• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

COC question

IRfly

IRfly

Registered User
None
While reading the chain of command, an interesting question struck me...Why is the vice-president included? He (or possible she) has no statutory authority (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). Can anyone shed some light on how/when/why that got included in the COC? Thanks.
 
As far as I can tell, the act that detailed the current Unified Chain of Command (Goldwater-Nichols of 1986) doesn't allude to the Vice-President at all. Since he literally has NO operational command, and no institutional or logistical authority (as do the Secretary of Defense, the SecNav, and the CNO) I can only assume that his place in the COC is some sort of honorary nod to his relatively important role in the executive branch and his potential to immediately assume the powers of the presidency.

Someone may have something more concrete.

Best
 
Well, he does have the responsibility of the President of the Senate and he lives in the Naval Observatory. That is a pretty interesting that he has no military command whatsoever. You would think he would, but then again he would still answer to the Commander in Chief. Might as well give some guy 4 shiny stars and let him do the work.
 
Cornellianintel said:
As far as I can tell, the act that detailed the current Unified Chain of Command (Goldwater-Nichols of 1986) doesn't allude to the Vice-President at all. Since he literally has NO operational command, and no institutional or logistical authority (as do the Secretary of Defense, the SecNav, and the CNO) I can only assume that his place in the COC is some sort of honorary nod to his relatively important role in the executive branch and his potential to immediately assume the powers of the presidency.

Someone may have something more concrete.

Best
Click to expand...

Some VPs are ceremonial, but current VP is very engaged and has a tremendous amount of influence sitting in lots of meetings the public never hears about. But, believe above post has it right, he's next in line in case something happens to dash-one. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it as you'll see those pictures in every command you go to.
 
heyjoe said:
Some VPs are ceremonial, but current VP is very engaged and has a tremendous amount of influence sitting in lots of meetings the public never hears about. But, believe above post has it right, he's next in line in case something happens to dash-one. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it as you'll see those pictures in every command you go to.
Click to expand...


Point well-taken. It is worth mentioning that the VPOTUS does sit on the National Security Council, and Cheney actually has (well had, but you didn't hear that here) a great deal of influence in the White House. But the same applies to the National Security Advisor, the Secretaries of State and Treasury, and the CIA director. None of them are in the COC. In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (also no operational command) isn't even in there.

Go figure.
 
Speaking of Change of Command photos, best set I saw were at Fighter Wing Atlantic (now disestablished Tomcat Type Wing) right after Phase I of OIF when someone substituted the president's picture (in suit) with one of him off flight deck in full flight gear after he flew aboard in S-3B. Although some critics slammed him for publicity stunt, it really looked good and was appreciated by all who saw it. Maybe old news, but I heard he wanted to fly aboard in a 2 seat Hornet, but Secret Service weighed in and wanted to ride along to "protect" him. Right! I bet they just wanted to get a trap, too. At least it gave the S-3 community a special S-3 to put in the museum at PCola.
 
Cornellianintel said:
and Cheney actually has (well had, but you didn't hear that here) a great deal of influence in the White House.
Click to expand...

Where are on earth could you possibly get information like that?

Cornellianintel said:
In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (also no operational command) isn't even in there.
Click to expand...

Neither does the CNO for that matter. In fact while we're at it most (if not all) of the OCS COC has no operational command.
 
HH-60H said:
Where are on earth could you possibly get information like that?



Neither does the CNO for that matter. In fact while we're at it most (if not all) of the OCS COC has no operational command.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as I stated in my first post, the CNO does have logistical and institutional authority and responsibilities. The VP has none of that.

According to some unnamed White House sources, he's not quite the fixture in the Oval Office that he was prior to some of this year's scandals. The source that I referred to actually said something to the effect of "the president has lost a significant amount of trust in him". Don't read too much into my snide remark (or the knowing rhetoric), though. I'm not a fan of Cheney's so I was just taking a shot at him.

Best
 
Goldwater-Nichols

Cornellianintel said:
Yeah, but as I stated in my first post, the CNO does have logistical and institutional authority and responsibilities. The VP has none of that.
Click to expand...

For the record and those just entering the service, I would like to clarify that CNO is not a "logistician" per se. Under Goldwater-Nichols, service chiefs sit as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which as thread first intimated, is not part of Chain of Command. Combatant Commanders are the Joint warfighters and service chiefs "train, equip and provide" forces for them to use as set forth in Title 10 of the US Code. Logistics is a particular domain and subset of those responsibilities and also part and parcel of TRANSCOM, one of the "supporting" Combatant Commanders.
 
heyjoe said:
For the record and those just entering the service, I would like to clarify that CNO is not a "logistician" per se. Under Goldwater-Nichols, service chiefs sit as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which as thread first intimated, is not part of Chain of Command. Combatant Commanders are the Joint warfighters and service chiefs "train, equip and provide" forces for them to use as set forth in Title 10 of the US Code. Logistics is a particular domain and subset of those responsibilities and also part and parcel of TRANSCOM, one of the "supporting" Combatant Commanders.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I just misapplied (or loosely used) the term "logistics". By logistics I actually meant force readiness, training, equiping, admin., etc. Since all of the services have logistical commands, I guess I should be more careful with my language. I'm sure precision of wording is a skill that an aspiring intel officer should take care to apply!

Best
 
No worries...it's just there are folks to whom Logistics is their trade just as Intel is your intended career path. It means something very speciifc to the N4/J4 folks and yet again to the Systems Commands (NAVAIR. NAVSEA, SPAWAR and MARCORPSYSCOM),which have their own "Loggies".
 
Cornellianintel said:
I'm not a fan of Cheney's so I was just taking a shot at him.
Click to expand...
Probably not the best thing for an "intel selectee" to be doing. That's also not the kind of behavior that people expect of Naval Officers. Consider yourself counseled. ;)

Brett
 
Brett327 said:
Probably not the best thing for an "intel selectee" to be doing. That's also not the kind of behavior that people expect of Naval Officers. Consider yourself counseled. ;)

Brett
Click to expand...

Duly noted. I tell myself that nothing said on the internet can be taken too seriously, but I see where you're comin' from.
 
Speaking of Cheney...

Funny thing is, Mr. Cheney's involvement with the military kind of inspired this thread... Whether you like his politics or not, he's a vice-president that you have to take seriously as a policy-maker--unlike, for instance, Dan Quayle--and is widely regarded as the most influential and 'powerful' VP in U.S. history. So when you see his picture next to Mr. Bush's in gov't installations, it makes sense. I guess I was wondering if that was just a recent thing, or was Mr. Quayle's next to Mr. Bush's, and Mr. Bush's with Mr. Reagan's, etc...
Kind of related to that, what is the military protocol with elected officials not holding statutorily military positions (which is, as far as I know, everyone except the President)? Do you salute a Senator? A Congressman? Obey their orders as you would from a superior officer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top