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.
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.
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.
Milley-Vanilli has made great strides in reducing that!