I usually don't put much stock in MSN.com articles, but this was an interesting feature. The "search"-type feature began with a quick paragraph on Gen Stanley McChrystal's recent fate. It then went on to identify ten "notable" four-stars, to include Generals Petraeus, Franks, Powell, Abizaid, Schwartzkopf, Clark, Eisenhower, Bradley, MacArthur, and Patton.
While few can deny that each one of these great men left their mark on U.S. history, I have to wonder: why wasn't there a single Marine, Navy, or Air Force 4-star on the list? The likely answer is that the preponderance of theater commanders (now identified as Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) - the four-stars that lead organizations such as CENTCOM and their subordinate commands such as U.S. Forces-Iraq or Afghanistan) have been Army. When these COCOMs see action (as CENTCOM has in the last 20 years), then their leader likely has an opportunity to do some great things that get exposure.
Furthermore, these highest-level military commands (put in place by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986) draw only the best types of leaders. That is not to say that the best kind of leaders only exist in the Army, however. It would seem, however, that the majority of military campaigns executed in U.S. history have been land-force-based conflicts. The key exception would be Operation ALLIED FORCE, which was, by and large, an air campaign. Add to that the overwhelming number of soldiers in theater over sailors, marines, and airmen,and it might make sense that COCOMs have been led by U.S. Army four-stars.
According to Goldwater-Nichols, any 4-star of any service is eligible for a COCOM post, but traditions do follow. For instance, a Navy 4-star traditionally fills the Pacific Command (PACOM) position while a USAF General takes the Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) spot. Media-focused COCOMS like CENTCOM, however, usually have an Army General (Although USN ADM Fallon and USMC General Zinni are exceptions).
No comments:
Post a Comment