Should the CJCS wear the rank of five-Star General?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:20:02 -0400

Do you feel the CJCS (Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff), upon appointment to that position, should be bestowed the rank of five-Star General?  The rank of five-star General is not currently active, but has been worn previously during times of war.  The last General to wear this rank was General Omar Bradley.  I think this rank should be "reactivated" and worn by our top General.  I can't think of any better way to identify the most senior ranking General Officer in the DoD.  What say you?

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Mar 25 at 2014 10:22 AM

SPC Christopher Smith — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:22:39 -0400

If I am not mistaken the five star rank can only be activated if we are actively at war with a military power who has a five star ranking. This way we can have someone of equal power.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 12:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:15:50 -0400

I would have to vote "no" on this one. He is the Chairman and as such carries the big stick but when they (the Service Chiefs) are all seated at the table they are of the same grade. As such, they have extremely candid discussions that may not occur if one out-ranked them all.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 25 at 2014 2:21 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:21:52 -0400

Although by law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the 'highest ranking military officer', the office is the principal military advisor to the President, Defense Secretary and National Security Council and not a commander and has no command authority. If anyone were to wear the 5-star rank, it should be our top commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands...their chain of command is through the Defense Secretary to the President (the CJCS simply advises)...these are our 'field generals'.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 1:41 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 01:41:04 -0400

Hard to say - the position does not have the authority to direct the operations of a CTO.  Are we looking at making sure everyone knows he/she is the top dog?  Civilians could care less.  It would make sense if they could direct operations.  As it stands now - no.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 1 at 2014 1:55 PM

SPC John Decker — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:55:59 -0500

I believe that only during "declared" war time should anybody be granted a fifth star.

Response by MSG David Johnson made Dec 25 at 2014 2:24 PM

MSG David Johnson — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:24:13 -0500

I have to vote no as well, the rank was designed to be awarded to a WAR TIME commander, if I remember the story correctly the rank of General of the Army was turned down during Desert Storm by Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf.
I could have understood the five star rank being awarded to each of the commanders during OIF/OEF, but for the C/JCS, no, not at all.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Dec 25 at 2014 4:28 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 16:28:53 -0500

The title doesn't work either. The five-star is a General of the Army or Fleet Admiral. The CJCS is neither - he is a first among equals, holds a "joint" assignment, but is not the line superior of the service chiefs. Moreso since the creation of the combatant commanders - those guys aren't even subordinate to CJCS.

And what would you do when the post is held by an Air Force officer, or a Marine? Neither of those services ever had a 5-star rank. CJCS is a four-star assignment, and should stay that way.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 4:42 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 16:42:13 -0500

I agree with you, MSG Private RallyPoint Member. I like the idea of the CJCS wearing five stars.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Dec 25 at 2014 9:49 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:49:46 -0500

You are right they should bring back the 5 star. but like others said for the top General/Admiral of combat theater who makes the big call for ground, air, and sea service.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 10:53 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 22:53:16 -0500

Absolutely not, the General of the Army (5-star) rank is the equivalent rank to that of a Field Marshall. It was instituted to put our overall combatant commanders on line with the Field Marshall's of Europe. The CJCS is staff officer and political appointment, where as the 5-star rank was meant to be Combatant Commander rank. I know General Marshall was the Joint Chief and 5-star in World War II but if I remember correctly he attained it before being appointed to that position. The only Officer in recent history I can think of that would have been deserving is General Petraeus, considering he was the commander of CENTCOM and Combatant Commander in both Iraq and Afgahnistan. Also one has to look at the consequences of the 5-star rank. GoA's are not allowed by law to retire, they stay on active duty unless they resign their commission or die. That's the reason why Omar Bradley had an office at Fort Bliss until his death in 1981. Also, Eisenhower had to resign his commission in the Army in order to run for President. This is also why Kennedy's first act as President was to reinstate Eisenhower's rank and benefits. There is more to the 5-star rank than just an extra star, people need to look at history and what goes along with the rank before arbitrarily pinning it on someone. Does anyone really think that any recent CJCoS is on equal footing as Eisenhower, Marshall, Pershing (though technically he is a 6-star equivalent with George Washington as General of the Armies) , Bradley, MacArthur, and Arnold. This is not to mention the Naval 5-stars Leahy, King, Nimitz, and Halsey. Sorry for the wall of text, but history is my passion and diluting the 5-star to a political appointment has me rialed (sp?) up.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2014 1:19 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:19:54 -0500

I'm going to vote no. Even if it were activated during wartime, it opens up a can of worms. Generals Powell & Schwarzkopf got it right when they declined it. Adding that fifth star would propel them on the same level as the SECDEF and there would sure some within the military and especially Congress that would argue the same point, not to mention going a step further and arguing that the position is the same level as the President laying the foundation for the first ever coup de tat in American history.

General Petreaus without a doubt would have gotten a fifth star, however, I think he, like any other 4-star general knows the slippery slope the rank presents militarily and politically. The fifth star is a very prestigious group to be part of in American History. The problem you run into is that the position itself in this day of modern age technology and the Global War on Terrorism, can potentially undermine the President of United States. Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate but given the current sentiment of the military and attitude towards the the Commander-in-Chief, this position could be used just for that, to undermine the President

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2014 1:54 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:54:19 -0500

Yes! Even if it is only for the status and responsibility.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2014 2:02 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:02:06 -0500

I think its would be quite reasonable to give the CJCS the highest rank of 5 star general.

Response by SSG David Dickson made Aug 29 at 2015 6:14 AM

SSG David Dickson — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 06:14:54 -0400

Hooah!

Response by SGT Timothy Smith made May 31 at 2016 4:50 AM

SGT Timothy Smith — Tue, 31 May 2016 04:50:34 -0400

I was was always taught that "with rank comes responsibility". I think the CJCS should be a Five Star Position. Though the Chiefs of Staff are all 4 Star Generals, when assembled there is no distinction among them, that alone should afford them the ability to advise, confer and work together candidly. The CJCS still has the responsibility to "answer for the services" first. I call that "Increased responsibility" The Officer rank is supposedly "a different breed" held to high standards as a gentlemen. As a retired Army NCO and a proud one, The NCO Ranks have some of the most honorable gentlemen among them make no mistake. Still, The Chairman is just that, "The Chairman" and his uniform should reflect the confidence ,responsibility and distinction put on him

Response by SSG William Ryan made Jun 19 at 2021 6:13 AM

SSG William Ryan — Sat, 19 Jun 2021 06:13:15 -0400

Well, a few things. Enlisted Ranks should go up to E-10 to Match O-10. Having BN CSM's and Division CSM's the same rank is a bit funny. Also the chair's of the services should be O-11 along with the Chairman. Further the SMA's should hold the rank of E-11 to match the O-11's ... this exists only at the Chair / Executive level.

E-10s should be CSMs of General Grade officers and Below that maintain E-9.

While on this subject Warrant ranks need to be redone, too easy to confuse a crusty w2 with a new 1LT lol. And the Warrant scale needs to have the God among all Warrants a W6 position. Or W6 to positions at the Strategic Level / Joint Commands and such as W4s are BN level much of the time and 5's can be found mixed on higher commands. So the head CWO might be a W7 in this instance.

For Enlisted we have MSG / 1SG delineating command vs non-command, sort of like (but without the command factor) SPC and Corporal. Past this at company level, you would have SGMs (E9) and CSM (E10) and SMA E-11 .. no reason to mess with the rank structure too much. Other services can follow suit accordingly. 1SG would be a pre-req for SGM and SGM of course for CSM. Just as command on officer side is competitive the same should be for the enlisted side. This would also equalize the pay scale as higher ranks would be paid more but there would be less overall.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Oct 30 at 2022 10:40 AM

MSG Thomas Currie — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 10:40:02 -0400

BY LAW the chairman is a 4 star position.

The chairman isn't even in the chain of command.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2022 4:04 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 16:04:09 -0400

Absolutely NOT!
I am unaware of any GEN since WWII that was of the caliber of the 5-Stars from WWII. Just look at our current Chairman, JCS. If that isn't enough to persuade anyone to be against this idea, they need to spend more time "navel-gazing".