Quote Originally Posted by Polarbear1605 View Post
I think giving national command responsibility to the chairman is too simplistic a solution and would result in a step back to undue service influence.
Can't speak for others but that is not my intent or idea. NCA is the Prez, period. However, the current 5th wheel status of the CJCS is not conducive to good order and discipline, he has been removed from the chain (never was in it, really) and should be in the chain or removed. They emasculated the position and that was a political, not a military decision. Part of the rationale was military. A Navy CJCS might be ill suited to be directive in a major land operation. Myers as CJCS suffered from that problem, I'm sure he was a great Airman but the land war threw him.

That, BTW, is one of the problems I have with excessive emphasis on 'jointness' -- we end up with jacks of all trades and master of none. Even within the Army and Marines, I can make a case for lack of expertise when great Artillerists are given maneuver command as GOs -- in the Army, a great Mech Infantry guy is quite likely to be a very poor Light Infantry commander and vice versa.

The current solution is to have six competing delegates of the NCA and, as you note, not all FlagOs do that job well. Giving the CJCS authority will not fix that problem but it will establish a chain of responsibility that is currently lacking. It also, more importantly, provides an Umpire to sort competing Fuedal Earls...

Far more important than authority, the real issue is to centralize NATIONAL strategy (and its selling or discard) in DC and that also fixes responsibility as opposed to the current excessive diffusion. Decentralization is good if you have competent subordinates, it will be eschewed if they are not (also yet another thread with broader application), diffusion is not good -- no one is in charge...
We have agreed that the national command authority needs a good, consistent, method, apparatus, leadership, etc., to generate timely and effective national strategy. We have also agreed that the current unified command structure has it flaws. (I also feel some but not all of those flaws could be corrected if the generals followed its procedures instead of looking for work arounds.)
Probably true but unlikely to occur -- the Flag Superego factor will get in the way.
I feel the solution to the national strategy issue is good leadership (generalship) and yes the resolution will take years; why not start now. I cannot accept the too long argument when we have been in Afghanistan since 2001. I feel you agree there is a leadership issue and I understand we are trying to solve the strategy issue quicker with a command structure change.
In reverse order, yes; yes; adjust your "too long argument" to encompass 200 plus years. That is not a recent phenomenon, we've had poor Generals for years (Lee, Gates, Wilkinson, Pierce, Bragg, Sickles, Fredendall, Millikin, Almond, Barsanti) Many like Joe Wheeler excelled in combat at lower levels but were past their prime or worn out as major commanders. So yes it's a leadership issue, a training and management issue -- and a human foible issue. No matter how you tweak the selection process, 50% will always be good, 50% less so...
The chairman has a historical tendency to play to the service chiefs…after all, they live together in the Pentagon. Yes G-N cut the chairman’s command authority privates off but I feel you can’t sow them back on, nor should we want to …after all; they cauterized the wound with Teflon. It was part of the same process they used when they covered his butt with that non-stick substance.
While true, the problems you cite are partly organizational, partly historical baggage and partly personal. The bigger problem with the CJCS is the rotation of services and concomitant lack of knowledge that causes that deference to the Service Chiefs -- any one of whom can destroy a Chairman if they become so inclined simply by doing exactly what he tells them to do. Neither organizational changes nor more 'jointness' will fix that -- personnel selection NOT based on political appeasement wil help but even that is no guarantee.
Here is my structural solution. Take US Joint Forces Command (the old USLANTCOM) and give that command strategic...into the old Navy Annex that overlooks the Pentagon (actually, I am not sure if it is still standing).
It is not. And you've already got a first among equals, the CJCS. I'm uncertain yet another command is wise.
...SOCOM is one (should be a force provider)
Very much agree...

Good lick on the beer -- though back in the day I tended to get in minor trouble every time I was in Wake County.