Why doesn't the U.S. have 5 star Generals anymore?
475198
from , http://ask.yahoo.com/20020308.html\n\nThe five star general rank was created in the midst of World War II to address the fact that several American commanders found themselves in the delicate position of supervising Allied officers of higher rank. Initially, the new rank was to be called Field Marshal, after the British military, but this was nixed due to stern (and quite understandable) objections from General George C. Marshall. \nWhen General of the Army Omar N. Bradley died in April of 1981, the five star ranking was consigned to history. In all, four Army generals, four Navy admirals, and one Air Force general have held this rank. The Army's five star generals were General George C. Marshall, General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Omar N. Bradley. The Navy's five-star fleet admirals were Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. And General Henry Arnold was the Air Force's five star general. \n\nWho beats a five star general? A General of the Armies of the United States -- the highest military rank of all time, hands down. To date, only George Washington and John J. Pershing have held this position
210369
It can't be.  One of the reasons, given above, is the essential civilian control.  This includes control by congress, each congressman with their own agendas.\n\nSecondly, the Military forms an aspect of National Power under the DIME principle (Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economic).  Not sounding too simplistic, the military is a tool of national power which requires the other 3 aspects to make it work.  Soldiers and leaders are increasingly being trained in culture, languages, customs, infrastructure/city planning, and joint/multi-agency/ multi-national coordination skills.\n\nThere are also plans to cross-pollonate the State Dept and Military by sending senior NCOs and Officers to State Dept schools and vice-versa.  This, if the assumptions are correct, will reduce the infighting and inefficiency of the departments and create a more unified front in foriegn affairs.  Which is much better than the two departments stepping on each other!!\n\nIn addition, the National Security Council now includes Dept of Def, Dept of State, AND the Dept of Treasury (the Economic section of national power).  The first "shot" of the War on Terror had no explosives.  It was the shutting down of Al Qeada's financial backing in world banks (Diplomacy + Economic).  This crippled many terror operations as the money simply dissapeared.\n\nSo, the military can never be excluded from politics.  Now, refinment of polical influence so I don't have to please Senators X,Y,Z etc in order to get a new system introduced without pork and bankrupting the American People...THAT would be nice!!
1013216
What used to be idealism they tried to live up to has become illusions that they believe they practice.\n\nYes, the US is chickenshit.  Since independence, it has never won a long war (over 1 year) it started.  Either it wins quick and easy or loses the long battles.  They don't have the stomach or the balls to "stay the course".  \n\nDon't worry, the US is a fading empire on the verge of economic collapse.  It's only a matter of time before their dollar plummets and oil ceases to be tied to the dollar and switches to the Euro.  In twenty, maybe thirty years, the US won't even have the military will to prevent its war criminals (not just Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Halliburton) from being tried and executed for their crimes.
916247
Smaller. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was determined that we didn't need a giant military. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all engaged in "modernization" programs that scaled back manpower and replaced it with more effective technology.\n\nEven now, our problem isn't a military that's too small... it's a military that's improperly configured for what we're trying to do with it. Bush has been shrinking the Navy and the Air Force for a while, but it looks like he'll have to expand the Army and Marines.
977277
It does seem odd that not even one of the top three decision makers have been in combat and yet they make the decisions that seasoned military leaders have to follow. It would be different if they asked more input from the Generals but according to the latest reports, they didn't and they don't. There have been military men who made ho hum presidents because they didn't have a full grasp of running the country. But for Petes sake at least one of the top three should have military experience to provide input and act as liaison between the white house and chiefs of staff.\n\nCM  you dished out a hate filled rant about politics. The party was never mentioned in the question only the fact that none of the men sending troops into harms way had any combat experience. You come across as a brainwashed republican worshipper who would vote republican if the party decisions eliminated your job and you had to live in your car in a high crime area. For God's sake focus on the issue or are you unable to do that with all your hatred buzzing in your head?
1107420
yes they are, n noone really knows why. 50 claims that the game was trying to take over g-unit, that he wanted to be a general instead of a soldier and the game claims 50 was trying to hold out on some of his money. no one really knows the real reason why
1103252
Remember "Be My Little General!"  an Ancronym for remembering Generals for lowest to Highest.\n\n      Be = Brigadier General (1 star)\n\n      My = Major General (2 Stars)\n\n      Little = Lieutenant General (3 Stars)\n\n     General = General (4 Stars)\n\nthen there is General of the Armies (5 stars) not used in today's army\n\nThat's the top of the Army Rank Food Chain.\n\nRemember there are three rank structures in the Army.\n\nCommisioned Officers, Warrent Officers, and Enlisted Men\n\nHere is the rest of the Ranks, listed highest to lowest\n\nO-6 Colonel\nO-5 Lieutenant Colonel\nO-4 Major\nO-3 Captain\nO-2 First Lieutenant\nO-1 Second Lieutenant\n\nCW-2 to CW-5 Cheif Warrent Officer\nWO-1 Warrent Officer\n\nE-9 Sergeant Major / Command Sergeant Major/ Sergeant Major of the Army\nE-8 Master Sergeant / First Sergeant\nE-7 Sergeant First Class\nE-6 Staff Sergeant\nE-5 Sergeant\nE-4 Specialist / Corporal\nE-3 Private First Class\nE-2 Private Second Class\nE-1 Private \n\n\nReference link below for pictures of all other ranks
993096
It's origins began in the middke ages. The reason a lt. Gen out ranks a major general is because a major gen used to be called a sgt major general.
925620
Its because they don't think it was planned or executed very well.\n\n\nNow who care what the generals say, they all shot themselves for their medals anyway.  Plus the liberal homos are scared to spend a night with us.
974505
The answer is the same for all institutions, industries, companies and that is to refine, enhance and innovate new processes, products ("weapons") to improve your game.  In the military's case that is by developing new weapons that replace older more expensive and most likely more dangerous to the solidier using it (not necessarily to those receiving it).\n\nWe are America we don't lose in the war games we got the best toys and hence the best toy makers (plus the Israelis help us a lot).
912474
Technically and by law, presidents are 5-star generals and allowed to fight the war.\n\nNot necessarily physical, but strategically.
967967
Only Charles Rangel wants a draft. When our military leaders want 1, it will be worth talking about.
421687
this must be that the government feels that there is no further use for these bases ... actually goverments all around the world are cut shorting their army because they are not looking at the number but the skill of the soldiers.. if they have higher skill less number is needed .. like for a bomb a nuke can destroy a city within seconds ... so they are making things smaller but effective
770535
Rummy should have been replaced at least two years ago.  I don't hate Rumsfeld.  I think he'd be a great grandfather, but he wasn't a good secretary of defense.
178592
There was an article about the Admiral Nelson in US News and World Report a few months ago.  He really did lose an arm and won several naval victories.  Great leader.
132459
Yes, not only the backbone, Americas has lost its upper chamber also. They have supported unjust war of Bush in Iraq & Afganistan, killing US Troops & innocent people of Iraq & Afganistan. They have again elected that war monger for the second term, who tells lies to justify his all wrong doings everytime. His every move risks the security of Us and its people.\nHe has already endangered the world peace. Americans are being more insecure only because of arrogant & monstrous thinking & misleading decisions of George Bush. \nAmericans have lost their mind, values & intelectuality to assess GB as the Us president.
439392
Because he has ignored the recommendations of the generals, despite the fact that he has little military command experience aside from being Secretary of Defense. The person leading the military knows next to nothing about military campaigns, and despite that, he does not rely on his generals to make his decisions, but rather what is best for the administration.