Posted on Mar 25, 2014
Should the CJCS wear the rank of five-Star General?
16.2K
73
43
7
7
0
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?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
17
17
0
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.
(17)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC Rapach
I agree with your logic, however, if that's the case, why do we have a different rank for the SMA. Afterall, when he sits on the BOD, he's with a group of his peers who are also E9s.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
He has a title but not a different grade. When they conduct the BOD they do have candid discussions BUT the SMA is charged in his role to take those concerns into consideration when making the final recommendation/decision. I can't go any further indepth than that, sorry.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see), I believe even if there was a 5 star among other 4 stars, they would still have very candid discussions. At that rank most if not all of those offices are very close friends. However, I do not think the CJCS should be a 5 star. Like others have said, I think that is a rank reserved for GCC's or commands like NATO and large war time contingents.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
i don't agree with your logic. It is not really the same in the Officer world. As LTC Montalto said they can still be candid. He does out rank them. It may not be by rank but by position. At that point I don't think a Gen would pull rank on another Gen. I am completely candid with my CO. I can tell him whatever I think. I have even been able to tell my previous commander that I don't agree with him and that he is wrong. He still gave me my orders and I executed them.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
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.<br><br>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'.
(8)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
MSG Quick. I concur. Each CofS should have the 5 Star insignia. The CJCS should then have the 5 Star insignia which an Eagle inside, olive branch in one claw and a bayonet sword in the other claw, with a wreath around the whole thing and placed on a pentagon shaped enamel base.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MSG (Join to see) - Was the SGM Board scheduled close to time you expressed this opinion? Did you make the list?
(0)
(1)
MSG (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) sure did. It was this epic question that convinced the board to promote me. Such a shame you didn’t think of it. Maybe you would have made Major. But such is life…
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MSG (Join to see) - Oh rank isn't all it's cut out to be especially when you have to lick someone's a__ to get it.
By the way, why do you believe that CPT is as high as I went? It's easier to go through life sometimes when everyone underestimates you.
I'm just embarrassed for the board that would promote you for something like this.
By the way, why do you believe that CPT is as high as I went? It's easier to go through life sometimes when everyone underestimates you.
I'm just embarrassed for the board that would promote you for something like this.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Your arguments are very well constructed, but are at variance with the facts.
Please see Public Law 66-45 [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_66-45 ]
"66TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS
An Act
Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.
Approved, September 3, 1919."
Note that the rank is General of The Armies, not General of The Army, or Army General.
Q.V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)
In this case Wikipedia and Wikisource are correct.
The fact that the US Army, Institute of Heraldry never designed a six star device probably has more to do with the individual honored than with the absence of the right to a new rank insignia.
Please see Public Law 66-45 [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_66-45 ]
"66TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS
An Act
Relating to the creation of the office of General of the Armies of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of General of the Armies of the United States is hereby revived, and the President is hereby authorized, in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint to said office a general officer of the Army who, on foreign soil and during the recent war, has been especially distinguished in the higher command of military forces of the United States; and the officer appointed under the foregoing authorization shall have the pay prescribed by section 24 of the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, and such allowances as the President shall deem appropriate; and any provision of existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed: Provided, That no more than one appointment to office shall be made under the terms of this Act.
Approved, September 3, 1919."
Note that the rank is General of The Armies, not General of The Army, or Army General.
Q.V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)
In this case Wikipedia and Wikisource are correct.
The fact that the US Army, Institute of Heraldry never designed a six star device probably has more to do with the individual honored than with the absence of the right to a new rank insignia.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Respectfully, nothing you’ve written has demonstrated that I’ve had a variance from the facts.
To nutshell, general of the armies (4 gold stars) outranks general of the army (5 silver stars). Unless new laws are passed regarding who outranks who, general of the armies would outrank any proposed 6 star, 7star, etc ranks.
How or why 6 stars was never authorized is regardless. What’s relevant to the conversation is that it wasn’t authorized.
Do you disagree? Does any rank outrank that of general of the armies?
To nutshell, general of the armies (4 gold stars) outranks general of the army (5 silver stars). Unless new laws are passed regarding who outranks who, general of the armies would outrank any proposed 6 star, 7star, etc ranks.
How or why 6 stars was never authorized is regardless. What’s relevant to the conversation is that it wasn’t authorized.
Do you disagree? Does any rank outrank that of general of the armies?
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - There are no gold rank insignia above Major. You have ignored the facts in evidence, but that's okay. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, but not their own facts.
The POTUS outranks O-12.
The POTUS outranks O-12.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I appreciate your confidence, however misplaced.
Pershing was allowed to design his own rank. He chose 4 gold stars.
https://www.soldierswalkmemorialpark.com/john-joseph-black-jack-pershing.html
General of the armies outranks all military ranks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies
Yup, you got me, the President commands us all. Great burn. That stated, nothing I’ve stated above is incorrect.
Good luck to you,
Pershing was allowed to design his own rank. He chose 4 gold stars.
https://www.soldierswalkmemorialpark.com/john-joseph-black-jack-pershing.html
General of the armies outranks all military ranks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies
Yup, you got me, the President commands us all. Great burn. That stated, nothing I’ve stated above is incorrect.
Good luck to you,
John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing
John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I believe that only during "declared" war time should anybody be granted a fifth star.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
<p>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.</p><p><br></p>
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
There was a purposed rank of generals of the army. I thought I read that on another discussion here. It was purposed that a 6th star in the middle but then came the end of WWII and it wasn't brought back up if I remember correctly.
(2)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
SFC Frank Rocha, Camp Roberts, CA
Although never fully adopted, the insignia of rank for general of the armies (not to be confused with general of the army, non-plural) was a 6 star. Its true Pershing chose 4 gold stars, but at the time their were no 5 star generals. Additionally 3 and 4 star generals were temporary ranks and those that held it in WWI reverted back to their previous ranks afterward. In 1929 the 3 and 4 star general ranks were brought back and during WWII 5 star generals of the army were appointed. The 6 star insignia for general of the armies came from the proposed promotion for MacArthur in anticipation to the invasion of japan. Since the Japanese surrendered it got dropped. The insignia is still around in case its ever needed but the closest statement ever made as to whether Pershing was a 6 star was by secretary of war Henry Stimson,
"It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the
Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. I have advised
Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action."
"It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the
Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. I have advised
Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action."
(3)
(0)
SPC Christopher Smith
SPC Sergent, should we not forget that George Washington was given the title of "General of the Armies" which would be equal to Gen. Pershing's six star by Congress. " George Washington (posthumously) in 1976, as part of the American bicentennial celebrations, to commemorate his leadership and involvement in the founding of the United States, was appointed "to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies
General of the Armies of the United States, or more commonly referred to as General of the Armies, is the highest possible officer rank, grade or office of the United States Army, serving directly und...
A Posthumous promotion is an advancement in rank or position in the case of a person who is dead. Posthumous promotions are most often associated with the military, but may be granted in other fields ...
(2)
(0)
SPC Christopher Smith
SPC Sergent, thank you for teaching me something new today, I never realized that 3 and 4 stars were at one point temporary ranks.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google