Just to note, it is incorrect to refer to any person holding the grade of ''General of the Armies of the United States'' as a ''five star general''. No official insignia for the grade was ever established. The only persons who can be reasonably referred to as ''five star generals'' are the five officers who actually held the grade of ''general of the army''.Originally Posted by AdamG
Also, to note, it is incorrect to refer to Pershing and Washington as the only persons to ever hold the grade of ''General of the Armies of the United States''. Ulysses S. Grant. William Sherman and Philip Sheridan also held the grade. The legislative act of 1866 which established the grade of ''General of the Army of the United States'' referred to it as a revival of the office previously established for Washington. The grade held by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan is entirely distinct from, and senior to, the ''four star'' rank of modern full generals, and being equivalent to the grade held by Washington and Pershing, is senior to the ''five star'' grade of ''general of the army''.
As for the merits of the proposed promotion, I see no grounds for that. Petraeus has performed well in two relatively small-scale COIN-centric wars but no decisive victory yet has been obtained in either conflict. Promotion to a rank held by senior leaders in a global-scale war hardly seems merited. And frankly, the implied comparison between Washington, a man leading a newly forming nation in a desperate struggle for independence, and Petraeus, a theater commander fighting terrorists and insurgents in far-off lands is entirely absurd.
Bookmarks