Talk:List of active duty United States four-star officers/Archive 1

Changes to service tables

 * I removed the Service column from each of the tables of four star officers which only come from a single service. I thought it made the tables easier on the eyes, rather than having the repetitive entry.  Since the link to the service itself was removed, I wikilinked the section title for easy reference.  Comments/Questions welcome -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary information
I got curious how long the current batch of 4-stars had held their rank and what they'd done to rate promotion. It turns out there are a lot of 3-star jobs, but only a handful lead to 4-star rank (basically, people who see the Secretary a lot: the Joint Staff, Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, etc.) Kind of interesting, but probably too much of a data dump for the front page.

Morinao 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Once you get that high up, its more political. Its who you know. Bunns USMC 14:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Director of the Joint Staff
The Director of the Joint Staff is a statutory 3-star position whose presence on a resume is a remarkably good predictor of eventual 4-star rank. The Director is selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Secretary of Defense. Of the last 18 former Directors, 17 were promoted to 4-star rank within a year of leaving the post, and the eighteenth was appointed under the outgoing administration and lacked the confidence of the incoming Secretary of Defense.

Morinao 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
Proximity to the Secretary of Defense really is a fast track to that fourth star. Other former SMA's: GEN Colin Powell, ADM William A. Owens, GEN John P. Jumper, GEN Paul Kern, GEN James L. Jones, ADM Gregory G. Johnson.

Morinao 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: de:Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense --GrummelJS 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deputy Commander, USEUCOM
The new position of Commander, USAFRICOM has apparently replaced Deputy Commander, USEUCOM as a four-star position. Rear Adm. Richard K. Gallagher has been nominated as Deputy Commander, USEUCOM, with rank of vice admiral. Morinao 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
List of United States four-star officers → List of active duty United States four-star officers — To further clarify that this is a list of active duty United States four-star officers and not a complete list of four-star officers. This will help eliminate the chance of a retired officer be placed in the list. — Neovu79 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support This will help eliminated confussion from active duty and retired four-star officers. Neovu79 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This list is essentially a scorecard tracking the current state of play, with some explanation of the underlying rules. Expanding the scope to include retired four-stars might make the article unwieldy, especially since they are already listed separately for each service (e.g. List of United States Army four-star generals). - Morinao (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The list is currently structured around positions rather than the holders of those positions, and it's a useful structure and should be retained. And there's no obvious place in this structure for officers not currently serving. My reservation is that a simple list of all four star officers would also be useful, if someone cared to do the initial input. IMO this move should not be seen as a decision preventing that, see the bigger picture below. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - seems pretty straight forward. - the WOLF  child  05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Any additional comments:

I moved Neovu79's support into the survery area. DigitalC (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to not list retired officers? DigitalC (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my question too. At four star rank, surely they'd all meet Notability guidelines? And note Notability is not temporary. Andrewa (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This can be handled with a category. I think this article should only include current O-10 officers.  I agree that anyone who has held a 4 star rank (or for that matter 2 and 3) are notable. --rogerd (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it can be handled by a category. But why? Why not include retired and other non-serving officers as part of this list, if people want to list them? Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, hypothetically, if we include retired and other non-serving officers, what do we list besides the names? Some officers have served in multiple O-10 billets, do we list their last O-10 billet they had before retiring?  If we are only to list the names, then it doesn't give any more info than a category does.  --rogerd (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retired four-stars are already listed in the articles linked at the bottom, along with all of their O-10 billets and other notes, so I don't think it's necessary to list them here, especially since there are over 700 of them! - Morinao (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for eventually splitting the list, certainly. Please note that I'm not opposing the move, rather I'm looking at the bigger picture, see below. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many previous discussions on the question of list versus category. One advantage of a list is that it allows redlinks; A category doesn't. As for structure, perhaps see List of United States Army four-star generals. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Morinao, there are too many officers to list them together in one wiki page. Having the total number of four-star officers seperated by branch is much better and will avoid making articles too large. Neovu79 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that breaking the list down by branch is a good idea, and the move of this content together with its history as proposed makes sense. But then what happens to this page title? It shouldn't just be a redirect to a page that deals solely with serving officers. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but until we can figure out what we can do with it, it can temporarily be redirected to the new page. One idea is that we can put list of the broken-down four-stars via service branch there instead. Neovu79 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The bigger picture
The article as it stands is a good one, and the name doesn't reflect the current contents and IMO it should be moved. But I'm concerned that this decision should not be seen as preventing the subsequent creation of a list (or lists) covering all US four star officers, past and present, if somone wished to do this. The maintenance task of such a list would not be excessive after the initial entry, less in fact than the task of maintaining the existing list, as there would only be additions not deletions.

The related question is, what to do with the resulting redirect? Probably it shouldn't simply point to this article, as there are far more non-serving officers than serving ones. See List of United States Army four-star generals for example; It's quite likely that someone coming to List of United States four-star officers wants that article, not this one. So how do we best handle that? Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem about putting together a comprehensive list of all four-star officers in U.S. history in one wiki page is that there are too many and will take up too much space. The list below is structured a little better because it categorizes the officers by their branch of service. :-)

Neovu79 (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * List of United States Army four-star generals
 * List of United States Navy four-star admirals
 * List of United States Air Force four-star generals
 * List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals
 * List of United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps four-star admirals


 * Agree. So, I'd propose that this page should become a navigation page that points to both the current content (moved as proposed to preserve the history) and to these more comprehensive lists. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Koh doesn't belong in this list
That's my assertion anyway: the billet may be 4-star, but you're only a 4-star *in that billet* *if you are active duty*... our content here:

United States Assistant Secretary for Health

suggests strongly that Mr Koh is *not* active duty, and therefore not a "current four-star officer". Anyone disagree with me on this? --Baylink (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He is active as Assistant Secretary for Health and not retired. Do you object to his inclusion because he is a civilian appointee and you believe the duty term should be reserved to military personnel? Hekerui (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Baylink is suggesting that since Dr. Koh is a civilian and not serving in uniform, it does not constitute him being a four-star officer. Since the position of Assistant Secretary for Health is established by law as a billet for a four-star in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, I believe it should remain on the page. However, it should be noted that a four-star officer is not currently serving in that position. Neovu79 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of active duty United States four-star officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828053231/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13774 to http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13774

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding background section to tables
I'm planning on adding a background section to the tables to show the professional backgrounds of the generals (Surface Warfare, Infantry, Special Forces, Fighters, etc.) so that there can be an addition to branch to show where they come from. Does anyone have any qualms about this before I start? Garuda28 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do, and not because I have anything against you or their history and where they come from, it's because that several four-star position's qualifications are not based off of their technical background. Neovu79 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense taken! My reasoning was that it would be useful to show their backgrounds, especially in light of concerns over which career fields make it to general in each service, and in which commands.Garuda28 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that their initial career choices helped them in their ascension up the ranks initially, but I find that four-star ranks are of a different breed. For instance, let's take a look at the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The people who historically have been PACFLT's commander have come for very different career pipelines, i.e. aviation, surface warfare, submarine warfare. It's impossible to say that one occupational pipeline has a better chance to be appointed to this position or achieve four-star rank over the other. My point that I'm getting at, is that officers changes careers constantly over their service and, if they wanted, any officer from any initial occupation can achieve the rank of a four-star officer if they so chose their path. The current Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard is a perfect example. His is the first judge advocate to achieve the rank of admiral due in a huge part of switching his career occupation in order to continue rising through the ranks. Neovu79 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From a scorecard perspective, I think that field would be interesting to add, because communities compete within a service just as services compete for joint positions. (Officers do change careers, so presumably they would be labeled with their current designator.) It's not that any single position is necessarily earmarked for a specific career field (although some are, and it's notable when exceptions occur, like if Mayville gets tapped to lead Cyber Command). But when a single community dominates (or is shut out of) most of a service's four-star positions, that imbalance is noticed.
 * For example, the Air Force and its fighter generals. There was a time in the mid-1990s when 10 of 11 Air Force four-stars were fighter pilots, including AFMC and AMC (only exception was the bomber pilot at STRATCOM). Conversely, Army four-stars used to be divided roughly evenly between infantry, armor, and field artillery, but currently there are 0 from field artillery. Similarly, around 2006-2007, I think only 2 of 9 Navy four-stars were submariners, and they were in non-operational positions (VCJCS and NAVSEA 08); CNO/VCNO and combatant/component commanders were all surface warfare and aviation.
 * The career field also helps signal whether individual four-stars are realistic candidates for follow-on jobs, or have probably topped out in their specialty. For example, AFMC commander Gregory S. Martin was considered a viable nominee for PACOM because he was a fighter pilot, not a career logistician like most materiel commanders. Morinao (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can necessarily agree with some of that. It's true that in some cases, a specific community has dominated, but beyond that is really politics. If someone likes someone over another, i.e. a service chief favoring a candidate from the same original career pipeline so long as them, assuming the candidate also meet the requirements for the job, then they will get put at the front of the list. There have been times that this has seem unfair to other career communities, and that has been brought up. It's up the the service secretaries, and department secretaries to make sure that there is a balance of officers being appointed to four-star positions. It's interesting that you bring up General Gregory S. Martin though. As you're aware, he was nominated to be commander of PACOM before being blocked by the Senate because of the Darleen Druyun scandal. He ultimately withdrew his nomination and the job went to Admiral William J. Fallon. So far, no other service other than a Navy admiral has served as PACOM's commander due mostly in part of the area the Pacific Ocean covers. Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr. will be retiring next year, and Admiral Scott H. Swift has been told by the CNO that he will be passed over as the Navy's nomination for PACOM due in part with the recent Navy ship collisions in PACFLT's area of responsibility, and he has submitted paperwork for retirement. Currently, Air Force General Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy has been announced as the leading candidate to replace Harris. This goes back to who is fit for the job and not their career pipeline. O’Shaughnessy has had extensive work in that area of responsibility and has made a name for himself with the other countries in the Pacific region, and not because he was a fighter pilot. Admiral Philip S. Davidson, who is that Navy's lead candidate, is a surface warfare officer by trade and has a lot of operational experience with fleets. That is helpful with PACOM since PACOM's area of responsibility encompasses the entire Pacific Ocean. However, all of his political experience and work has been done in the Atlantic Ocean, Europe and Africa, and he has never had an assignment in the Pacific area of responsibility which has made him a weaker candidate vs. O’Shaughnessy. However, Senator John McCain the chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, favors Navy officers in that position and currently is in disfavor with the Air Force due mostly with his battle with them to keep the the close air support fighter, A-10 Warthogs in service until a "viable" replacement is found. So, what I'm getting down to is, that achieving four-star rank is all based on politics, and not from their initial career paths. Neovu79 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about predicting who will get a job based on their initial career paths or any other personal background, since individual selections are all politics and personality, as you say. It's about listing what service communities are currently represented. We already list which service each of the joint four-stars belong to. By doing so, we're not trying to say that CJCS and CDRUSAFRICOM are Marines, so Marines are more likely to become CJCS and CDRUSAFRICOM. All we're saying is that at this moment 2 out of 15 joint four-star positions are occupied by Marines. The closest we get to prediction is if readers infer that when one service is severely underrepresented, that service is more likely to get the next appointment (which did actually play into the Waldhauser selection). This is just one more level of granularity, with direct relevance to the topic, since community balance is always considered (but not necessarily heeded) when filling these jobs, just as service balance is considered for joint appointments. For example, when the CNO is an aviator, the VCNO is expected to be a non-aviator; and when the CMC is an infantryman, he usually picks an aviator as his ACMC (and vice versa).
 * Moreover, some jobs traditionally do have certain community expectations, and deviations from these expectations are often noted and commented upon. It's unusual when a fighter pilot gets tapped for the bomber/ICBM command the instant it is elevated to four-star (and people did complain about Rand getting AFGSC). It's unusual when the Washington Post speculates that a military intelligence officer would try to compete with a combat arms officer for TRADOC. It's unusual for a non-airlift pilot to get TRANSCOM; or for a non-fighter pilot to get CSAF. It's unusual for an aviator to become CMC instead of an infantryman. So there is relevant information in an officer's current community affiliation (unlike, say, their commissioning source or college major).
 * I agree that no one would say that O'Shaughnessy should be PACOM because he's a fighter pilot and not a bomber pilot. But they might observe that PACOM is usually filled from the pool of existing four-stars, and the Air Force selects way more fighter four-stars than bomber four-stars (just Wilson right now). This pattern holds at lower grades as well, so it's not really a coincidence that the Air Force happened to draw a fighter pilot instead of a bomber pilot out of their one-star pool to groom for the PACOM nomination with two- and three-star jobs that developed his regional expertise. Also, different communities are tracked for different positions. It would be unusual for a space operator to be groomed for PACOM instead of STRATCOM, for instance. Morinao (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It maybe unusual, but sometimes it's what is needed. Both Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates saw a need for that. Which is why Admiral Fallon was appointed to CENTCOM and Admiral James G. Stavridis's appointment to EUCOM/SACER. Neovu79 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as really adding any value to the article. What does "artillary" or "fighter pilot" really tell us about the subject? Especially when compared to their education. Some have degrees from various military schools and war colleges, others have advanced degrees in poly sci, econ, history, world cultures, etc. That, if anything tell us as much, if not more about the person. But at the end of day, they aren't appointed because of previous commands held or PhDs, it's purely politics. Who's a democrat, who's a republican, who's connected to who and so on and so forth. The kind of info that can't be added to this table, so adding a 'background' column is basically pointless. My two cents. - the WOLF  child  21:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point I'd like to add is that lists are supposed to make the most relevant information readily accessible. The cleaner the better. Every subject on the list has a linked BLP that includes their profession history and qualifications, so that info isn't needed here. - the WOLF  child  03:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

straw poll
There are some lengthy reasponses here, so how about a quick poll to gauge consensus. Basically, do you support adding a "background" column or do you oppose it? Leave a brief note along with your !vote. -wolf 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as I stated above, it doesn't add any value to the article. It's simply not needed. - the WOLF  child  03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - Unless you can present it in a way that doesn't appear on the list that only those officers with those corresponding career backgrounds are eligible to be in the positions they currently occupy, I think for now, having backgrounds on there would make it appear the job and their backgrounds mutually inclusive. Neovu79 (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support adding a "community" or "branch" column (not "background" since this is a current affiliation). It's no different from having a "service" column for joint positions, which doesn't imply that only officers from the corresponding service are eligible for those jobs. And there's a big difference between an cryptology admiral, who is really only eligible for one job, and an aviator/surface/submarine admiral, who is viable for any of them. Right now they both look the same. Morinao (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - But what does that matter? The list is simply to show who has what job. They have a linked BLP if you want to know how they got it. Their past assignments & commands, courses and qualifications, in-theatre experience, their selection process thru the senate, etc., etc. Far to much info for just a small box on a list, imho. - the WOLF  child  06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because for some of these jobs, it's more salient that an officer is a member of one of the combat arms, as opposed to a support specialty, than that they belong to any particular service. It matters more that an officer is a special operator, or space operator, than that they are in the Army or Air Force. As I keep trying to say, these communities aren't just "background" to explain how someone got a job, they are a current designator that often carries more information than a service affiliation about the person presently occupying a job. Some jobs are defined by which services can fill them (CSA = Army, ACC = Air Force, EUCOM = any). Others are more defined by which communities typically fill them (NSA = intel/crypto, AMC = airlift, SOCOM = special operators, CJCS = combat arms, service vice chief = a different community from the service chief, etc.). You don't get that picture by digging into individual biographies. Morinao (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * see below - wolf


 * Support for adding a community tab. I want to echo the exact same argument Morinao is using above. It just shows additional information, that otherwise would not be seen. Garuda28 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, "less is more" is your argument? You can't learn anything from a lengthy, detailed and cited BLP, but one or two words in a column box tells us everything? I saw the proposed column additions before they were removed. Simple blurbs like: "Infantry", "Surface Warfare Officer", "Ordnance" or "Pilot (fighter)" tells us vitually nothing about how that particular officer came to be nominated for their current position, nor how they successfully passed the vetting and voting by the senate. You need a much broader picture of their professional history and qualifications. The additioinal column entries are therefore nothing more than meedless clutter. - the WOLF  child  20:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter exactly why they were nominated for the community tab - that's not the purpose. It's to show their military background and the community they were part of. And it is a factor in who is promoted, and can cause a great deal of contention (http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA338755). You can go in and read their precise backgrounds and assignments if you want, but for ease of access you could also just look at their community instead.Garuda28 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a simple list showing who is posted where. It's not an article with prose detailing how they got there, that's what their BLPs are for. Additionally, adding the word "Ordnance" tells neither the average nor informed reader anything about how that officer achieved that promotion. - the WOLF  child  22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Solition to that is hyperlinking to the Ordnance CorpsGaruda28 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so instead of having readers follow a link to BLP that tells the whole story about the person, they should instead follow a link to some generic sub-branch of the Army to try guess how that equates to the person in question achieving 4 star rank? If anything, at least you admit that by needing such a link, the simple one or two word blub you are proposing adding to this extra column tells the reading nothing and needs further explaining. I think the table is fine as is. - the WOLF  child  10:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think it tells the reader a significant amount of information about the background of the individual in question. The reason for hyperlinking Ordnance Corps is because for a significant amount of people that will not make as much sense as stating Infantry, Pilot (Fighter), or Submarine Warfare Officer. Garuda28 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I still don't completely agree with the relevance considering that one of the requirements, by law, for an officer to be nominated for appointment to general or admiral, the nominee must have served on the Joint Staff and/or and in other joint duty assignments. Their original career pipeline would be moot if they did not also meet this requirement, let alone meet the requirement for actual position. As you're already aware, joint duty assignments goes outside an individual service or community pipeline. This is why I find the background information on the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force page pointless, because, if the Secretary of the Air Force, Defense, or President wanted to, they could nominate any officer that meets all the requirements to the position. However, I will agree that tradition plays a big part of who gets nominated in certain jobs, which I don't always agree with, which is why I don't bother making or bringing up a change in that page. Take General Norton A. Schwartz for example. He was not a traditional fighter pilot, in my opinion, he was an excellent Chief of Staff. I'm willing to bend a little if there is a large note somewhere stating that while some positions have been held by certain communities by tradition, however any officer can be appointed so long as they meet the requirements for appointment of named position. Neovu79 (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Another note, out of curiosity, if a civilian is directly commissioned as a four-star, as the case of the current Assistant Secretary for Health's nominee, what career background would you assign to him? Neovu79 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So two things a) the purpose of this wouldn't be at all to say that one position has been held by an individual from a single community, but rather just to show what community the current holder is from - and nothing beyond that purpose.b) for them I would leave it blank, as this section is applicable for military members and not meant for direct commission (although I suppose we could put direct commission in there).Garuda28 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

AL-Class Review
I have submitted this list article for review to upgrade its rating to AL-Class, then hopefully to FL-Class. Neovu79 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Adm Michael Rodgers
Michael S. Rogers is an admiral (according to his official biography and Wikipedia page), and heading USCYBERCOM would seem to make him active duty. But I'm not very knowledgeable here, could anyone else comment? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Department of the Army nondisclosure of four-star assignments
I truly hate the Department of the Army's nondisclosure of army specific general officer assignments. For the past 4-6 years, the Army has refused to announce their service specific assignments/appointments of their general officers, especially their three and four star generals. I don't really enjoy guessing what assignments they will end up with. I have to dig into that candidate's bios and see what jobs they've held over their general officer career, then go into all the Army specific four-star assignments and find out who's retiring, or who's up for reappointment/reassignment and then see if the candidate qualifies to serve into that position. Even then, I run the risk in being wrong since they can be appointed to positions that normally doesn't fit their career pipeline. Just me venting my frustration. Neovu79 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you or does anyone else know who will succeed John Hyten as Commander, USSTRATCOM? Hyten will take over as VJCS next Wednesday, and Paul Selva will retire on the same day. Apparently, no nomination has even been published yet. claudevsq (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)