Tom poses two good questions. Firstly, we don’t know that Panetta didn’t give a green light to Gates on Dempsey. Secondly, in my very humble view Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright should have been the new Chairman of the JCS. Unfortunately, the misconduct charge against him of which he was completely exonerated by a civilian investigative team likely still clouds his name. Too bad – a very smart guy who has good relations with Congress and is considered Obama’s favorite general.

I guess it happened on Gates watch.

The POTUS (and US Senate) probably has a say in this and CinC is going to has to work with Chairman too.

...it is Army's turn. JCS series....AF..MC...NA....is not the Army due? It has carried the brunt of the war in central Asia. Bet it's census is more diversified. Its a deserved political win.

...that Cartwright was vetoed in the Senate. Too tough a confirmation fight.

More of a question than an assertion here, but I've always thought that the CJCS was an advisory role, whereas the CSA was an executive function. I see a big difference between the two. So just because Dempsey is the right man to run the Army, it would not necessarily make him the right man to advise the SECDEF and President how to use an Army/Navy/USMC/Air Force.

Regarding the "deserved political win by virtue of recent sacrifices," I wonder if that's dangerous logic. You always train to fight the next war. Between developments in the middle east, the increasing threat of global piracy, an emergent China, and computer-based attacks, I'd say the bulk of questions our next CJCS has to answer will regard securing sea lanes for oil, cyber-war, and stitching the State and Defense departments together into a coherent, seamless architecture. Humping up and down the Afghan mountains and wrangling deals across the Pakistani border aren't necessarily the most relevant background for those items.

I see the budget as a limitation, but not as an actual issue. Regardless of how much money we have, we'll still have to accomplish specific items.

The only member of the JCS to offer an alternative strategy as requested by the C in C was General Cartwright. Mullen was outraged because he perceived it as an end run. Maybe it was, but neither Mullen nor Gates was responding to the President's desires. General Cartwright knew what he was doing and put the C in C first.

His general officer peers felt that he had sold them out. They paid him back by seeing to it that he was unnecessarily investigated for the way he disciplined an inebriated female aide who was distraught over a personal problem. He let her pass out on a couch while he went on with his work. I assume that he did not wish to embarrass her. Having seen that a Marine Major General has more than one aide on staff, I would have thought he could have trusted them to take care of her and keep quiet.

BUT, how did outsiders learn of this issue? I guess someone else on staff wasn't loyal.

I would think that the President would want an advisor who could be relied upon to offer the most candid advice devoid of intra and inter-service politics. The President should get who he wants as his principal military advisor.

We've had discussions about military education and experience. Except for exceptional people like Admiral Crowe, I have trouble seeing how the Navy or the Air Force of today could produce an appropriate Chairman. I'm convinced that General Dempsey is a superb choice, but is the President doing the right thing?

Lastly, it is not the Chairman who guides preparation for future wars. It is other ill-suited folks who want to justify expensive systems to fight mythical enemies. Is the GWOT and small wars what we should prepare for or is it the mythical war with China?

What threat are we to protect the sea lanes against? How do littoral ships secure the sea lanes. The Navy has only promised local sea control - around a convoy. Do you think that they have built a Navy for this declared mission? If so, where are the ASW carriers?

Another point of view is that Cartwright didn't offer an "alternative strategy" -- he offered an unfeasible course of action that CENTCOM, ISAF, and the Joint Staff considered to be ill advised, and would not achieve what the President asked to achieve. It is called "telling the boss what he wants to hear." Yes, that can make you the boss's "favorite general", but it doesn't endear you to your peers, subordinates, or superiors.

The question of advice for fuiture wars is a good one: China vs. Small Wars (we obviously have to prepare for both). Being a Marine Aviator puts Cartwright in the spot of not having particular expertise in either.

As for the "ethics" issue -- I doubt his personal staff's loyalty is the issue -- after all, he was exonerated by the investigation. It seems his spouse is running the whisper campaign through the other four stars. The 15-6 may have cleared him, but the wife appears unconvinced. Read into that as you will.

Courageous, smart, and unfairly maligned vs. Self-promoting "yes man" with questionable loyalty and judgement.

Truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

I doubt if our brave President would allow a sexual predator like Cartwrong to take over the JCS position. Mrs. Obama being the serious women's rights champion that she is, would never allow an abusive perp like Cartwheel into the job. Now he can go make money in the murder industry like the rest of his warmongering kind.