch and recovery, but a few providing full mission capabilities. But when asked if they would be prepared to fire on insurgents or carry out intelligence work that lead to kinetic operations, a significant number of them suggested those roles were more appropriate for the military to carry out.
All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. This measure, whilst no doubt well intentioned - or as well intentioned as you can get when your sole aim is to amputate significant chunks of the patient - will come and bite us on the arse a few years down the line. It would also be interesting to know exactly how many civil service equivalent posts will be going in the bonfire.