Chief of Staff

News out of Washington today is that General Peter Pace is about to be replaced as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since we are engaged in unpopular military engagements in the middle east, it has been reported that instead of initiating the confirmation process for General Pace, the White House has decided to choose someone else to nominate for the position.

While I understand the politics in a confirmation process, I disagree with this idea. Yes, General Pace is one of the most recognizable faces of the fiasco in Iraq. Because of that, the nomination proceedings in front of Congress would most likely become a Bush administration bash. But instead the White House has decided to replace a Marine Corps General with a Navy Admiral. This is something I strongly disagree with.

It is not that I disagree with replacing General Pace. I think change can only help our military. Also, putting a new face in front of the camera to answer questions about Iraq will give the White House some political breathing room for a few weeks. But I do disagree with an Admiral in the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

My belief is simple. Only an Army or Marine Corps General should be the chair of the JCS. While I acknowledge that every member and former member of a branch of the military has a bias towards their branch, that bias has nothing to do with my view.

The chairman of the JCS is an advisory position to the White House. It does not command wars. But the top military advisor to the White House should be an expert on how the military is being deployed and an expert on ground tactics, especially when over one hundred thousand soldiers and marines are on the ground in foreign soil. A career Air Force or Naval officer, unless a former Seal team member, does not have the resume that meets that criteria.

This belief also extends to the DOD. The Secretary of Defense should also meet this criteria. When Donald Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, I was dissapointed to say the least. How does being a in the Navy for two years while not at war prepare you to be in charge of the Pentagon. I understand that Rumsfeld is not the only defense secretary without major military experience, but it is the most recent example. Both political parties have made the secretary of Defense a ceremonial position within the government and that has hurt our military.

While I understand air supperiority is a major part of past and future conflicts, without soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND being utilized to their full potential, a war can not be waged to perfection. And without knowledge of what it is like to be on the ground during a conflict, you can not be expected to know what to advise the commander in chief. Without good advice, what kind of advice does the President have left to listen to.