(HOST) Commentator Bill Seamans has noticed that our current top military leaders have something interesting in common – something that may signal a change in the way we manage our armed forces.
(SEAMANS) Our top military commanders carry the vital burden of assuring the security and, as in World War Two, the survival of the United States of America. It’s an enormous responsibility that we the ordinary people hardly reflect upon except when an Eisenhower, Marshall, or MacArthur ascends above the ranks. We would like to think that they also rise above politics and that their only agenda is their solemn military officer’s credo – "Duty, Honor, Country."
But as we know, even when called upon to follow the orders of their civilian rulers, they evolve their own individual strategic philosophies about how our armed forces should be shaped. Thus a change at the highest command level can evoke significant implications regarding how our armed forces should be managed – ideas that are argued under the radar at the highest officer corps huddles.
One of those very significant changes has occurred and the public has hardly noticed. Were you aware that the United States Navy is now in charge of all our armed forces? Now hear this!
Admiral Michael Mullen is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – our highest military officer.
He’s backed up by Marine General James Cartwright who is now vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Mike McConnell has been appointed Director of National Intelligence who we could call our spy master.
And for real combat muscle, Admiral William Fallon is the Head of Central Command which is in charge of all our Middle East military operations.
We cannot help but ask why our boots on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere have been put under the command of naval officers who have never worn infantry boots except, we assume, Marine Gen. Cartwright. This could signal a major change in our strategic military philosophy and another step toward reshaping our ponderous tank and infantry ground forces into a more flexible army designed to cope with terrorism, which they call asymmetrical warfare in those strategic think tanks.
And there is a rumble of criticism of our generals at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the Army’s intellectual center where hand-picked captains and majors are trained for higher command. Unusually frank and open discussions have focussed on a scathing article published in the Armed Forces Armed Forces Journal last May by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling who charged that "If a general remains
silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results."
That very controversial Yingling article is required reading at Fort Leavenworth where future army leaders are debating just how far they should go to question their senior officers – they ask where is the red line? Perhaps the new Navy command will provide an
answer.
Bill Seamans is a former correspondent and bureau chief for A-B-C News in the Middle East.