Why do we need a Secretary of Defense when we have a Secretary over each of our Military Branches of Service?

MAJ David Vermillion — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:08:28 -0400

Is this duplication? Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Apr 20 at 2016 6:11 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:11:42 -0400

Someone needs to be in charge to pull the branches together. It''s a matter of command structure.

To me it would be similar to asking why we should have a battalion commander since we already have commanders over each company. After all, they already lead their companies.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 20 at 2016 6:13 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:13:46 -0400

All part of the bureaucratic fun. The SecDef is there to pull everything together from the entire DOD for the President.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 6:15 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:15:59 -0400

Just like we have Chiefs of Staff for each branch and a Chairman. Funnel effect to help (in theory) pull everything together.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 6:18 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:18:41 -0400

In the profession of arms it speaks we work for the American government. This government is civilians. We advise those powers that be to do our job. Do I think we need one. Not necessarily but when we have a good one things got done.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 20 at 2016 6:23 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:23:05 -0400

The Secretary of Defense like the Secretary of war many years ago was the intermediary between the POTUS and Congress for anything that involved two or more Military Services MAJ David Vermillion. The Service Secretaries routinely testify before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and SASC for issues pertaining to their own Services. The Secretary of Defense and CJCS testify on multi-service and Joint-Service issues.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Apr 20 at 2016 6:23 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:23:52 -0400

"One Secretary to rule them all, one Secretary to find them, one Secretary to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

"In the Pentagon, where the Shadows lie."

(With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkein, but not necessarily Donald Rumsfeld)

Response by LtCol Mac McCarty made Apr 20 at 2016 6:26 PM

LtCol Mac McCarty — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:26:22 -0400

Until 1948, there were separate Departments, with their own cabinet level secretary. The Secretary of War oversaw the Army and its Air Corps and the Secretary of the Navy oversaw the Navy and the Marine Corps. Creating a Department of Defense (and a Joint Chiefs of Staff) happened in the unification struggles post WWII (when the proponents of air power wanted to do away with the Naval Air and turn the Navy into essentially the Merchant Marine, get rid of the Marine Corps, cut the Army to a level to be occupation troops after the Air Force had won the war by nuking every enemy in sight). SECDEF was supposed to handle stuff that needed to be uniform--supply, comm, etc. Of course, bureaucracy being what it is, DOD became a mirror image of the old Departments of War and Navy and the new Department of the Air Force. The worst aspect of this unification/reorganization was that the Service Chiefs could no longer meet directly with their boss, the Commander in Chief. Instead, they had to go through a political appointee. That meant that the President got the politically filtered information.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 6:26 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:26:26 -0400

While the SECDEF does oversee all branches he does not only account for each Service Component Command. He/She is in charge of all the Unified Commands and Defense Agencies. He/She also writes the National Defense Strategy annually. Without the SECDEF we would have no joint unity within the Armed Forces community. There is the CJCS, but their job is more in regards to policies rather than command and control.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 6:34 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:34:31 -0400

It really doesn't matter if we think we need one or not. IAW the Defense Authorization Act of 1947 the Dept of War (army) and Dept of Navy are combined with a cabinet secretary over the new DoD. This also created the USAF and allowed the Marines to be a seperate branch. So it's not our call.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Apr 20 at 2016 6:42 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:42:29 -0400

Have you read the National Security Act of 1947 - HINT, there might be a clue in there somewhere. smh

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Apr 20 at 2016 7:32 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:32:15 -0400

MAJ David Vermillion - C'mon Major. You ever see political appointees agree on a budget? Gotta have a chief to run that tribe!

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 20 at 2016 7:44 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:28 -0400

The Constitution accounts for civilian control of the Military. In fact a General Officer cannot assume this cabinet position within ( I believe) 7 years of retirement from active duty. It is all part of checks and balances as a whole.

Response by GySgt David Andrews made Apr 20 at 2016 8:47 PM

GySgt David Andrews — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:47:43 -0400

Just as you have a chief of staff for each service with a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff you need one to break the chain

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 12:43 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:43:48 -0400

First off, the USCG does not have and has never had its own, personal, private secretary. Second, I say dump the service secretaries and keep the SecDef. Start with Ray Mabus!!!

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Apr 21 at 2016 10:10 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:10:57 -0400

The individual SEC will rightfully so focus on thier branch, what is best for them. There has to be someone above them to balance what is best over all, someone to be the SME who helps the POTUS see the big picture...not just hear the branch specific needs, wants and way forward.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Apr 21 at 2016 10:49 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:49:08 -0400

The term "span on control" comes to mind. Does anyone think that a single person could manage something as huge as our DOD?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 10:56 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:56:59 -0400

Why have a Command Sergeant Major when you have a First Sergeant at each of the Companies?