PDA

View Full Version : Why do the Alumni Get The Pentagon's Plum Jobs?



SWJED
08-10-2007, 07:46 PM
Lexington Institute issue paper - Why do the Alumni Get The Pentagon's Plum Jobs? (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1148.shtml) By Loren B. Thompson.


There was a time when the assignment of top jobs in the joint force resembled the workings of the congressional seniority system more than a merit-based selection process. Representatives from each of the three military departments were awarded a roughly equal number of positions, with certain commands seemingly reserved for a particular service. That system is now gone, replaced by a joint command structure in which Navy Department alumni get most of the plum jobs. The Bush Administration plans to replace the Marine general and Navy admiral who currently head the joint staff with two more sea-service representatives. Admirals are running Central Command and Southern Command, while retaining their lock on Pacific Command.

Such a lopsided preference for one military department would have been unthinkable in the Clinton years, leading to bureaucratic warfare in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. But looking at the apportionment of senior military positions under Bush, it's as though the Navy and Marines had become separate departments, while the Army and Air Force had reunified after 60 years of separation. What does this "sea change" mean? Is it a reflection of passing circumstances, such as the Army's preoccupation with Iraq, or a more durable pattern? An examination of forces driving the change suggests that the rising tide of Navy leaders is unlikely to recede anytime soon...

More at the link to include some possible reasons...

Ken White
08-10-2007, 08:48 PM
a few points. No intent to attract a flame war but as a guy with 45 years in and with the Army, I think his statement that Rumsfeld perceived the Army and to a lesser extent, the Air Force as inflexible is probably correct. I also think, unfortunately, that it is true and is a major contributor to the abundance of Admirals about.

There is a strong probability that Navy alumnus Rumsfeld installed that preference in the minds of many inside the Beltway...

An additional consideration is that whether one agrees or not, the perception that Tommy Franks and Ricardo Sanchez did not do as well as was expected or that that the Army, in general, did not perform as was expected or gave false impressions of progress where there was none is probably imbedded in the White House. If I were President over the last six years, I have to admit I'd have that feeling to at least some extent.

Cavguy
08-10-2007, 09:01 PM
An additional consideration is that whether one agrees or not, the perception that Tommy Franks and Ricardo Sanchez did not do as well as was expected or that that the Army, in general, did not perform as was expected or gave false impressions of progress where there was none is probably imbedded in the White House. If I were President over the last six years, I have to admit I'd have that feeling to at least some extent.

I read this yesterday in the Early Bird. Ouch, but a good deal of truth. No wonder the Navy is getting the jobs ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/opinion/09jacobs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

SteveMetz
08-10-2007, 10:07 PM
Lexington Institute issue paper - Why do the Alumni Get The Pentagon's Plum Jobs? (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1148.shtml) By Loren B. Thompson.



More at the link to include some possible reasons...

I just figured it was because the Army's generals are all busy with warfighting. Not much for Navy flags to do to fill up those long empty hours.

Ken White
08-10-2007, 10:40 PM
I read this yesterday in the Early Bird. Ouch, but a good deal of truth. No wonder the Navy is getting the jobs ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/opinion/09jacobs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

your pain -- if I can quote Bill... :wry:

It's a darn shame but in my opinion it's deserved. I remember years ago reading a German book about Stalingrad in WW II, one phrase that reverberated with me in the final chapter was the Author's statement that the "...Generals got concerned with protecting the institution and forgot they were there to win." (or words to that effect). I've been forced to think about that many times over the intervening years. Too many times... :(

I've met and served under some great Generals. I've also run across a few that were not as well endowed and were more concerned with reputations (whose or whats not stated) than doing the job.

I understand and fully appreciate that the job, particularly at two star and above, has multiple political implications. However while I also know that the Institution is pretty durable and that nobody's perfect, it's also apparent to me that a lot of those folks consistently sell their units, their people, their Army short in their own minds. That's sad.

Hopefully, the current bout of published angst on the topic will resonate with the leadership and some much needed change in high places will occur.

SWJED
08-10-2007, 11:53 PM
I just figured it was because the Army's generals are all busy with warfighting. Not much for Navy flags to do to fill up those long empty hours.

... the Sea Service includes the Marine Corps - they have been a bit busy too. That said, a Navy (read - not Department of the Navy - the Corps does not work for the CNO) dominance at the Combatant Command level scares me. Let's face it - we are in a 'long war' (yea, I like that term) with adversaries that are not much inclined in projecting naval power against our national interests.

Of course, if the navy commander might be a SEAL, SEABEE, Aviator (who believes in CAS) or Gator type (that can figure out seabasing and supporting the ground guys) - I might figure a bit differently... Just some random thoughts.

SteveMetz
08-11-2007, 11:33 AM
... the Sea Service includes the Marine Corps - they have been a bit busy too. That said, a Navy (read - not Department of the Navy - the Corps does not work for the CNO) dominance at the Combatant Command level scares me. Let's face it - we are in a 'long war' (yea, I like that term) with adversaries that are not much inclined in projecting naval power against our national interests.

Of course, if the navy commander might be a SEAL, SEABEE, Aviator (who believes in CAS) or Gator type (that can figure out seabasing and supporting the ground guys) - I might figure a bit differently... Just some random thoughts.

In all seriousness, the Army's chickens are coming home to roost. For several decades strategic acumen has played no role in its selection of general officers. Hence you have people like H.R. McMaster being passed over while there are a number of three stars who are--in the words of my esteemed colleague Ed Filliberti--"CAT IV generals." There are three stars who were my students at Leavenworth in the 1980s and unless they had a brain transplant after they left CGSC, they have no business being senior strategic leaders. The result is that the Army's talent pool at the four star level is shallower than the other services.

SWJED
08-11-2007, 11:40 AM
In all seriousness, the Army's chickens are coming home to roost. For several decades strategic acumen has played no role in its selection of general officers. Hence you have people like H.R. McMaster being passed over while there are a number of three stars who are--in the words of my esteemed colleague Ed Filliberti--"CAT IV generals." There are three stars who were my students at Leavenworth in the 1980s and unless they had a brain transplant after they left CGSC, they have no business being senior strategic leaders. The result is that the Army's talent pool at the four star level is shallower than the other services.

From the article:


Institutional culture. In recent years the Army and Air Force have followed the example of the Marine Corps in posturing themselves as expeditionary warfighters. But the part of the Navy Department run by admirals doesn't really see itself that way. It views its forward-deployed aircraft carriers and submarines as instruments of foreign policy as much as combat systems -- in other words, as versatile tools in a global strategy. Because the Navy thinks strategically rather than tactically, its leaders are more comfortable with the nuances and ambiguity of political processes than warfighters in other services. So Navy leaders get along better with political appointees, ascending to the top jobs.

SteveMetz
08-11-2007, 11:41 AM
From the article:

And, in my opinion, Air Force generals often don't make good joint force commanders because their service is the most parochial and cult-like. That's hard to transcend after you've become one with the borg.

SWJED
08-11-2007, 11:50 AM
And, in my opinion, Air Force generals often don't make good joint force commanders because their service is the most parochial and cult-like. That's hard to transcend after you've become one with the borg.

... from me on that one! Though, as I have posted here before - What happens to all those O-4's and 5's who write all those insightful papers while students at the Air War College?

SteveMetz
08-11-2007, 12:37 PM
... from me on that one! Though, as I have posted here before - What happens to all those O-4's and 5's who write all those insightful papers while students at the Air War College?

Either they are assimilated or they go to work for SAIC. The other services have a theory of war; the Air Force has an ideology of war.

Rob Thornton
08-11-2007, 01:55 PM
Either they are assimilated or they go to work for SAIC. The other services have a theory of war; the Air Force has an ideology of war.

Those must be the contractors I see who are recovering from the blunt force trauma of beating their heads against the instituional walls:eek:

SWJED
08-11-2007, 02:03 PM
I work for Hicks and Associates a wholly owned subsidiary of SAIC. So please - spare me the generalized stereotype beltway bandit BS. I'm one of the 'good guys' :).

SteveMetz
08-11-2007, 06:15 PM
I work for Hicks and Associates a wholly owned subsidiary of SAIC. So please - spare me the generalized stereotype beltway bandit BS. I'm one of the 'good guys' :).

I don't know if you meant me, but I didn't mean my comment as an insult at all. I simply meant that there is a lot of strategic talent that doesn't end up as general officers. The fact that they still have input into the system is a good thing.

Ken White
08-11-2007, 07:08 PM
I don't know if you meant me, but I didn't mean my comment as an insult at all. I simply meant that there is a lot of strategic talent that doesn't end up as general officers. The fact that they still have input into the system is a good thing.

on all counts. The only worrisome thing is that the incessant drive toward conformity and the perceived august status of Flags (which is, I think, in large part compensation for the way the Army insists on jerking them around with little or no notice) tends to produce too many senior people who do not accept and act on that usually good input...

SWJED
08-11-2007, 09:10 PM
I don't know if you meant me, but I didn't mean my comment as an insult at all. I simply meant that there is a lot of strategic talent that doesn't end up as general officers. The fact that they still have input into the system is a good thing.

... sorry, I was being 'defensive'. Sometimes it is hard working inside and just outside the beltway - doing the right thing - and getting any respect for your efforts. I guess it goes with the territory and some (if not many) of the less-than-stellar comments directed at beltway bandits are well-deserved.