In what respect? There are circumstances where an O6 (or an officer of some other rank) is subservient to the civillian equivalent in terms of authority within an office, command, etc. These things do seem to stagger to some extent. Of course Im not talking about combat outfits or formations of military personnel. So you have to be talking apples to apples. The decision authority here is staggered, and it's not clear who outweighs whom.
And youre missing my point. An O-6, who could be a command's CO is NOT presidentially assigned, is not congressionally approved, and is not voted into office.
Commanding military personnel is a very important thing, but it is not the point.
After all, who is the commander in chief, an O6, O7-9 or a civilian? Isnt there a difference in terms of how each of those positions gets chosen and its importance? I work with LOTS of O-6 people, and only a few O-7 or O-8. Im not trying to belittle any O-6 in any way, and have the highest level of respect for them.
But again, it appears that the AUTHORITY was REMOVED from the level of a field rank (e.g. Colonel or Capitain) and set into executive schedule-level personnel. Again, a governor for example is the executive of the state. A mayor of a major city is the chief executive of that city. A military base or functional unit may be hosted by a state or city (and has a senior civilian executive for the site). It doesnt make the CO subservient, and that was never said. It was all about where the level of authority lies, and under what situations and circumstances who trumps whom.
Obviously a governor can mobilize a state militia/guard. Can that local installation's O-6 do that? See, its not clear between military and civil rankings, but there is an authority difference.
The SECDEF's military equivalent is The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not an O-6, military rank or not. So the decision authority was moved up in level regardless. That was my point.
