Why do the Alumni Get The Pentagon's Plum Jobs?
Lexington Institute issue paper - Why do the Alumni Get The Pentagon's Plum Jobs? By Loren B. Thompson.
Quote:
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...
I think Thompson forgets, elides or misses
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.
Regrettably, I'm afraid your "ouch" is right and I share
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
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.
