Posted on 12/29/2022 10:16:55 AM PST by fugazi
Maj. Gen. Mark Clark’s secret submarine operation to secure French cooperation in Operation TORCH has been discussed in previous posts. Clark is pictured on page five with the three officers that accompanied him to his meeting in Cherchell, Algeria. We have already mentioned Navy captain Jerauld Wright. Also participating was Brig. Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, who served as a coastal artillery officer before becoming Lt. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s Assistant Chief of Staff during the North African campaign. He will later serve on the teams that negotiate surrender with Italy and Germany. Lemnitzer commands the 7th Infantry Division during the Korean War, and he is selected by Pres. Eisenhower to become the fourth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before retiring, he is named NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
While there is not an official Joint Chiefs until 1949, Adm. William D. Leahy became Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief in July 1942 and will serve in that position until 1949. The current “Joint Chiefs” are Leahy, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall, Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief of the United States Fleet Adm. Ernest King, and Chief of the Army Air Forces Lt. Gen. “Hap” Arnold.
What are the men who become Joint Chiefs Chairman up to now? Here are the ones who served during the Second World War:
Maj. Gen. Bradley recently handed over command of the 82nd Airborne Division to Maj. Gen. Matthew Ridgway and currently heads the 28th Infantry Division. Capt. Radford is currently stateside, refining the training program for Naval aviators. Next year he is promoted to rear admiral and given a carrier division command. Twining, a first sergeant in the Oregon National Guard before his nomination to the U.S. Military Academy, serves as
(Excerpt) Read more at untothebreach.net ...
Okay, it’s a bit off-topic. But there should be no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Co-equal Chiefs of Staff, yes.
But having a Chairman puts too much prestige and authority in the hands of one single military person. This is something that the Founders most certainly did not want.
Bookmark
Interesting point.
The founders clearly understood human nature, which is constant regardless of the time period. But what they couldn’t have predicted was how far the American citizen let their government descend into totalitarianism and how it would affect the various institutions, like the military in this case. Theirs was a time of extremely limited military involvement, compared to our modern forces being involved in almost everything almost everywhere. Or a defense industry that profits greatly from conflict. The founders did their job, but subsequent generations of Americans should have voted in good elected officials and kept the Marxists and military adventurists out.
That said, I don’t know how well the Joint Chiefs would work without a chairman. If only we still had men whose character matched the World War II veteran Joint Chiefs chairmen and not jackoffs like Mark Milley.
4 co-equal chiefs? um no.
> That said, I don’t know how well the Joint Chiefs would work without a chairman. <
It would be a bit chaotic, as the members might disagree with one other. And that’s exactly the way it should be! The President would then be able to hear many different, co-equal viewpoints.
As it is now, the Chairman has the weight. His viewpoint drowns out all others. And if the Chairman is an idiot, that’s a very dangerous thing.
> 4 co-equal chiefs? um no. <
That’s a fair point in that the the various branches of the military are not co-equal in the defense of the nation. For example, the Army is much more important than is the Marines (no disrespect meant to the Marines).
However, a separation of powers is a good thing. So I’d rather see co-equal Chiefs than one Chairman who has most of the prestige and authority. Just my two cents, which isn’t worth much.
So if the co-equals are deadlocked do they flip a coin or play rock paper scissors?
> So if the co-equals are deadlocked do they flip a coin or play rock paper scissors? <
Then the President decides. Same as if it were not a deadlock. The President could pick any of the Chiefs’ suggestions. Or he could pick some other option altogether.
I grant that there is a danger there. The Chiefs are professionals. Their opinions should matter. However, I cannot see where one person’s opinion (the Chairman’s) should carry more weight than any other opinion.
I cannot see where one person’s opinion (the Chairman’s) should carry more weight than any other opinion.
That kind of flies in the face of most every business model and political model in the world.
The President is Commander in Chief.
He can have top generals from each service in a room together to discuss agreements or differences.
Isn’t that just another way of saying “Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff?”
The job therefore not only just more DC bureaucratic bloat, its deep-state control and dangerous to the Republic.
There should only be Two Branches of the US Military, Army and Navy.
The Marine Corp needs to be folded back into the Naval branch and the Air Force back into the Army branch.
Disband the “Space Force” until such time as we achieve FTL capabilities. Right now it’s just another useless bureaucracy.
Exactly whoever wins the commander in chief trophy gets it for 1 year.
“The Marine Corp needs to be folded back into the Naval branch..”
The USMC is a Department of the US Navy.
The mens department.
L
> That kind of flies in the face of most every business model and political model in the world. <
Yes, that would be true if the Chiefs were at the top of the pyramid. But they are not. The President is at the top. And as such, the President should be able to hear many military opinions, none of which should automatically carry more weight than any other.
Side note: You and I obviously disagree on this issue. Yet you have been most cordial. And I hope I have been, too. I enjoy such conversations. I often learn from new perspectives. Thanks.
How did that work with the so-called "Whiz Kids" in Vietnam?
Milley-Vanilli has made great strides in reducing that!
“Lemnitzer commands the 7th Infantry Division during the Korean War, and he is selected by Pres. Eisenhower to become the fourth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before retiring, he is named NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.”
Well, that’s one way of saying that Kennedy fired him from the Joint Chiefs after he got sick of all the crazy stuff he kept proposing, like a “surprise” nuclear attack on the USSR, or Operation Northwoods, hijacking US domestic airliners in a false flag to blame on Cuba.
> How did that work with the so-called “Whiz Kids” in Vietnam? <
Oh, what a terrible thing that was. No one in that room exhibited any restraint or common sense. I guess they all knew better than did an old and experienced five-star general.
Never fight a land war in Asia.
Douglas MacArthur
And while we are at it, the Marines should operate as their name describes, operating at sea and the interface between the sea and land, amphibious, Instead of far inland like the Army.
Also Navy Seals should operate as their name designates, at sea and on the interface between the sea and land. Not far inland like the Army.
And, not sure if this is true, just something I heard, why would the Army have ships?
It seems they want the lines blurred nowadays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.