Talk:List of active duty United States four-star officers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes to service tables

  • I removed the Service column from each of the tables of four star officers which only come from a single service. I thought it made the tables easier on the eyes, rather than having the repetitive entry. Since the link to the service itself was removed, I wikilinked the section title for easy reference. Comments/Questions welcome -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary information

I got curious how long the current batch of 4-stars had held their rank and what they'd done to rate promotion. It turns out there are a lot of 3-star jobs, but only a handful lead to 4-star rank (basically, people who see the Secretary a lot: the Joint Staff, Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, etc.) Kind of interesting, but probably too much of a data dump for the front page.

Morinao 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Once you get that high up, its more political. Its who you know. Bunns USMC 14:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Joint Chiefs of Staff

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
Peter Pace 1967 08 Sep 2000 USSOUTHCOM 08 Sep 2000 30 Sep 2001 USMC Forces Atlantic/Europe/South
VCJCS 01 Oct 2001 12 Aug 2005
CJCS 30 Sep 2005 30 Sep 2007
Edmund Giambastiani 1970 2002 USJFCOM/SACT 02 Oct 2002 01 Aug 2005 Sr Military Asst to SecDef; DCNO, N-8; USLANTFLT Submarine Force
VCJCS 12 Aug 2005 27 Jul 2007

Unified combatant commands

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
William Fallon 1967 Oct 2000 VCNO ?? Oct 2000 Aug 2003 Deputy USLANTCOM
USFLTFORCOM ?? Oct 2003 Feb 2005
USPACOM 26 Feb 2005 12 Mar 2007
USCENTCOM 16 Mar 2007 present
Bantz Craddock 1971 2004 USSOUTHCOM 09 Nov 2004 19 Oct 2006 Sr Military Asst to SecDef
USEUCOM/SACEUR 04 Dec 2006 present
Lance L. Smith 1970 07 Nov 2005 USJFCOM/SACT 10 Nov 2005 present Deputy USCENTCOM
Victor E. Renuart Jr. 1971 23 Mar 2007 USNORTHCOM/NORAD 23 Mar 2007 present Sr Military Asst to SecDef; Director, J-5; Vice PACAF
Timothy Keating 1971 2004 USNORTHCOM/NORAD 05 Nov 2004 23 Mar 2007 Director, Joint Staff; 5th Fleet; DCNO, N-3/N-5
USPACOM 23 Mar 2007 present
James G. Stavridis 1976 18 Oct 2006 USSOUTHCOM 19 Oct 2006 present Sr Military Asst to SecDef
Eric T. Olson 1973 06 Jul 2007 USSOCOM 09 Jul 2007 present Deputy USSOCOM
James E. Cartwright 1971 2004 USSTRATCOM 2004 2007 Director, J-8
VCJCS (nominated)
Norton Schwartz 1973 01 Oct 2005 USTRANSCOM 07 Sep 2005 present Director, Joint Staff; Director, J-3; 11th AF

Other joint positions

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
Dan K. McNeill 1968 2004 FORSCOM 07 May 2004 09 Jan 2007 Deputy FORSCOM; JTF Afghanistan; XVIII Airborne Corps
ISAF 04 Feb 2007 present
Burwell B. Bell III 1969 2002? USAREUR/7th Army Dec 2002 13 Dec 2005 Deputy USAREUR/7th Army
USFK Feb 2006 present
David H. Petraeus 1974 10 Feb 2007 MNF-I 10 Feb 2007 present Combined Arms Center; MNSTC-I
William E. Ward 1971 2006 Deputy USEUCOM 03 May 2006 present Deputy USAREUR/7th Army
USAFRICOM (nominated)
Michael V. Hayden 1969 22 Apr 2005 Principal Deputy DNI 21 Apr 2005 26 May 2006 Director, NSA
Director, CIA 26 May 2006 present

U.S. Army

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
George W. Casey, Jr. 1970 01 Dec 2003 VCSA Oct 2003 Jul 2004 Director, Joint Staff; Director, J-5
MNF-I Jul 2004 10 Feb 2007
CSA 10 Apr 2007 present
Richard A. Cody 1972 24 Jun 2004 VCSA 24 Jun 2004 present DCSA, G-3
David D. McKiernan 1972 2005 USAREUR 14 Dec 2005 present Deputy FORSCOM; CFLCC/ARCENT/3rd Army
Charles C. Campbell 1970 09 Jan 2007 FORSCOM 09 Jan 2007 present Deputy FORSCOM; 8th Army
Benjamin S. Griffin 1970 2004 AMC 05 Nov 2004 present DCSA, G-8
William S. Wallace 1969 2005 TRADOC 13 Oct 2005 present USA Combined Arms Center; V Corps

U.S. Navy

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
Michael G. Mullen 1968 2003 VCNO Aug 2003 Aug 2004 DCNO, N-8; 2nd Fleet
USNAVEUR 2004 2005
CNO 22 Jul 2005 29 Sep 2007
CJCS 01 Oct 2007
Patrick M. Walsh 1977 Apr 2007 VCNO Apr 2007 present NAVCENT/5th Fleet
Gary Roughead 1973 2005 USPACFLT 08 Jul 2005 08 May 2007 Deputy USPACOM
USFLTFORCOM 17 May 2007 29 Sep 2007
CNO 29 Sep 2007 present
Henry G. Ulrich III 1972 2005 USNAVEUR 23 May 2005 present 6th Fleet
Mark P. Fitzgerald 1973 (nominated) USNAVEUR (nominated) Director, Navy Staff; 2nd Fleet
Robert F. Willard 1973 2005 VCNO 2005 Apr 2007 Director, J-8; 7th Fleet, Deputy CINCPAC
USPACFLT 08 May 2007 present
Kirkland H. Donald 1975 2004 Director, NNP 05 Nov 2004 present USLANTFLT Submarine Force

U.S. Air Force

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
T. Michael Moseley 1971 01 Oct 2003 VCSAF Aug 2003 02 Sep 2005 9th AF
CSAF 02 Sep 2005 present
John D.W. Corley 1973 01 Nov 2005 VCSAF 02 Sep 2005 present Principal Deputy, Asst Sec Air Force for Acquisition
ACC (nominated)
Ronald E. Keys 1967 27 May 2005 ACC May 2005 present DCSAF Air and Space Operations; AAFSE/16th AF
William R. Looney III 1972 01 Aug 2005 AETC Jun 2005 present Aeronautical Systems Center; Electronics Systems Center
Bruce Carlson 1971 01 Sep 2005 AFMC Aug 2005 present 8th AF; Director, J-8
Kevin P. Chilton 1976 26 Jun 2006 AFSPC 26 Jun 2006 present 8th AF
USSTRATCOM (nominated)
C. Robert Kehler 1975 (nominated) AFSPC (nominated) Deputy USSTRATCOM
Duncan J. McNabb 1974 01 Dec 2005 AMC Oct 2005 present Director, J-4; DCSAF Plans and Programs
VCSAF (nominated)
Arthur J. Lichte 1971 AMC (nominated) Asst VCSAF; Vice USAFE
Paul V. Hester 1971 01 Aug 2004 PACAF Jul 2004 present AFSOC; USF Japan/5th AF
Carrol H. Chandler 1974 (nominated) PACAF DCSAF Air and Space Operations; Alaskan Command/11th AF
William T. Hobbins 1969 01 Feb 2006 USAFE Dec 2005 present DCSAF Warfighting Integration; 12th AF

U.S. Marine Corps

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
James Conway 1970 13 Nov 2006 CMC 13 Nov 2006 present Director, J-3; I MEF
Robert Magnus 1969 08 Sep 2005 ACMC 08 Sep 2005 present DCMC Programs and Resources

Other

Name Year Date of rank 4-star position Start End Previous 3-star positions
Thad W. Allen 1971 25 May 2006 CCG 25 May 2006 present Coast Guard Chief of Staff
John O. Agwunobi 2005 17 Dec 2005 ASH 17 Dec 2005 4 Sep 2007 Florida Secretary of Health/State Health Officer
Joxel García 2008 28 Mar 2008 ASH 28 Mar 2008 present Senior Vice President and Senior Medical Advisor, MAXIMUS Federal Services Inc

Director of the Joint Staff

The Director of the Joint Staff is a statutory 3-star position whose presence on a resume is a remarkably good predictor of eventual 4-star rank. The Director is selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Secretary of Defense. Of the last 18 former Directors, 17 were promoted to 4-star rank within a year of leaving the post, and the eighteenth was appointed under the outgoing administration and lacked the confidence of the incoming Secretary of Defense.

Morinao 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Start End Incumbent Previous position Next position Start End Rank
Jul 1981 Aug 1983 LtGen James E. Dalton, USAF Cmdt, Industrial College of the Armed Forces CoS SHAPE Aug 1983 Jun 1985 Gen
Aug 1983 1985 LTG Jack N. Merritt, USA Cmdt, US Army War College US Rep NATO Military Committee 1985 Oct 1987 GEN
1985 Aug 1987 VADM Powell F. Carter Jr., USN Deputy Director, Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff US Rep NATO Military Committee 1987 1988 ADM
USLANTFLT Nov 1988 Jan 1991 ADM
Aug 1987 Nov 1988 LTG Robert W. RisCassi, USA DCSA, G-3 VCSA Nov 1988 Jun 1990 GEN
USFK Jun 1990 1993 GEN
Nov 1988 Sep 1989 LtGen Hansford T. Johnson, USAF Deputy USCENTCOM USTRANSCOM Sep 1989 Aug 1992 Gen
Sep 1989 May 1991 LtGen Michael P.C. Carns, USAF Deputy CINCPAC VCSAF May 1991 Jul 1994 Gen
May 1991 Dec 1992 LtGen Henry Vicellio, Jr., USAF DCSAF, A-4/A-7 AETC Dec 1992 Jun 1995 Gen
AFMC Jun 1995 Jun 1997 Gen
Dec 1992 Jul 1994 VADM Richard C. Macke, USN Director, J-6 USPACOM Jul 1994 Jan 1996 ADM
Jul 1994 Jul 1996 LtGen Walter Kross, USAF 15th AF USTRANSCOM Jul 1996 Sep 1998 Gen
Jul 1996 Feb 1999 VADM Dennis C. Blair, USN Assoc DCIA, military support USPACOM Feb 1999 May 2002 ADM
Feb 1999 Sep 1999 VADM Vern Clark, USN Director, J-3 USLANTCOM Sep 1999 Jul 2000 ADM
CNO Jul 2000 Jul 2005 ADM
Sep 1999 Jul 2000 LtGen Carlton W. Fulford, USMC Vice Director, Joint Staff Deputy USEUCOM Jul 2000 Feb 2003 Gen
Jul 2000 Oct 2001 VADM Scott Fry, USN Director, J-3 6th Fleet Oct 2001 Nov 2003 VADM
Oct 2001 Jan 2003 LTG John Abizaid, USA Director, J-5 Deputy USCENTCOM Jan 2003 Jul 2003 LTG
USCENTCOM Jul 2003 Mar 2007 GEN
Jan 2003 Oct 2003 LTG George W. Casey, Jr., USA Director, J-5 VCSA Oct 2003 Jul 2004 GEN
MNF-I Jul 2004 Feb 2007 GEN
CSA Apr 2007 present GEN
Oct 2003 Oct 2004 VADM Timothy J. Keating, USN 5th Fleet USNORTHCOM Nov 2004 Mar 2007 ADM
USPACOM Mar 2007 present ADM
Oct 2004 Aug 2005 LtGen Norton A. Schwartz, USAF Director, J-3 USTRANSCOM Sep 2005 present Gen
Aug 2005 present LTG Walter L. Sharp, USA Director, J-5 USFK GEN

Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

Proximity to the Secretary of Defense really is a fast track to that fourth star. Other former SMA's: GEN Colin Powell, ADM William A. Owens, GEN John P. Jumper, GEN Paul Kern, GEN James L. Jones, ADM Gregory G. Johnson.

Morinao 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: de:Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense --GrummelJS 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Start End Incumbent Other 3-star positions Next position Start End Rank
??? 2001 Aug 2002 VADM Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN DCNO, N-8; USLANTFLT Submarine Force USJFCOM/SACT Oct 2002 Aug 2005 ADM
VCJCS Aug 2005 present ADM
Aug 2002 Jul 2004 LTG Bantz J. Craddock, USA (none) USSOUTHCOM Nov 2004 Oct 2006 GEN
USEUCOM/SACEUR Dec 2006 present GEN
Jul 2004 Aug 2006 VADM James G. Stavridis, USN (none) USSOUTHCOM Oct 2006 present ADM
Aug 2006 Feb 2007 LtGen Victor E. Renuart, Jr., USAF Director, J-5; Vice PACAF USNORTHCOM Mar 2007 present Gen
Feb 2007 present LTG Peter W. Chiarelli, USA Special Asst to USCENTCOM; MNC-Iraq

Deputy Commander, USEUCOM

The new position of Commander, USAFRICOM has apparently replaced Deputy Commander, USEUCOM as a four-star position. Rear Adm. Richard K. Gallagher has been nominated as Deputy Commander, USEUCOM, with rank of vice admiral.[1] Morinao 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

List of United States four-star officers → List of active duty United States four-star officers — To further clarify that this is a list of active duty United States four-star officers and not a complete list of four-star officers. This will help eliminate the chance of a retired officer be placed in the list. — Neovu79 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support This will help eliminated confussion from active duty and retired four-star officers. Neovu79 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This list is essentially a scorecard tracking the current state of play, with some explanation of the underlying rules. Expanding the scope to include retired four-stars might make the article unwieldy, especially since they are already listed separately for each service (e.g. List of United States Army four-star generals). - Morinao (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The list is currently structured around positions rather than the holders of those positions, and it's a useful structure and should be retained. And there's no obvious place in this structure for officers not currently serving. My reservation is that a simple list of all four star officers would also be useful, if someone cared to do the initial input. IMO this move should not be seen as a decision preventing that, see the bigger picture below. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - seems pretty straight forward. - theWOLFchild 05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I moved Neovu79's support into the survery area. DigitalC (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to not list retired officers? DigitalC (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my question too. At four star rank, surely they'd all meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines? And note Notability is not temporary. Andrewa (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This can be handled with a category. I think this article should only include current O-10 officers. I agree that anyone who has held a 4 star rank (or for that matter 2 and 3) are notable. --rogerd (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, it can be handled by a category. But why? Why not include retired and other non-serving officers as part of this list, if people want to list them? Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, hypothetically, if we include retired and other non-serving officers, what do we list besides the names? Some officers have served in multiple O-10 billets, do we list their last O-10 billet they had before retiring? If we are only to list the names, then it doesn't give any more info than a category does. --rogerd (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Retired four-stars are already listed in the articles linked at the bottom, along with all of their O-10 billets and other notes, so I don't think it's necessary to list them here, especially since there are over 700 of them! - Morinao (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's an argument for eventually splitting the list, certainly. Please note that I'm not opposing the move, rather I'm looking at the bigger picture, see below. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There are many previous discussions on the question of list versus category. One advantage of a list is that it allows redlinks; A category doesn't. As for structure, perhaps see List of United States Army four-star generals. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Morinao, there are too many officers to list them together in one wiki page. Having the total number of four-star officers seperated by branch is much better and will avoid making articles too large. Neovu79 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree that breaking the list down by branch is a good idea, and the move of this content together with its history as proposed makes sense. But then what happens to this page title? It shouldn't just be a redirect to a page that deals solely with serving officers. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but until we can figure out what we can do with it, it can temporarily be redirected to the new page. One idea is that we can put list of the broken-down four-stars via service branch there instead. Neovu79 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The bigger picture

The article as it stands is a good one, and the name doesn't reflect the current contents and IMO it should be moved. But I'm concerned that this decision should not be seen as preventing the subsequent creation of a list (or lists) covering all US four star officers, past and present, if somone wished to do this. The maintenance task of such a list would not be excessive after the initial entry, less in fact than the task of maintaining the existing list, as there would only be additions not deletions.

The related question is, what to do with the resulting redirect? Probably it shouldn't simply point to this article, as there are far more non-serving officers than serving ones. See List of United States Army four-star generals for example; It's quite likely that someone coming to List of United States four-star officers wants that article, not this one. So how do we best handle that? Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem about putting together a comprehensive list of all four-star officers in U.S. history in one wiki page is that there are too many and will take up too much space. The list below is structured a little better because it categorizes the officers by their branch of service. :-)

Neovu79 (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. So, I'd propose that this page should become a navigation page that points to both the current content (moved as proposed to preserve the history) and to these more comprehensive lists. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Koh doesn't belong in this list

That's my assertion anyway: the billet may be 4-star, but you're only a 4-star *in that billet* *if you are active duty*... our content here:

United States Assistant Secretary for Health

suggests strongly that Mr Koh is *not* active duty, and therefore not a "current four-star officer". Anyone disagree with me on this?
--Baylink (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

He is active as Assistant Secretary for Health and not retired. Do you object to his inclusion because he is a civilian appointee and you believe the duty term should be reserved to military personnel? Hekerui (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what Baylink is suggesting that since Dr. Koh is a civilian and not serving in uniform, it does not constitute him being a four-star officer. Since the position of Assistant Secretary for Health is established by law as a billet for a four-star in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, I believe it should remain on the page. However, it should be noted that a four-star officer is not currently serving in that position. Neovu79 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of active duty United States four-star officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding background section to tables

I'm planning on adding a background section to the tables to show the professional backgrounds of the generals (Surface Warfare, Infantry, Special Forces, Fighters, etc.) so that there can be an addition to branch to show where they come from. Does anyone have any qualms about this before I start? Garuda28 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I do, and not because I have anything against you or their history and where they come from, it's because that several four-star position's qualifications are not based off of their technical background. Neovu79 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No offense taken! My reasoning was that it would be useful to show their backgrounds, especially in light of concerns over which career fields make it to general in each service, and in which commands.Garuda28 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I do agree with you that their initial career choices helped them in their ascension up the ranks initially, but I find that four-star ranks are of a different breed. For instance, let's take a look at the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The people who historically have been PACFLT's commander have come for very different career pipelines, i.e. aviation, surface warfare, submarine warfare. It's impossible to say that one occupational pipeline has a better chance to be appointed to this position or achieve four-star rank over the other. My point that I'm getting at, is that officers changes careers constantly over their service and, if they wanted, any officer from any initial occupation can achieve the rank of a four-star officer if they so chose their path. The current Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard is a perfect example. His is the first judge advocate to achieve the rank of admiral due in a huge part of switching his career occupation in order to continue rising through the ranks. Neovu79 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
From a scorecard perspective, I think that field would be interesting to add, because communities compete within a service just as services compete for joint positions. (Officers do change careers, so presumably they would be labeled with their current designator.) It's not that any single position is necessarily earmarked for a specific career field (although some are, and it's notable when exceptions occur, like if Mayville gets tapped to lead Cyber Command). But when a single community dominates (or is shut out of) most of a service's four-star positions, that imbalance is noticed.
For example, the Air Force and its fighter generals. There was a time in the mid-1990s when 10 of 11 Air Force four-stars were fighter pilots, including AFMC and AMC (only exception was the bomber pilot at STRATCOM). Conversely, Army four-stars used to be divided roughly evenly between infantry, armor, and field artillery, but currently there are 0 from field artillery. Similarly, around 2006-2007, I think only 2 of 9 Navy four-stars were submariners, and they were in non-operational positions (VCJCS and NAVSEA 08); CNO/VCNO and combatant/component commanders were all surface warfare and aviation.
The career field also helps signal whether individual four-stars are realistic candidates for follow-on jobs, or have probably topped out in their specialty. For example, AFMC commander Gregory S. Martin was considered a viable nominee for PACOM because he was a fighter pilot, not a career logistician like most materiel commanders. Morinao (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I can necessarily agree with some of that. It's true that in some cases, a specific community has dominated, but beyond that is really politics. If someone likes someone over another, i.e. a service chief favoring a candidate from the same original career pipeline so long as them, assuming the candidate also meet the requirements for the job, then they will get put at the front of the list. There have been times that this has seem unfair to other career communities, and that has been brought up. It's up the the service secretaries, and department secretaries to make sure that there is a balance of officers being appointed to four-star positions. It's interesting that you bring up General Gregory S. Martin though. As you're aware, he was nominated to be commander of PACOM before being blocked by the Senate because of the Darleen Druyun scandal. He ultimately withdrew his nomination and the job went to Admiral William J. Fallon. So far, no other service other than a Navy admiral has served as PACOM's commander due mostly in part of the area the Pacific Ocean covers. Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr. will be retiring next year, and Admiral Scott H. Swift has been told by the CNO that he will be passed over as the Navy's nomination for PACOM due in part with the recent Navy ship collisions in PACFLT's area of responsibility, and he has submitted paperwork for retirement. Currently, Air Force General Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy has been announced as the leading candidate to replace Harris. This goes back to who is fit for the job and not their career pipeline. O’Shaughnessy has had extensive work in that area of responsibility and has made a name for himself with the other countries in the Pacific region, and not because he was a fighter pilot. Admiral Philip S. Davidson, who is that Navy's lead candidate, is a surface warfare officer by trade and has a lot of operational experience with fleets. That is helpful with PACOM since PACOM's area of responsibility encompasses the entire Pacific Ocean. However, all of his political experience and work has been done in the Atlantic Ocean, Europe and Africa, and he has never had an assignment in the Pacific area of responsibility which has made him a weaker candidate vs. O’Shaughnessy. However, Senator John McCain the chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, favors Navy officers in that position and currently is in disfavor with the Air Force due mostly with his battle with them to keep the the close air support fighter, A-10 Warthogs in service until a "viable" replacement is found. So, what I'm getting down to is, that achieving four-star rank is all based on politics, and not from their initial career paths. Neovu79 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not about predicting who will get a job based on their initial career paths or any other personal background, since individual selections are all politics and personality, as you say. It's about listing what service communities are currently represented. We already list which service each of the joint four-stars belong to. By doing so, we're not trying to say that CJCS and CDRUSAFRICOM are Marines, so Marines are more likely to become CJCS and CDRUSAFRICOM. All we're saying is that at this moment 2 out of 15 joint four-star positions are occupied by Marines. The closest we get to prediction is if readers infer that when one service is severely underrepresented, that service is more likely to get the next appointment (which did actually play into the Waldhauser selection). This is just one more level of granularity, with direct relevance to the topic, since community balance is always considered (but not necessarily heeded) when filling these jobs, just as service balance is considered for joint appointments. For example, when the CNO is an aviator, the VCNO is expected to be a non-aviator; and when the CMC is an infantryman, he usually picks an aviator as his ACMC (and vice versa).
Moreover, some jobs traditionally do have certain community expectations, and deviations from these expectations are often noted and commented upon. It's unusual when a fighter pilot gets tapped for the bomber/ICBM command the instant it is elevated to four-star (and people did complain about Rand getting AFGSC). It's unusual when the Washington Post speculates [2] that a military intelligence officer would try to compete with a combat arms officer for TRADOC. It's unusual for a non-airlift pilot to get TRANSCOM; or for a non-fighter pilot to get CSAF. It's unusual for an aviator to become CMC instead of an infantryman. So there is relevant information in an officer's current community affiliation (unlike, say, their commissioning source or college major).
I agree that no one would say that O'Shaughnessy should be PACOM because he's a fighter pilot and not a bomber pilot. But they might observe that PACOM is usually filled from the pool of existing four-stars, and the Air Force selects way more fighter four-stars than bomber four-stars (just Wilson right now). This pattern holds at lower grades as well, so it's not really a coincidence that the Air Force happened to draw a fighter pilot instead of a bomber pilot out of their one-star pool to groom for the PACOM nomination with two- and three-star jobs that developed his regional expertise. Also, different communities are tracked for different positions. It would be unusual for a space operator to be groomed for PACOM instead of STRATCOM, for instance. Morinao (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It maybe unusual, but sometimes it's what is needed. Both Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates saw a need for that. Which is why Admiral Fallon was appointed to CENTCOM and Admiral James G. Stavridis's appointment to EUCOM/SACER. Neovu79 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as really adding any value to the article. What does "artillary" or "fighter pilot" really tell us about the subject? Especially when compared to their education. Some have degrees from various military schools and war colleges, others have advanced degrees in poly sci, econ, history, world cultures, etc. That, if anything tell us as much, if not more about the person. But at the end of day, they aren't appointed because of previous commands held or PhDs, it's purely politics. Who's a democrat, who's a republican, who's connected to who and so on and so forth. The kind of info that can't be added to this table, so adding a 'background' column is basically pointless. My two cents. - theWOLFchild 21:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Another point I'd like to add is that lists are supposed to make the most relevant information readily accessible. The cleaner the better. Every subject on the list has a linked BLP that includes their profession history and qualifications, so that info isn't needed here. - theWOLFchild 03:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


straw poll

There are some lengthy reasponses here, so how about a quick poll to gauge consensus. Basically, do you support adding a "background" column or do you oppose it? Leave a brief note along with your !vote. -wolf 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - as I stated above, it doesn't add any value to the article. It's simply not needed. - theWOLFchild 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - Unless you can present it in a way that doesn't appear on the list that only those officers with those corresponding career backgrounds are eligible to be in the positions they currently occupy, I think for now, having backgrounds on there would make it appear the job and their backgrounds mutually inclusive. Neovu79 (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support adding a "community" or "branch" column (not "background" since this is a current affiliation). It's no different from having a "service" column for joint positions, which doesn't imply that only officers from the corresponding service are eligible for those jobs. And there's a big difference between an cryptology admiral, who is really only eligible for one job, and an aviator/surface/submarine admiral, who is viable for any of them. Right now they both look the same. Morinao (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - But what does that matter? The list is simply to show who has what job. They have a linked BLP if you want to know how they got it. Their past assignments & commands, courses and qualifications, in-theatre experience, their selection process thru the senate, etc., etc. Far to much info for just a small box on a list, imho. - theWOLFchild 06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Because for some of these jobs, it's more salient that an officer is a member of one of the combat arms, as opposed to a support specialty, than that they belong to any particular service. It matters more that an officer is a special operator, or space operator, than that they are in the Army or Air Force. As I keep trying to say, these communities aren't just "background" to explain how someone got a job, they are a current designator that often carries more information than a service affiliation about the person presently occupying a job. Some jobs are defined by which services can fill them (CSA = Army, ACC = Air Force, EUCOM = any). Others are more defined by which communities typically fill them (NSA = intel/crypto, AMC = airlift, SOCOM = special operators, CJCS = combat arms, service vice chief = a different community from the service chief, etc.). You don't get that picture by digging into individual biographies. Morinao (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
see below - wolf
  • Support for adding a community tab. I want to echo the exact same argument Morinao is using above. It just shows additional information, that otherwise would not be seen. Garuda28 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
So, "less is more" is your argument? You can't learn anything from a lengthy, detailed and cited BLP, but one or two words in a column box tells us everything? I saw the proposed column additions before they were removed. Simple blurbs like: "Infantry", "Surface Warfare Officer", "Ordnance" or "Pilot (fighter)" tells us vitually nothing about how that particular officer came to be nominated for their current position, nor how they successfully passed the vetting and voting by the senate. You need a much broader picture of their professional history and qualifications. The additioinal column entries are therefore nothing more than meedless clutter. - theWOLFchild 20:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter exactly why they were nominated for the community tab - that's not the purpose. It's to show their military background and the community they were part of. And it is a factor in who is promoted, and can cause a great deal of contention (http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA338755). You can go in and read their precise backgrounds and assignments if you want, but for ease of access you could also just look at their community instead.Garuda28 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a simple list showing who is posted where. It's not an article with prose detailing how they got there, that's what their BLPs are for. Additionally, adding the word "Ordnance" tells neither the average nor informed reader anything about how that officer achieved that promotion. - theWOLFchild 22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Solition to that is hyperlinking to the Ordnance CorpsGaruda28 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, so instead of having readers follow a link to BLP that tells the whole story about the person, they should instead follow a link to some generic sub-branch of the Army to try guess how that equates to the person in question achieving 4 star rank? If anything, at least you admit that by needing such a link, the simple one or two word blub you are proposing adding to this extra column tells the reading nothing and needs further explaining. I think the table is fine as is. - theWOLFchild 10:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I think it tells the reader a significant amount of information about the background of the individual in question. The reason for hyperlinking Ordnance Corps is because for a significant amount of people that will not make as much sense as stating Infantry, Pilot (Fighter), or Submarine Warfare Officer. Garuda28 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still don't completely agree with the relevance considering that one of the requirements, by law (10 U.S.C. § 601(d)), for an officer to be nominated for appointment to general or admiral, the nominee must have served on the Joint Staff and/or and in other joint duty assignments. Their original career pipeline would be moot if they did not also meet this requirement, let alone meet the requirement for actual position. As you're already aware, joint duty assignments goes outside an individual service or community pipeline. This is why I find the background information on the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force page pointless, because, if the Secretary of the Air Force, Defense, or President wanted to, they could nominate any officer that meets all the requirements to the position. However, I will agree that tradition plays a big part of who gets nominated in certain jobs, which I don't always agree with, which is why I don't bother making or bringing up a change in that page. Take General Norton A. Schwartz for example. He was not a traditional fighter pilot, in my opinion, he was an excellent Chief of Staff. I'm willing to bend a little if there is a large note somewhere stating that while some positions have been held by certain communities by tradition, however any officer can be appointed so long as they meet the requirements for appointment of named position. Neovu79 (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Another note, out of curiosity, if a civilian is directly commissioned as a four-star, as the case of the current Assistant Secretary for Health's nominee, what career background would you assign to him? Neovu79 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
So two things a) the purpose of this wouldn't be at all to say that one position has been held by an individual from a single community, but rather just to show what community the current holder is from - and nothing beyond that purpose.b) for them I would leave it blank, as this section is applicable for military members and not meant for direct commission (although I suppose we could put direct commission in there).Garuda28 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

AL-Class Review

I have submitted this list article for review to upgrade its rating to AL-Class, then hopefully to FL-Class. Neovu79 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Adm Michael Rodgers

Michael S. Rogers is an admiral (according to his official biography and Wikipedia page), and heading USCYBERCOM would seem to make him active duty. But I'm not very knowledgeable here, could anyone else comment? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Department of the Army nondisclosure of four-star assignments

I truly hate the Department of the Army's nondisclosure of army specific general officer assignments. For the past 4-6 years, the Army has refused to announce their service specific assignments/appointments of their general officers, especially their three and four star generals. I don't really enjoy guessing what assignments they will end up with. I have to dig into that candidate's bios and see what jobs they've held over their general officer career, then go into all the Army specific four-star assignments and find out who's retiring, or who's up for reappointment/reassignment and then see if the candidate qualifies to serve into that position. Even then, I run the risk in being wrong since they can be appointed to positions that normally doesn't fit their career pipeline. Just me venting my frustration. Neovu79 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you or does anyone else know who will succeed John Hyten as Commander, USSTRATCOM? Hyten will take over as VJCS next Wednesday, and Paul Selva will retire on the same day. Apparently, no nomination has even been published yet. claudevsq (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_active_duty_United_States_four-star_officers/Archive_1&oldid=991098068"