Did Colin Powell deserve fifth star?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Promotion to five-stars rank of General of the Army?

I must say I'm not sure. I don't share views that he did not deserve this because he never directly commanded anything larger than batalion. George C. Marshall, for example, was mostly a staff general during his life too, but certainly earned fifth star for his role as Chief of Staff during WWII. Yet, it's really hard to compare Powell's accomplishments as well as general circumstances to those of U.S. five-stars waritime generals, like Marshall, Eisenhower, McArthur, Bradley etc. etc.

If Powell was to receive fifth stars, however, then Schwarzkopf should receive this promotion as well.

[dead0man]

No way.

[True Federalist]

Powell is one of the minority of modern-day four stars who deserved four stars, but most don't.

There are currently 38 billets that call for a four-star officer in the U.S. military, and as I see it there should be only 10.

Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Commander, U.S. Central Command
Commander, U.S. European Command / SACEUR
Commander, U.S. Northern Command / NORAD
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
Commander, United Nations Command  (Korea)
Chief of Staff of the Army
Chief of Naval Operations
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Commandant of the Marine Corps

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Powell is one of the minority of modern-day four stars who deserved four stars, but most don't.

There are currently 38 billets that call for a four-star officer in the U.S. military, and as I see it there should be only 10.

Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Commander, U.S. Central Command
Commander, U.S. European Command / SACEUR
Commander, U.S. Northern Command / NORAD
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
Commander, United Nations Command  (Korea)
Chief of Staff of the Army
Chief of Naval Operations
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Commandant of the Marine Corps

I think Truman agrees with you.

I fired him [MacArthur] because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President ... I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.

[dead0man]

Powell is one of the minority of modern-day four stars who deserved four stars, but most don't.

There are currently 38 billets that call for a four-star officer in the U.S. military, and as I see it there should be only 10.

Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Commander, U.S. Central Command
Commander, U.S. European Command / SACEUR
Commander, U.S. Northern Command / NORAD
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
Commander, United Nations Command  (Korea)
Chief of Staff of the Army
Chief of Naval Operations
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Commandant of the Marine Corps

You wouldn't include all the MajComs?  The guy in charge of transport shouldn't be a 4 star?  Nor the guy in charge of the nuclear arsenal?  Special Ops?  We're living in a Special Ops age ya know.  The US military certainly doesn't have a problem of too many Generals and not enough Privates like many (most?) militaries have.

[True Federalist]

Powell is one of the minority of modern-day four stars who deserved four stars, but most don't.

There are currently 38 billets that call for a four-star officer in the U.S. military, and as I see it there should be only 10.

Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Commander, U.S. Central Command
Commander, U.S. European Command / SACEUR
Commander, U.S. Northern Command / NORAD
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
Commander, United Nations Command  (Korea)
Chief of Staff of the Army
Chief of Naval Operations
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Commandant of the Marine Corps

You wouldn't include all the MajComs?  The guy in charge of transport shouldn't be a 4 star?  Nor the guy in charge of the nuclear arsenal?  Special Ops?  We're living in a Special Ops age ya know.  The US military certainly doesn't have a problem of too many Generals and not enough Privates like many (most?) militaries have.

The Union Army in the Civil War was about as large as the current U.S. Army and yet it had but a single Lieutenant General at the end of the war.  I'll concede that the Union Army could have made use of more robust general grades, but a single 4-star general would have been sufficient.

So no I wouldn't make the major commands be four-star commands.  They don't command enough forces to warrant 4-star rank.

We probably ought to merge the Northern and Strategic Commands into a 4-star Homeland Command.  And we definitely need to get rid of the politically correct idiocy that is the Africa Command.  North Africa should return to the European Command, East Africa to Central Command, and the remainder should go to the Southern Command instead of back to the European Command.

Also, the only reason to have the UN Command be a 4-star billet is because of the ROK forces under his command. Frankly, I think it's time for the UN Command to be headed by an ROKA general instead of a USA general, and the current joint hat of Commander, U.S. Forces Korea, to become a 3-star billet.

I don't blame the military alone.  We have a bloated cabinet with too many Departments.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

In Poland, four-star ranks are de facto reserved for the most senior officers, like Chief of the General Staff and commanders of each branch of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Special Forces). Theoretically, there's a rank of Marshal, equal to American's General of the Army (and Marshals in other countries), but only six people attained this rank in history, and last one in 1963 (Jaruzelski declined in 1980s).

[dead0man]

I don't blame the military alone.  We have a bloated cabinet with too many Departments.

Apparently the Pentagon sort of agrees with you.  link

With the Iraq war over and troops in Afghanistan on their way home, the U.S. military is getting down to brass tacks: culling generals and admirals from its top-heavy ranks.

Pentagon officials said they have eliminated 27 jobs for generals and admirals since March, the first time the Defense Department has imposed such a reduction since the aftermath of the Cold War, when the collapse of the Soviet Union prompted the military to downsize.

The cuts are part of a broader plan to shrink the upper ranks by 10 percent over five years, restoring them to the their size when the country was last at peace, before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The changes are projected to save only a modest amount of money, but defense officials said they are symbolically important as the Pentagon adjusts to an era of austerity. The Obama administration proposes to squeeze $450 billion from defense budgets over a decade. An additional $500 billion in cuts will be triggered if Congress cannot agree on a deficit-reduction plan in the next year.

<snip>

[J. J.]

Absolutely.  I agree that Schwarzkopf did as well.

Basically, I think the Chief of Staff should be 5 star rank and theater commanders should be as well.  I would not object to temporary six star rank, which was proposed for both Marshall and MacArthur (after his firing).

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Absolutely.  I agree that Schwarzkopf did as well.

Basically, I think the Chief of Staff should be 5 star rank and theater commanders should be as well.  I would not object to temporary six star rank, which was proposed for both Marshall and MacArthur (after his firing).

You see, the problem with six-star rank (General of the Armies) is that Washington was posthumously given one (in 1976) and there's some kind of unwritten rule that no U.S. general, alive or not, should be equal or surpass Washington in terms or rank (which is funny, considering that for 200 years Washington was listed as Lieutenant General only). Pershing doesn't really apply here, since in his time, General of the Armies was rather 5, not 6 stars (as General of the Army rank was created in 1940s).

By the way, I find that amusing that Army, Navy and Air Force have option of 5 star ranks, but Marine Corps does not.

[True Federalist]

You see, the problem with six-star rank (General of the Armies) is that Washington was posthumously given one (in 1976) and there's some kind of unwritten rule that no U.S. general, alive or not, should be equal or surpass Washington in terms or rank (which is funny, considering that for 200 years Washington was listed as Lieutenant General only).

Washington's legacy is one reason why we had so few officers above the rank of major general until the 20th century.

Pershing doesn't really apply here, since in his time, General of the Armies was rather 5, not 6 stars (as General of the Army rank was created in 1940s).

Actually Pershing was still alive, albeit retired at the time.  He was considered senior to the WW II Generals of the Army.  Incidentally, his rank emblem (which he chose) was 4 gold stars.

By the way, I find that amusing that Army, Navy and Air Force have option of 5 star ranks, but Marine Corps does not.

The Marine Corps never had, and never will have, enough personnel to justify a 5-star rank on its own.