That is why I was not name specific, SKT. And I agree with you on every element having poor leaders.
My point is more of an institutional one: The methods of operation of the Air Force makes it difficult for the officers to develop the higher levels of leadership required to run large organizations, in my opinion. Just to use the Infantry as a n example: the young officer is put in charge of a platoon, which he must lead and inspire, thus solidifying his newly acquired leadership skills from Infantry school. He then moves on to greater leadership positions of running a Company, having to inspire and lead a larger group of people, then battalion, then a Brigade, etc. Each step of the way, he is the leader who must be trusted by all under his command and inspire them to perform their duty while retaining their trust that he is looking out for their welfare. The Naval model is about the same though not quite as extreme as the army model since there is a more direct (in the sense of lack of physical distance) line of supervision present on a ship than in the army so the army leader must instill greater inspiration in its members that could be out of direct reach when performing their duties.
In the Air force, the pilot officer may want to go down and meet the ground crew, but he does not have to lead them, inspire them or gain their trust to be able to do his flying. So he does not have to grow his leadership skills early on in his career. He does not even have to be overseen by someone who "leads" him. The pilot's squadron leader need not inspire his pilots to fight, but rather in a reversal, it is for the young pilot to prove himself trustworthy to the squadron leader. As they move up the chain, the air force officers then find themselves running larger and more and more complex technical staffs, which develops leadership of the civilian CEO type, but not necessarily of the military "field" type, in my view.
Now, this does not means that the Air Force does not develop great military leaders for senior HQ's, but that on average, the other two elements produce a lot more simply because of the nature of their organization.
I must say, however, that in my 26+ years in active service, I have seen many Generals and Admirals that I did not know from atom step on the dais and have such charisma, leadership and communication skills that after a few sentences, I completely trusted them and would have gone anywhere with them to fight. I have never had that experience with an Air Force general.
Again here, I want to make sure I am not misunderstood: I have nothing against the Air Force, their members or officers, and this is my personal view, and this view is that this is purely institutional and results from the different nature of each of the elements (And yes, SKT, I too have seen some pretty bad apple MARS officers allowed to climb up the ladder when they shouldn't have).
