I mostly agree with you.

I would go further (as implied in my previous comment) that there are some who are good combat commanders but not so good theater commanders. Can anyone imagine Patton leading the combined invasion of Europe? So, we have tactical commanders, operational commanders, and strategic commanders - each requires some different skills. Then there are staff officers. There are also officers who make superb advisors but perhaps not nearly as good in command of US forces. At issue is how to get the military personnel system to do a better job of taking account these differences and making the best use of officers at all ranks and positions.

To return to the FAO example I used earlier: OPMS 21 made life much better and more predictable (or better because it was more predictable) for most FAOs. They could have a really interesting and rewarding career that would likely recognize their expertise as it does for the vast majority of their peers. That FAOs will not again be competetive for General is not a personal tragedy. But it is sad for the Army as an institution that it will have to put some Generals who simply can't hack it into positions that certain Colonels are eminently qualified for and would perform much better.

I have no answers but I do believe that we can design a system that takes account of all our requirements better than the current one does. That won't solve all problems - nor will any other proposal - but we should be able to reward multiple competencies and find 10 or so Renaissance Men and Women to fill the 4 star slots.

Cheers

JohnT