Loren Thompson
General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will retire next year. The nation’s top military officer by law can only serve a single, non-renewable term of four years, and thus a successor will need to be nominated by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Secretary Austin should nominate an Air Force officer, current Chief of Staff General Charles Brown, to lead the Joint Chiefs. If he does, media coverage will undoubtedly focus on the fact that Brown is the first African American to lead a branch of the armed forces.
However, that is not the reason why Brown should be the next Joint Chiefs Chairman. The logic of his appointment resides in other institutional, strategic and operational considerations. The fact that he is temperamentally and experientially suited to the job is icing on the cake.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is, by law, the principal military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. He is also a statutory member of the National Security Council—the only military officer enjoying that status. As the nation’s most senior military officer, he (or she) plays a pivotal role in deliberations concerning war and peace.
Air Force General Charles Q. Brown, Jr.WIKIPEDIA
But why is General Brown in particular the best choice to succeed General Milley? The case for Brown comes down to four concerns: institutional equity, strategic timeliness, operational relevance, and temperamental suitability.
Institutional equity. Equity in this context means, to quote the Oxford Dictionaries, “the quality of being fair and impartial.” When the Chairman’s job was first being filled during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, the practice was to rotate the position between the senior military officers of the three military departments—the Army, Navy and Air Force. That pattern was abandoned during the 1960s, with three chairmen in a row coming from the Army.
Ever since, the Army has tended to have the advantage in filling the nation’s top military position. With General Milley’s confirmation by the Senate in 2019, ten of the 20 Joint Chiefs Chairmen have been from the Department of the Army, six from the Department of the Navy, and only four from the Department of the Air Force. In fact, in the 40 years since President Reagan endured his first midterm election, only one Air Force officer has been chairman—
If the military services are actually co-equal, then it is time for the Air Force to get the top job. In fact, it is past time.
Strategic timeliness. The preference for Army officers during the 1960s was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that U.S. military forces were engaged in a major ground war in Asia. The value of specific military capabilities and training varies depending on the nation’s strategic priorities. At the moment, U.S. national defense strategy is focused mainly on the return of great-power rivalry, with particular emphasis on the Western Pacific where China poses a challenge to U.S. economic and military dominance.
U.S. air power has more relevance to great-power rivalry than land or sea power. In the Pacific, vast distances dictate the use of long-range aircraft in responding quickly to aggression, while the growing firepower of China limits the utility of potentially vulnerable warships. Ground forces are of secondary importance—at least, away from the Korean Peninsula. Orbital assets, which reside largely within the Department of the Air Force, are critical for sustaining joint communications and reconnaissance in the Chinese littoral.
In Europe, the other main arena of great-power rivalry, the sea services are limited in their applicability by geographic factors. The Army plays a leading role in deterring aggression on the ground, but without the top cover provided by air and space power, the Army’s ability to prevail against Russian forces would be doubtful. Air Force leadership is thus uniquely relevant in the current strategic moment, just as Army leadership was during the war in Indochina.
Operational utility. The mix of capabilities and competencies sustained by the Air Force is especially useful during a period of technological ferment. To a greater degree than the other military departments, the Air Force and Space Force provide a technological foundation for security in the 21st century. For instance:
The Department of the Air Force operates two-thirds of the nuclear triad and three-quarters of the command and communications infrastructure supporting the U.S. nuclear posture.
The Space Force operates the vast majority of national-security space systems and manages all military launches.
The Air and Space Force are principal providers of global surveillance and reconnaissance to the joint force.
The Air Force is the principal provider of tactical air power to the joint force, planning to operate three-quarters of all fifth-generation fighters in the force.
The Air Force is the principal provider of airlift and aerial refueling for the joint force.
These capabilities will support U.S. global military dominance through mid-century. To a greater degree than the other military services, the Air Force and the Space Force are investing in the warfighting technologies of the future such as unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence and networked warfare. Moreover, the Air Force is pioneering the way in which warfighting systems are designed, developed and produced through innovations such as digital engineering and rapid software development.
Temperamental suitability. Air Force Chief of Staff Brown has proven to be a sober and thoughtful leader of his service, exhibiting the appropriate gravitas for a person who might one day represent the entire joint force. He has nearly 3,000 hours of flight experience, mainly in combat aircraft, and has devoted much of his recent career to Pacific operations. He has avoided any hint of partisan politics while demonstrating unusual empathy for his airmen and women.
That doesn’t mean that General Brown is temperamentally superior to the chiefs of the other services, but what it does show is that he is an exemplar of the military profession, and well suited to serve a nation of diverse interests. What makes Brown different is that his background is perfectly matched to the strategic moment, and it his service’s turn to lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment