Top Joint Chiefs of Staff leaders being replaced

Top Joint Chiefs of Staff leaders being replaced

www.msnbc.msn.com

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday he has decided to replace the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rather than see contentious renomination hearings before Congress.

Speaking to reporters, and referring to the debate over the war in Iraq, Gates said he had wanted to renominate Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but then concluded doing so would create "a confirmation process that would not be in the best interest of the country."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Does anyone know what his authority for doing this is? I am not well versed on the ins-and-outs of the Joint Chiefs. Why does he not have to go through Congress?

Playing politics at its best... how do we even know these are the best people for the job???

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to be confirmed by the Senate when they are selected, there is no such requirement for their dismissal. Gates is well within his rights as the Secretary of Defense.

It's a shame that Civics classes have been removed from our education system.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to be confirmed by the Senate when they are selected, there is no such requirement for their dismissal. Gates is well within his rights as the Secretary of Defense. It's a shame that Civics classes have been removed from our education system.

I couldn't have said that any better, myself.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to be confirmed by the Senate when they are selected, there is no such requirement for their dismissal. Gates is well within his rights as the Secretary of Defense.

It's a shame that Civics classes have been removed from our education system.

Gee, I didn't know that. I only have a masters degree in political science, and I'm nearly done a law degree. But, no, I've never read that Const-me-tooshun thingy. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

That being said, I misunderstood the article. Specifically, I misunderstood this quote and conflated what was being said.

Gates said he had recommended that President Bush nominate Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations, to replace Pace, whose term expires in September.

Gates said his choice of Mullen required him to also not seek the renomination of the vice chairman, Adm. Ed Giambiastiani, since it would create an imbalance among the armed forces, which each get a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He will instead recommend to Bush that Gen. James E. Cartwright, currently the commander of the Strategic Command, become vice chairman.

Yeah, I read it wrong. This article makes it much clearer. But that does not justify those insults.

Peter Pace has had an exemplary career and it will be a shame to lose his leadership at this time, but there is simply no reason why he, or the nation, should have to be smeared with the almost inevitable fiasco of confirmation hearings.

Pace, himself, will be better served to simply retire to savor the vast accomplishments of his forty-year career, not the least of which was having become the first Marine to ever to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It must be remembered that it was not until late 1978 that the Marine Commandant was granted full membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Prior to that year, Marine Commandants were included only for matters of direct concern to the Marine Corps, a huge step forward for the Corps.

By the way, Pace will retire at the end of his term as Chairman. Pace is not being removed, he will not be recommended for a second term. Given the rancor that has characterized the politics of the Iraq war, there is simply no reason to subject Pace to the mudslinging that will surely characterize a confirmation hearing.

This is a wise move. I don't think Pace will lose any sleep over it.

Gates said while he wanted Pace to continue as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he decided a bruising confirmation battle was not worth it. "The focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future," Gates said. "There was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious."

abcnews.go.com

[edit on 2007/6/8 by GradyPhilpott]