On Deck: Naming Mideast Command

Do people really think that if a Soldier heads CENTCOM that it will mean boots on the ground in Iran?  (Note: we have had an Admiral in command of CENTCOM.)  Some could make the counter-argument that it is a Soldier who would most strongly resist putting boots on the ground because he (or she) would know what that would mean to our ground forces  (or rather than resist, might be more willing to explore alternatives than boots on the ground)

But what is most important is not advocating for service employment but being able to develop the most effective military strategies to support our national policies and security strategies.  I really do not think that general/ flag officers of combatant commands really sit around thinking how can I get "my" service in the fight.  Sure there is parochialism at the lower levels and within the components but I really want to believe that our general/flag officers have transcended that when they reach combatant command level and know that it is best to use the right force for the right mission, regardless of service.

Excerpts:

QUOTE Allies could worry an Army appointment would mean "boots on the ground" in the Middle East, she said.

"I am not so sure it is going to be an Army person this time around," Ms. Sanok said.
…
"Nobody has discussed a large scale ground invasion of Iran…that is both politically and militarily off the table," said Nora Bensahel, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a left-leaning think tank. "It makes sense you would want people whose professional experience begins with service from the Air Force or Navy." END QUOTE

Do people really believe this?

QUOTE Although all senior officers have experience working with joint forces, their own military roots and early training can influence their strategic mind-set. That could bear on a possible conflict with Iran, which Ms. Bensahel said likely would be led by the Navy and Air Force. END QUOTE

If we are going to make decisions on command based on the service that might provide the preponderance of effort in a hypothetical war then we are not thinking about strategic leadership.   There is no real discussion of the need for effective strategic leadership with the ability to navigate the complex political-military minefield of the Middle East security landscape (let alone the one in DC).  Choosing a leader based on his (or her – maybe it is time for a women) "military roots" and not recognizing that these Generals and Admirals may have developed more sophisticated strategic views that when they were Lieutenants or Ensigns does not give me very much comfort in our strategic decision making.  But perhaps like everything else personnel management drives operations.

Updated November 4, 2012, 8:47 p.m. ET

By JULIAN E. BARNES

On Deck: Naming Mideast Command

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204755404578098883323080720.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

One of the first major uniformed military appointments to be made by the president next year is the head of the Middle East headquarters operation, a decision that could offer clues to how the U.S. would address a military conflict with Iran.

It will fall to the head of the U.S. Central Command to fine-tune war plans should a military conflict with Iran erupt, and it also would have to draft plans for a no-fly zone or other military operation in Syria, should the U.S. elect to intervene there.

Centcom, as the Middle East headquarters is known, traditionally has been led by Army and Marine Corps generals, but some current and former defense officials say an Air Force or Navy pick should be considered to best prepare for the type of war the U.S. could undertake.