An interesting discussion on MSNBC right now.

[gridlore]

General McChrystal has resigned his position as commander in Afghanistan, and has been replaced by General Petraeus.

Since Petraeus is possibly our best General in a generation or two, the question is should we give him a fifth star?

I say no. He's obviously in line for Army Chief of Staff or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but the assignment doesn't require a General of the Army. What needs to happen is the White House needs to make something big happen in Afghanistan on any front - military, social, or economic.

Comments

[johno.livejournal.com]

5 stars is meant for someone who is charge overall for a VERY large operation that crosses services and countries.

Even combining Afghanistan and Iraq does not rise to size and cross service/country need.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. This war simply isn't big enough to justify having any five-star generals in service. According to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)), there haven't been any since Omar Bradley, and I don't think we need one now.

And I sincerely hope we never get into a conflict sufficiently large to need a General of the Army ever again.

[caraig.livejournal.com]

Or a General of the Armies.

[dalen-talas.livejournal.com]

Somehow, those two do remind me of the post-Africa Patton and Bradley.

[caraig.livejournal.com]

I've got to ask this, since a big portion of my observations of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was interrupted by repeated facepalming.... In what ways is Petraeus a good general? Not being snarky here at ALL, I'm just trying to understand a subject of which I know very little about (having been, at best, a REMF in the Coasties.)

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I agree.