Thirdborn Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 What (if any) is the signifance of an Army Lt. General replacing a Navy Admiral as the head of U.S. Central Command? I don't know enough about this to venture an opinion, but I am wondering if this is just politics. I'd like to hear what you think.
SD Jarhead Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 It is a joint billet. The person before the Admiral was an Army General and before him it was a Marine General. The reason the area is so !@#$ up is because they put a kitty Squid in charge. He's a butt
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 What (if any) is the signifance of an Army Lt. General replacing a Navy Admiral as the head of U.S. Central Command? I don't know enough about this to venture an opinion, but I am wondering if this is just politics. I'd like to hear what you think. Not in the military...but my understanding of the joint commands is that they're intended to be run by an officer of any service, so it's probably not that big a deal. Plus, in this case, I believe Dempsey was Fallon's deputy, so command falls naturally to him as Fallon leaves without an appointed successor, which would make it even more a non-issue.
Sirius99 Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Not in the military...but my understanding of the joint commands is that they're intended to be run by an officer of any service, so it's probably not that big a deal. Plus, in this case, I believe Dempsey was Fallon's deputy, so command falls naturally to him as Fallon leaves without an appointed successor, which would make it even more a non-issue. Correct. Joint command billets rotate among services, and no full-time replacement has been named as yet for CENTCOM. This has been portrayed as a political move because of friction between Fallon and Bush/Gates, but I hear it is more due to disagreements between Petraeus and Fallon regarding how to handle counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess Petraeus won.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Correct. Joint command billets rotate among services, and no full-time replacement has been named as yet for CENTCOM. This has been portrayed as a political move because of friction between Fallon and Bush/Gates, but I hear it is more due to disagreements between Petraeus and Fallon regarding how to handle counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess Petraeus won. I'd call that a distiction without a difference.
Thirdborn Posted March 28, 2008 Author Posted March 28, 2008 What (if any) is the signifance of an Army Lt. General replacing a Navy Admiral as the head of U.S. Central Command? Thanks Guys.
Sirius99 Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 I'd call that a distiction without a difference. Not sure what you mean, but there is a big difference between how Fallon favors handling counter-insurgencies and how Petraeus does.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 Not sure what you mean, but there is a big difference between how Fallon favors handling counter-insurgencies and how Petraeus does. I think he means "General Betray-us is Bush's little lap-dog, therefore Fallon was forced to retire as a political move." Not that I'm suggesting he's right, mind you...just providing the molson-english translation for you.
Booster4324 Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 I think he means "General Betray-us is Bush's little lap-dog, therefore Fallon was forced to retire as a political move." Not that I'm suggesting he's right, mind you...just providing the molson-english translation for you. You two are becoming an old married couple.
WWVaBeach Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Damn man, the fish aren't biting today... Nope Signed, CPO Retired p.s. Nice try...friggin tree! Damn...Got me!
Recommended Posts