Is the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff really needed?

SFC Dave Wynn — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:37:42 -0500

This position is purely political he has no authority to issue orders. He commands nothing it's just another yes man for POTUS. I know it's not a lot of money but is salary could be used for other military programs. Why not just make the senior branch Chief of Staff the one the Sec of Def. gives orders to and him to the rest.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 7:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:40:57 -0500

probably not but it seems like a position that is needed to manage the members of the staff so...idk i might be wrong lol

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Dec 14 at 2015 7:56 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:56:22 -0500

You kidding? Ever seen four flag officers in the same room?! My goodness, they'll spend hours debating date of rank, date of service, and who's favored in the Army-Navy game. Besides, what DoD "program" could be funded with $243,156.00/yr? Make the senior-service rank the CoS? Come Fiscal Year review time, you're just asking for a bar-fight. In which case, I'll take the over/under on General Dunford.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 14 at 2015 8:17 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:17:55 -0500

It's an Advisory Position. Just like a Sergeant Major is an Advisory Position. It's just at a different scale. Every Leader needs a Subject Matter Expert, and the CJCS is the go to man on Joint Matters.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 10:07 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:07:38 -0500

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Dec 14 at 2015 11:24 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:24:33 -0500

That position is essentially the Chief of Staff for the SECDEF. Just like the CSA holds that position for the SECARMY. Neither are commanders, but they have a mass amount of influence in advising and executing National and Strategic level programs and operations needed to keep our military running. Not sure when you retired but we are training NCO's now on more big picture concepts, or at least to attempt to comprehend them, to help be better advisers at the senior NCO level.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 14 at 2015 11:27 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:27:18 -0500

Not really it is more a political position with the current administration not listening to military advice

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Dec 15 at 2015 6:00 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:00:15 -0500

Of course he is needed. If he wasn't there, how would you make the service chiefs work together? This a little extreme of an example but it would be like having 5 (don't forget the NG Bureau is in the Joint Chiefs of Staff now) privates arguing about who is in charge.

Response by LTC Michael Hrycak made Dec 15 at 2015 11:35 AM

LTC Michael Hrycak — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:35:57 -0500

I remember being taught the who, what, when ,where and why, for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the last twenty five years we have seen the position expand in its depth and breadth, partially due to changes in the law, and depending upon who is the President and Secretary of Defense.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 15 at 2015 11:58 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:58:46 -0500

Needed? Do you even understand what that job entails? Yes, his position is needed. His job is to coordinate the efforts of the ENTIRE armed forces to ensure that they are meeting the priorities, policies and commands from the National Command Authority and to be the SME to the POTUS and SecDef. Without the CJCS, all 5 services would be doing their own thing, with no coordination between them. And if he's doing his job properly, he's not a "yes man." Quite the opposite, his job is to tell the POTUS when his orders and policies are not prudent militarily. Whether the POTUS heeds that advice is a different matter. In other words, he's like a an XO, only on a much, much bigger scale. No, he doesn't command anything, but that is like saying that since a CSM doesn't command anything, and is only an "advisor" to the commander, his position isn't necessary either.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 1:02 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 01:02:26 -0500

You clearly know nothing about the position, or about the job descriptions of the Service Chiefs. The CJCS is the principal military adviser to President and the National Security Council, and the head of the Joint Staff, and the lead coordinator between our Force pools and the COCOMs that do our fighting. The CJCS is the essential hub of the military wheel. The CJCS is responsible for promulgating the National Military Strategy and all Joint Doctrine. What universe have you been in that you think the CJCS is "just another yes man for POTUS"? ADM Mullen nearly got fired by POTUS, and GEN Dempsey certainly didn't hesitate to speak truth to power despite political will. You think Gen. Dunford is going to be more of a yes man than they were? Get educated.

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Dec 16 at 2015 2:02 AM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:02:11 -0500

The JCS are supposed to be strategists for the DOD and an advisory on military affairs to POTUS; however, the JCS is simply the COS from each service with a separate working group. The funds after dissolving the JCS should be earmarked to settle the massive amount of legal cases pending against the services due to poor decisions made by the military leaderships during the last Republican era in US history (2000 - 2004).

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Dec 28 at 2015 9:36 PM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:36:54 -0500

I think the position is no longer needed, because the current Secretary of Defense and the current President just ignore his advice.