Has there been flag bloat in the Navy and Air Force over the last decade while the Army needs more officers?

From testimony by Benjamin Freeman of the Project on
Government Oversight to Sen. Webb's personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee on Sept. 14:

The Army and Marines, which bear the greatest burden in the
war on terror, have added far fewer top brass than the Navy and the Air Force. In
fact, the Navy and the Air Force have each added more top brass than the Army
and Marines combined. And the Navy and the Air Force added this top brass while
cutting more than 70,000 enlisted personnel and lower-ranking officers. Furthermore,
the Air Force has a historically low number of planes per general, and the Navy
is close to having more admirals than ships for them to command.  

Meanwhile, retired Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, one of the
most thoughtful officers I've met, argues on Sydney Freedberg's blog that
the Army, rather
than shrink, actually needs more officers: "The army has too few leaders,
and the methodology to determining the leader-to-led ration is outdated. Over
the past few years, there have been several leader-intensive requirements.
First, making all the staffs 24/7 capable. They are not so staffed in
peacetime. Second, staffing all the joint and multinational headquarters-and
not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the world. Third,
expanding the size of the special operating forces. And last, creating all the
train, equip, mentor activities."