The Basic Requirements to Become a U.S. State Department Foreign Service Officer (FSO)

The State Dept has a very rigid system for recruiting, vetting and hiring new FSOs. Aside from being able to get and retain a Top Secret clearance, you must also agree to accept any foreign posting during your first two years. Because so many people submit FSO applications and only a small percentage of them get hired, the competition is fierce. If you are a typical 20-something college graduate without any demonstrable experience in foreign affairs, not multilingual, or haven’t lived, worked, or traveled outside the U.S. to any appreciable extent, you will need to “level-the-playing-field,” as the saying goes.
If you find yourself in the uphill battle I just described, the first thing to do – and this is almost an automatic thing – is enroll in graduate school to earn a master’s degree. My advice is to pursue the graduate degree as a full-time student and get it behind you as soon as you can. If your undergraduate degree is in a field-of-study that is not intuitively related to foreign service, then you are better-off studying for a master’s degree that is immediately recognizable as relevant to an FSO career.
When it comes to applying for any job in the 21st century, I will share with you an excerpt from a magazine article I wrote several years ago entitled, “The Professional Employee: How to Find and Keep the Best.” The three broad skill categories applicable to any job vacancy are:
1. Technical skills;
2. Transferable skills;
3. Fitting-in skills.
Most managers have such busy departments, that when they need to hire additional help, they opt for a strong emphasis on Technical Skills. I call this style of applicant review, “plug n’ play.” Right or wrong, most managers in today’s world do not feel they share in the responsibility for a new-hire’s success like it was 30 years ago. I call this style of new employee hiring, “The Steve Miller ‘Swimming Pool’ Theory of Management.” Simply stated: You throw the new-hire into the deep end of the pool; if they sink to the bottom drain, well, they probably would have failed at some point anyhow…better that we know it now and not waste anymore time on him. If, however, you pop-to-the-surface, spitting & sputtering and make it to the side of the pool, the boss throws you a towel and says, “welcome to the team.”
I realize my swimming pool theory sounds kind of cynical…but, the reality is not far off-the-mark. For an aspiring, young FSO, you’re not likely to bring much professional experience (i.e.; technical skills) applicable to the Foreign Service. The good news, however, is the State Department is not expecting a lot of work history (if any) from their 20-something FSO candidates. But, the recruiters are going to look very hard at a candidate’s transferable and fitting-in skills. In fact, U.S. workforce statistics reveal that poor fitting-in skills are the major reason a new-hire is not retained at the end of their probationary period.
Fitting-in skills are extremely difficult to acquire from book learning. For most of us, our fitting-in skills are closely related to maturity, and life’s living experience. Fitting-in skills include things like: Cultural sensitivity, accepting constructive criticism, not using profanity, willing to accept and perform well on less attractive work assignments, knows when to shut-up & listen, able to recognize and steer clear of office politics as much as possible, and so on. Transferable skills can include above average understanding of Microsoft Office applications, thinking through a problem before acting, adept note-taking and telephone skills, solid internet research skills, etc. Whether you already have some foreign service technical skills, or not, no one is going to hire you as a junior FSO if you have inadequate transferable and/or fitting-in skills.
One of the aspects that catch FSO candidates off-guard is making a career track selection at the time you apply. There are five FSO career tracks: Consular Officer, Economics Officer, Management Officer, Political Officer and Public Diplomacy Officer. The duties under each track are fairly broad. For example: On Monday a Consular Officer might spend the day reviewing foreign national visa applications. On Tuesday the same Consular Officer might be sent by their manager on a two hour drive to another city to determine what is going on with an American expatriate who was arrested yesterday because the local police decided he was the cause of a car accident.
Most FSO candidates have at least a small notion that living abroad as an FSO is a life of intrigue and adventure. To that end, Political and Public Diplomacy Officers are seen as the glamor jobs of the Foreign Service.
State Department recruiting information says that if you are successful in getting through the cumbersome vetting process, each would-be new-hire is placed on a career track eligibility list of their choosing. The lists are kept in candidate seniority order. Naturally, the two lists for PO, and PDO are heavily impacted, and you could easily wait for a year or more before your name rises to the top of the list to receive a job offer. The three track lists for Consular, Economic and Management Officer are much shorter (approx 6 months).
Often times the recruiting department will have an officer candidate requirement in Consular, Economic or Management and one or more of the pools doesn’t have enough people on the list. Under those circumstances, the recruiters will begin contacting FSO candidates from the other lists to offer them a job. An example might be: A PO candidate has been waiting 10 months to receive a job offer, and her husband is getting perturbed about the length of waiting time. An FSO recruiter contacts the young lady and offers her a Consular Officer position in Bangladesh. She’s under no obligation to accept this out-of-track job offer. The important factor to consider is if she accepts the job to start work sooner, rather than later, she’s removed from the PO track waiting list. The State Dept cautions candidates accepting assignments from another track list that the first overseas posting (Bangladesh, in our example) is likely to last three years and during that time the new FSO is ineligible to apply for jobs back in their preferred track; they will have to wait to complete the Consular Officer posting, first. It could be three-to-five years before she can apply to go back on the PO waiting list.
As if all of the foregoing requirements were not enough, I have saved the “best” for last. As is the case for most entry-level jobs in the U.S. Government, there is often a qualification exam to be taken. The FSO job is no different in that regard. I can tell you the FSO qualification exam is easily on a par with the Bar or CPA Exams. I took the FSO exam four years ago. I am here to tell you, it is the mother of all exams. I passed it; but, by time I was finished, I was so wrung-out that I didn’t even care anymore if I passed or failed. The State Dept has some sample, former test questions, and you can buy a study guide on Amazon.com. On this exam, book learning is just a fraction of what is needed to pass. Just about any question you can think of regarding geography, international law, economics, religious studies, world history, the U.S. Constitution, U.S. political studies, wars, famine, etc. You name it; it’s on there. To pass this exam, you must be well read, have an intellectual bent, outstanding written & oral communications, and superb analytical skills.

Military Operations, History & Cyber Warfare

Why Is the White House Coordinating the War against ISIS Instead of the Pentagon?

Cartoon by Morton Morehead, accessed October 2014 on reddit.com

The facts on the ground in Syria and Iraq are very complex. Trying to ensure coalition leadership gets the targeting done right is akin to attempting to pull your kid off of a spinning merry-go-round blindfolded…there’s lots of opportunity to get it wrong. A comment posted on reddit.com in response to Morehead’s cartoon says it all: “Shoot the guys with the beards! No the other beards…The brown guys with the headscarves! The ones running away, and the other ones not running away. F_ _ _-it…kill everyone to be sure we got……?” (italics added for emphasis) Comment attributed to reddit.com subscriber ‘1blckbx’

Aside from writing, consulting and other workstreams I am involved in, I also do professional speaking and teach college. Anyone who has attended one of my events knows that almost everything I see in life starts out in my mind as a funny thought. In most forums where serious material is being discussed, I suppress my humorous anecdotes and stick to the discussion at hand. But, the confusion and conflicting agendas seen in Iraq and Syria that are faced 24/7 by the forces involved in Operation INHERENT RESOLVE, is sometimes so exasperating that the best antidote is to just shake your head and have a non-verbal chuckle. All laughing aside, I will put my game face on, and give the topic the serious answer it deserves.

As of today, September 6, 2016, the Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. All of these assets are coordinated through one air component combatant commander for Operation INHERENT RESOLVE.

The current ground combatants in Syria for INHERENT RESOLVE includes the Syrian Army, the original Rebel Insurgents who have been trying to topple Bashar Al-Asad’s Administration for the past four plus years, and ISIS. To be sure, ISIS is clearly a faction of opportunists who took advantage of the civil war raging between the other two groups and accomplished quite a lot in a very short timeframe.

Similarly in Iraq, ISIS recognized the disheveled Iraqi Government and a shaky infrastructure, then looked at the semi-autonomous Kurds and decided they could also exploit the disjointed and dysfunctional situation in Iraq.

Considering all of this, and there are five Islamic-based countries flying sorties for the coalition, the United States cannot afford to misstep in the bombing campaign. You ask why the Obama Administration is so heavy handed in managing the air war? Because this military action could easily become an albatross around President Obama’s neck, and become the legacy he is saddled with as he leaves the White House. Basically, a situation very reminiscent of the baggage carried by President Bush when he turned over the keys to Obama in January 2009. Numerous people in, and supporting the Obama Administration derided the Bush Administration for overseeing an apparent botched job in OEF and OIF. The Obama Administration has learned by the school of hard knocks that managing a combat operation in the Middle East is not as easy as it looks.

You can look to the Johnson Administration during the Vietnam War and see a President also micro-managing a complex bombing campaign. Whether you are Lyndon Johnson or Barack Obama, if you are really worried about the “kids not coloring inside the lines,” then you grab the crayons and start coloring the picture yourself. Take the time to watch the HBO TV-movie from 2002, “Path to War,” about the Johnson White House during the Vietnam War. It is very instructive in comprehending how a sitting President tried extremely hard to get the right facts about the War raging in Southeast Asia, so that good, intelligent decisions could be made about the bombing operations in North Vietnam. I have no doubt there have been many heated discussions within the Obama Administration about INHERENT RESOLVE’s air war, and the constant efforts to get the bombing done correctly for the ground combatants the Coalition is supporting. But, make no mistake, numerous parallels are eyed every day in and out of the Administration in terms of how things are measuring up to both the Johnson legacy and the Bush legacy.

The risk of “getting-it-wrong” in Syria and Iraq is much too high for the Obama team to feel comfortable letting go of the reins.

The Judiciary

Do the courts create law in the United States?

When it comes to defining the law and what is, or is not legal, it first starts with the norms of behavior in a given society. A significant portion of the approximate 200 countries in the World trace their societal norms and many of their laws to the Ten Commandments written in the Bible’s Old Testament. Many religions believe the Ten Commandments are the “pinnacle-of-rules” promulgated by a Deity to His chosen oracle on Earth (i.e.; Moses). In reality, however, whether you believe Moses was a true prophet of God, or just a pretty wise fellow who wrote the Ten Commandments on his own, most learned people recognize that the Ten Commandments were/are a basic foundation of human behavior. Moses, with or without devine intervention, was extremely frustrated with the Jews under his charge after bringing them out of Egypt. In today’s parlance, the Jews following Moses often behaved like teenagers at a “rave party,” and recognized if they didn’t clean-up their act, the end result was not going to be good for anyone.

Most countries have many, many laws on the books nowadays that go far beyond the basic morality of the Ten Commandments. Many of these additional laws start first in a society where certain acts or behavior are seen as being in “poor taste,” or the now common phrase, “unethical.”

A country, such as the United States, is seen as one of the most sophisticated, highly evolved societies on the planet. We are fortunate to have had a group of “Founding Fathers,” such as the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These men were cultured, very intelligent, pillars of their community, well educated, and had a good income. In my opinion, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are documents I respect, and would have expected nothing less from a group of such highly regarded men. The Framers-of-the-Constitution had the foresight to realize that man and society were on a never ending continuum of life. What was well known and common practice in 1780’s America, was more evolved 100 years previous in 1680; and 100 years into the future in 1880 would be even further evolved than the colonial era. This concept of societal evolution led the Framers to build some methods of change into the Constitution; or, as I like to call it, the “what if” factor. The Constitution is a living document.

An important event occurred before the Constitution was written. It demonstrated that even a group of distinguished men do not always get something right on the first try. I am speaking of the “Articles of Confederation,” the pre-cursor document to the U.S. Constitution. An old college history professor I had, called the Articles of Confederation the “have-your-cake-and-it-too” version of the Constitution. He was referring to the heavy emphasis on state’s rights and a weak central government. In other words, the states saw the fundamental benefits of “safety-in-numbers” by banding together. But, at the same time, they wanted the states free to do what their citizens wanted without the central government or other states crying “foul!” Within a few years the leaders of the various states could see the Articles of Confederation were doomed to failure. So, back to the table they all went and wrote the Constitution.

The constitutional authors created a document with rules that would remain in-place indefinitely, unless the citizenship saw a need for change. Congress was charged with the responsibility to manage the process of constitutional change; that is, an amendment. The authors also realized from the failed Articles of Confederation that you can get some of the people to agree all of the time; and you can get all of the people to agree some of the time…but, you won’t get everyone to agree all of the time. If a particular section of the Constitution really became a thorn in everyone’s side, then an amendment could be drawn up. The authors, however, did not want the amendment process to be a simple thing to do; otherwise, the thing would undergo constant revisions.

The Constitutional authors understood it would be the primary legal reference for all future Federal, State and Local laws. If any question arose about future laws & regulations at any level in terms of
Constitutionality, the matter could be brought to a State Supreme Court, or ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. If a case is sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices could read the filed briefs by opposing counsel and determine the issue at hand does not pose a big enough issue for the citizenry and decline to take the case. This means that whatever legal issue is in question, and however it is currently being applied, stays as is. If anyone wants to pursue further action, the only choice is to have the cognizant legislative body write new or revised legislation to change the status quo.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a case, they will ultimately render a decision for or against the petitioning party in terms of whether the issue at hand meets the test of Constitutionality, or not. Keep in mind that most Supreme Court decisions are rarely black n’ white with all nine Justices in agreement. The Supreme Court does not write laws; but, their decisions will either affirm the Constitutional legality of a law(s), or determine a legal issue is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. From a lawyer’s standpoint, they are looking to the Supreme Court to make a decision that sets a precedence of legal interpretation. This is the essence of what is referred to as “case law.” Any law that is not very specific is subject to interpretation. If s/he wants a sitting judge to decide in her/his favor, then it’s important for the attorney to cite case law decided in other court rooms so the judge for the case-at-hand has something to refer to as a basis of the decision handed down.

At the end of the day, no matter what the Supreme Court decides in a case, if the citizenry does not like the decision, then the legislature-of-jurisdiction can write new laws that conform to the Supreme Court decision, revise laws to make them conform, or do nothing and allow the decision to be applied to any case coming through the court system. The Supreme Court is a kin to an umpire crew at a baseball game. The umpires did not write the league’s rules; but, their interpretation and decisions about the rules can and may determine which team wins the game.

The Judiciary

Do Courts Create Laws in the United States?

When it comes to defining the law and what is or is not legal, it first starts with the norms of behavior in a given society. A significant portion of the approximate 200 countries in the World trace their societal norms and many of their laws to the Ten Commandments written in the Bible’s Old Testament. Many religions believe the Ten Commandments are the “pinnacle-of-rules” promulgated by a Deity to His chosen oracle on Earth (i.e.; Moses). In reality, however, whether you believe Moses was a true prophet of God, or just a pretty wise fellow who wrote the Ten Commandments on his own, most learned people recognize that the Ten Commandments were/are a basic foundation of human behavior. Moses, with or without divine intervention, was extremely frustrated with the Jews under his charge after bringing them out of Egypt. In today’s parlance, the Jews following Moses often behaved like teenagers at a “rave party,” and recognized if they didn’t clean-up their act, the end result was not going to be good for anyone.

Most countries have numerous laws nowadays that go far beyond the basic morality of the Ten Commandments. Many of these additional laws start first in a society where certain acts or behavior are seen as being in “poor taste,” or the now common phrase, “unethical.” Of course, there are many segments of the law directly related to modern technology that even innovators like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson could not possibly fathom how far the World, in general, and the United States, in particular, would advance on all fronts at the American Centennial, let alone at her Bicentennial. Cyber Crime, for instance, is something that even a science fiction futurist like Jules Verne would not have seen coming.

A country, such as the United States, is seen as one of the more sophisticated, highly evolved societies on the planet. We are fortunate to have had a group of “Founding Fathers,” such as, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These men were cultured, very intelligent, pillars of their community, well educated, and had a good income. In my opinion, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are documents I respect, and would have expected nothing less from a group of such highly regarded men. The Framers-of-the-Constitution had the foresight to realize that man and society were on a never ending continuum of life. What was well known and common practice in 1780’s America, was more evolved than 100 years previous in 1680; and 100 years into the future in 1880 would be even further evolved than the colonial era. This concept of societal evolution led the Framers to build some methods of change into the Constitution; or, as I like to call it, the “what if” factor. The Constitution is clearly a living document.

An important event occurred before the Constitution was written. It demonstrated that even a group of distinguished men do not always get something right on the first try. I am speaking of the “Articles of Confederation,” the pre-cursor document to the U.S. Constitution. An old college history professor I had, called the Articles of Confederation the “have-your-cake-and-it-too” version of the Constitution. He was referring to the heavy emphasis on state’s rights and a weak central government. In other words, the states saw the fundamental benefits of “safety-in-numbers” by banding together. But, at the same time, they wanted each state to be free to do whatever their citizens wanted without the central government or other states crying “foul!” Within a few years the leaders of the various states could see the Articles of Confederation were doomed to failure. So, back to the table they all went and wrote the Constitution.

The Constitutional authors created a document with rules that would remain in-place indefinitely, unless the citizenship saw a need for change. Congress was charged with the responsibility to manage the process of Constitutional change; that is, an amendment. The authors also realized from the failed Articles of Confederation that you can get some of the people to agree all of the time; and you can get all of the people to agree some of the time…but, you won’t get everyone to agree all of the time. If a particular section of the Constitution really became a thorn in everyone’s side, then an amendment could be drawn up. The authors, however, did not want the amendment process to be a simple thing to do; otherwise, the Constitution would undergo constant revisions.

The members of the Constitutional Convention understood that once they completed their work, and the Constitution was ratified by the states, it would become the primary legal reference for all future Federal, State and Local laws. If any question arose about future laws & regulations at any level in terms of Constitutionality, the matter could be brought to a State Supreme Court, or ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. If a case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices could read the filed briefs by opposing counsel and determine the case does not rise to the level of importance for the whole country, ergo, they will not accept the case for placement on the Court’s docket. This means that whatever legal issue is in question, and however it is currently being applied, stays as is. If anyone wants to pursue further action, the only choice is to have the cognizant legislative body write new or revised legislation to change the status quo. The Court could also decide a case should have been filed in a different court first, meaning, at that point the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. Keep in mind, however, any case where the U.S. Government is one of the opposing parties, and the case slowly snakes its way through the lower Federal & Appeals Courts, and it finally arrives at the Supreme Court, the justices do not have the option of declining to hear the case like they can for cases involving private parties.

Military Operations, History & Cyber Warfare

Who Are Some of America’s Best Generals and Admirals of All Time?

fleet_admiral_chester_w-_nimitz_portrait

Portrait: US Army (USA) General (GEN) George C. Marshall. (Uncovered), (Exact date shot UNKNOWN).

lossy-page1-703px-fleet_admiral_leahy-tif

lossy-page1-725px-president_eisenhower_portrait_1959-tif

America’s only 5-star officers, from upper left: General-of-the-Army (GA) Omar Bradley; Fleet Admiral (FA) Ernest King; FA Chester Nimitz; GA George Marshall; General-of-the-Army Air Forces Henry Arnold; FA William Leahy; GA Dwight Eisenhower; GA Douglas MacArthur; FA William Halsey

This is not a simple question to answer with a direct, definitive statement. I like using sports metaphors, and this question reminds me of the oft repeated question of who is the best baseball player of all time? Even if you separate the group into the major categories of pitchers and hitters, it’s still not an easy answer because the game, the equipment, the baseball, and the players themselves have changed so much in the past 100 years. The same argument holds true for America’s military leaders who served across four different centuries. My standard answer to this sort of question recognizes the diversity of talent we’ve had for military leaders. I choose to present the case of America’s best generals and admirals based on their performance during wartime. Before jumping to that discussion, however, I need to cover a few preliminary issues.

The U.S. Congress enacted special legislation during the 1976 Bicentennial to honor General George Washington as the highest ranking American military officer of all time. Only Washington and General John J. “Blackjack” Pershing (of WW I fame) carry the rank of “General of the Armies,” and Washington outranks Pershing. Legislation enacted on Pershing’s behalf in 1919, which awarded him General of the Armies title, gave the option of wearing four or five stars; he chose to wear only four. Prior to the Civil War, the highest rank an Army officer could aspire to was a two-star Major General. When Ulysses S. Grant took command of the entire U.S. Army during the Civil War, he was promoted to Lieutenant General with three stars. It was not until 1917 when America entered the First World War, that Congress authorized the creation and use of four stars with “General” as the formal title.

The U.S. Navy flag officer situation was quite different from the Army. Until legislation was enacted in 1862, again due to the Civil War, “Captain” was the Navy’s highest rank. The War generated a need for greater rank stratification at the senior level, so, Congress created two flag officer ranks: a one-star Commodore, and a two-star Rear Admiral. Two years later, Congress enacted additional legislation to promote David Farragut to a three-star Vice Admiral. In 1866, Congress passed a third round of legislation, promoting Farragut to a four-star Admiral, and David D. Porter to Vice Admiral. Admiral Farragut died four years later in 1870, so, Porter was promoted to Admiral, and Stephen C. Rowan was promoted to Vice Admiral. The Farragut, Porter, and Rowan promotions took place through Congressional legislation on a person-by-person, named basis only. In 1890, Vice Admiral Rowan passed away, and Admiral Porter followed him a year later. For more than 20 years following their deaths, Naval officers could aspire no higher than a two-star Rear Admiral. Congress took no action to promote any of them to a higher rank. It was not until 1915 when Congress finally authorized one Admiral and one Vice Admiral for each of the three U.S. Navy Fleets – the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Asiatic. Until WW II came around, the Navy could have no more than three Admirals and three Vice Admirals, by law. Because of the legal limits on 3-star and 4-star Admirals, it was common practice for the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), and the Vice Chief (VCNO) to be dual-hatted as Commander-in-Chief and Vice Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet.

After World War I, both the Army & Navy kept their three & four star ranks in active use up to the present day. Although senior officers from America’s earlier generations such as Washington, Andrew Jackson, Farragut, Grant, Porter, and Pershing were successful in their own right, they were not faced with the challenges of global warfare on land, sea, and air. America’s military leaders during World War II clearly faced momentous decisions with far reaching effects well beyond the immediate circumstances they were dealing with. It would be really tough to come up with a valid quantification method to level the military leadership playing field spanning 200 years. America’s Admirals and Generals in WW II clearly had to rise to a level of success in excess of any previous Army or Navy officers, so, the balance of the material below is focused on officers serving in WW II.

In WW II the Combined Chiefs of Staff (i.e.; the British & American service chiefs as a single body) learned early on that what made a good flag/general officer in peace time, did not always translate directly to a leader’s successful performance in wartime. During America’s first year in the war, there were many military officers at the field grade and general/flag rank who did not have their jobs anymore by January 1943. So, let’s take a look at America’s top WW II military leaders who withstood the immense pressure thrust upon them and managed to keep their performance, and that of their soldiers, sailors & airman, in a generally upward direction.

WW II marked the first, and only time, in American history to promote certain leaders beyond the legal limit of a four-star General or Admiral during wartime. Although Congress authorized five-stars for Pershing, it did not occur until WW I was over. Other nations, most notably the British and Germans, have bestowed five-star status on their most senior general/flag officers in past wars, and did it again in WW II. Ever mindful of our Founding Father’s contempt for England’s maintenance of a full-time army and navy in peace time, and the additional tax burden it caused, did not like the idea of adding a 5th star; in essence, creating a “General-of-Generals” and an “Admiral-of-Admirals.” In WW II, however, when President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill created the quasi-formal entity, the “Combined Chiefs of Staff,” it became obvious to the Americans after a couple of CCS meetings that many of the British CCS members held 5-star rank and sometimes gave the impression they outranked all of the American 4-star officers. This uncomfortable situation filtered its way back to Roosevelt. The President did not act immediately; but, eventually he had to do something to level the playing field between the two country’s top military leaders.

Roosevelt took the necessary steps to create the wartime rank of a 5-star General and Admiral. The thornier issue was not so much who ought to get a 5th star, but how to sort out when each one was promoted. Using a rigid military chain-of-command, Roosevelt knew that officers of equal rank determined who outranked who by using each man’s promotion date, or in military parlance, their “date-of-rank.” For the most part, British 5-star officers had dates-of-rank that pre-dated the timeframe that Washington even started thinking about it. Whether the British liked it or not, Roosevelt and his new 5-star officers behaved as equals and avoided situations that might escalate to the point a CCS member felt there was no alternative but to “pull rank” based on dates-of-promotion (rank seniority).

Roosevelt settled the issue of rank seniority amongst the new American 5-star leaders by promoting his top military advisor, Admiral William Leahy, first, on December 15, 1944. In date order, Army General George Marshall came next on the 16th of December; then Chief-of-Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King on the 17th. At this point Roosevelt had finished leveling the playing field for America’s top CCS members.

By design early in the war, Roosevelt and Churchill endorsed the CCS decision to tap one 4-star officer, American or British, who became the singular military leader for the Allies in each theater of operations. After promoting the three previous men, FDR began promoting the theater commanders from the U.S. military. For this next sequence, since all of the men had more than 30 years of active duty, Roosevelt used their time-in-service. General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the Southwest Pacific theater got his 5th star on December 18, 1944. Commander of the Central Pacific, Admiral Chester Nimitz, came next on the 19th. General Dwight Eisenhower got his 5-star promotion the next day, December 20th. It’s interesting to note that Eisenhower made the fastest ascension to 5-stars of any of the men. On March 5, 1941, Eisenhower held the permanent rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The next day he received his “eagles” as a full Colonel. He was promoted six times in three and a half years. The final 5-star promotion was head of the American Army Air Forces, General Henry “Hap” Arnold on December 21, 1944.

The American military has regularly used the scheme of honoring officers with career-long meritorious service by giving them a final promotion on their date of retirement. This is sometimes referred to as a “tombstone promotion.” Since the number of active duty Generals and Admirals (1-star through 4-star) are set by Federal Law, a tombstone promotion did not upset the balance of Generals & Admirals on active duty. Retirement promotions were a way for the USG to make amends to an officer whom the President could not promote while on active duty. It was a further gesture of thanks for their long service, because retirement at a higher paygrade brought the retiree more money in their monthly retirement check. Both Admiral William Halsey and General Omar Bradley got their 5th stars in this manner with promotion dates of December 11, 1945 and September 20, 1950, respectively.

Which of the preceding 5-star officers was the best? No one can really say for sure. You might be able to narrow the field to three or four men; but, then to apply further filtration would likely result in splitting hairs that historians could argue over for the next 100 years. Let’s just say that each man was an above average officer throughout his career, such that he can thank many different military & civilian officials who recognized, starting as 2nd Lieutenants and Ensigns, that each man’s skill & achievements made him worthy of promotion 10 more times in the four decades to follow. They all deserve America’s recognition for rising to the challenge of war at exactly the right place and time.

The REPORT on NATIONAL SECURITY KINETICS™

“If I Can’t Prove It, I Don’t Write It” – USAF Vietnam Veteran – Military Historian – National Security & Geopolitical SME