Why a Navy guy? Cuz Rummy thought the Army was irrelevant.

or, could it have something to do with the massive naval flotilla hanging out in the persian gulf awaiting orders to attack iran...?

"There's no obvious reason a Navy guy would be put in charge of Centcom, or why we would have two sea service people replacing two other sea service people at the top of the Joint Chiefs," said Loren B. Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based military think tank. "But the reality is that they seem to be able to work with big ideas and big political leaders better than the other services."

ah-HA...! so, working with "big political leaders" is a major requirement... hmmmm... i wonder who they have in mind...?

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

lovely... interservice rivalry has always been an issue, so leave it to rumsfeld to make it worse...

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

and, naturally, the navy asserts a strong claim to occupying a loftier perch than those stupid ground-pounders...

Navy officers say their worldview is uniquely fitted for the current environment, in which threats are global and understanding foreign cultures is critical. Because Navy officers must constantly patrol the world's seas and regularly interact with international governments in ports abroad, they say, the Navy has developed a culture that is more open to a broader view of American power.

does anyone else find that phrase - "more open to a broader view of American power" - slightly disturbing...?

here's the breakdown...

Of the U.S. military's top seven high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, five are held by Navy or Marine Corps brass.

Joint Chiefs

Current:
• Chairman: Gen. Peter Pace (Marine Corps)
• Vice Chairman: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani (Navy)
Next in line
• Chairman: Adm. Michael G.Mullen (Navy)
• Vice Chairman: Gen. James E. Cartwright (Marine Corps)

Regional Commands

• Northern: Gen. Victor E.Renuart (Air Force)
• Southern: Adm. James G.Stavridis (Navy)
• European: Gen. John Craddock (Army)
• Central: Adm. William J.Fallon (Navy)
• Pacific: Adm. Timothy J.Keating (Navy)

no mention of any relationship between the choice of mullen to this news item from may 24...

The U.S. navy began war games on Iran's doorstep on Thursday, navy officials said, a day after a large flotilla of U.S. ships entered the Gulf in a dramatic daytime show of military muscle.

The group includes two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, whose presence adds to the pressure on the Islamic Republic to abandon its own nuclear ambitions, which the West says are an attempt to develop atomic weapons.

and, when you have an official source making a comment like this to a simple yes or no question, you can safely assume the answer, in this case certainly, is yes...

Asked if any of the American ships carried atomic weapons, a U.S. navy spokesman said the United States routinely did not comment on whether its warships were equipped with nuclear arms.

so, here we are, waiting for the navy guy to come aboard... oh, yay...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet