Who are the great generals?

[Rob Thornton]

Ken,
I wonder about that as well. Kind of like when does the ground component guy (if organized that way) take over from the Maritime guy in an amphibious operation - generally when enough forces are established ashore as to provide C2 and enough combat power to pursue the LOO toward the objective(s).
But what about a guy like Nimitz? What about when a state is primarily a maritime power - like the contest between Athens and Sparta? Since man lives on land, the bulk of questions decided reference man will be answered there - land power compels - the others really coerce (probably made a few folks nervous with that one, but I think there are more historical examples in favor then against).

That should not mean that an AF general or an admiral could not use land forces to do so - I think its more a question of the means at his disposal, and his ability to understand the nature of the war and its conditions (METT-TC w/ a "P"). Since a person can generally only be truly proficient in so many things, it reasonable to assume somebody versed in land power their entire life is going to understand more of the nuances then say a sea or air guy (and vice-versa). If the flag has a good "joint" staff, and the professional judgment to put it to use, it should be fine. I'll give you though that there are more historical examples of Generals who used sea power to attain operational advantages on land and effect strategic outcomes then admirals - Brassidas, Wellington & Eisenhower to name a few.

You raise a great question, that in my mind raises other relevant questions about how we assign COCOMs - and the whole issue of interdependence. It also raises the issues of definitions and if we should reconsider them- either to reaffirm them, or change them in light of present conditions.

I honestly need to cogitate some more on that one.