Changing the Defense Lineup

Unbelieveable. Rumsfeld decided to change the defense succession line-up in the continuity of government plans. From the AP:

Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot. Former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary, and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.

The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee — current Navy Secretary Gordon England.
-------------
The new succession order bumps the Navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession — eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries.

So for the past decades, the order used to be:

1. Secretary of Defense
2. Deputy Secretary of Defense
3. Secretary of the Army
4. Secretary of the Air Force
5. Secretary of the Navy
6. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Now it's:

1. Secretary of Defense
2. Deputy Secretary of Defense
3. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
4. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
5. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
6. Secretary of the Army
7. Secretary of the Air Force
8. Secretary of the Navy

I'll just say this. This proves out my thought that Cambone is the Dark Prince of the Pentagon. No one is as quiet and yet as influential as he has been since joining the Bush administration. And second, it proves that Rumsfeld really doesn't give a damn as to what the services want, it's all about his inside team. We already knew this, really, but it's frightening to see him institutionalize this practice for the limited duration he has left in the Building. Nothing against Krieg, but honestly, the DOD acquisition exec coming prior to the service secretaries?

UPDATE: Michael O'Hanlon agrees:

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution, said Rumsfeld often pays attention to such "symbolic issues" as a way to send a message, in this case that his undersecretaries effectively outrank the service secretaries.

"Rumsfeld doesn't do things randomly," O'Hanlon said. "His inner circle is the key group."
------------
[Edwin] Dorn said the change in succession intrigues him because the relatively new intelligence position appears to outrank everyone else, and he wondered if the department is trying to emphasize intelligence matters over ground forces.

"Obviously Rumsfeld believes intelligence is more important than war fighting," Dorn said.

Comments

[Joseph]

Does anyone in America belive in working together anymore?

[nixon did it]

This truly does illustrate Rumsfeld's disdain for the military services. It also provides insight into the current hierarchy of Rumsfeld pets. You point out the incongruity of the newest undersecretary now being the senior successor. I note also that the USAF secretary is ahead of the USN secretary. Your post indicates this happened some time ago. When was this newest service promoted ahead of the Navy? I guess the airframe contractors contribute more than the shipbuilders.

As an old Army guy, I'm surprised our secretary is still the senior military guy. Inasmuch as Rumsfeld's contempt for the Army is not exactly a big secret, I wouldn't have been surprised to see: Air Force, Navy, Army.

This move is all about accelerating the move to a full "purple-suit" military, a totally unified military establishment owing its loyalty only to politicians. A lot of us purists believe in the old "divide and conquer" practices. Many constitutional experts have long believed—and I agree—that having the services at each others' throats is preferable to having them totally unified and totally loyal to the party in power, thus leaving Americans at their mercy. Remember "Seven Days in May?"

[mark safranski]

" "Obviously Rumsfeld believes intelligence is more important than war fighting,"

Or that emphasizing intelligence makes for better warfighting. I think that suits the kind of unconventional war we are in and will be likely to be fighting in the near future.

The other undersceretary outranking the service secretaries is gratuitous.

[J.]

Mark, no one is saying that good intel isn't important (especially after 2003). But at the end of the day, it's a SUPPORTING function, not a LEAD function. That's why the ops chief outranks the intel chief in the field units. Intel guys ought not to dictate to operating units how to fight, but rather who they're fighting and where they are. Rumsfeld put Cambone as number 3 because Cambone's a made man and Rumsfeld wants to make that point very clear to the services. Cheap politics and theater.

[mark safranski]

Errr...the who and where tend to dictate the " how" though that should be left up to the discretion of the ops - a competent commander chooses the best methods to achieve his objective.

My definition of " intel" also may be broader than what you or the military traditionally are using - it shades well into SOCOM.

[Murdoc]

Okay. I'm basically a Rummy guy nine times out of ten. And I fully support the rise in the position of intel in our thinking. But these changes are nuts.