The Pacific Command job opened up when the Bush administration nominated Adm. William Fallon early this month to replace Army Gen. John Abizaid in the top U.S. military post for the Middle East. A Navy admiral, John Stavridis, in October became the head of U.S. Southern Command, also replacing an Army general.

The growth trend for Navy power in top “joint” or pan-service jobs does not end there. Adm. Timothy Keating oversees homeland defense as head of U.S. Northern Command and Adm. Edmund Giambastiani serves as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both picked for their posts by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

For the top Asia-Pacific job, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was sworn in Dec. 18, is viewed most likely to name either Adm. Gary Roughead, who has commanded the Navy’s Pacific Fleet since July 2005, or Keating, who has headed Northern Command since November 2004, according to key sources.

One senior military official cited Keating as the Navy’s top choice for the job, noting the service would like to make Roughead the next chief of naval operations.

But as commander of the Pacific Fleet, Roughead has forged a close relationship with Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to a number of officials. Given Inouye’s enormous control over Pentagon purse strings, the senator’s preferences for the Hawaii-based military command may carry much weight, observers say.

Citing sensitivities associated with discussing anticipated defense secretary decisions about top-level personnel, current and retired defense officials spoke with ITP on condition of not being named in this article.

Although Pacific Command includes components from all four services, only Navy admirals have led the military organization since its inception 60 years ago this month. The command oversees more than 50 percent of the Earth’s surface, which includes 43 nations and almost 60 percent of the world population. The six largest militaries are included in the organization’s area of responsibility: China, the United States, Russia, India, North Korea and South Korea.

In October 2004, Air Force Gen. Gregory Martin -- the first non-Navy officer to be nominated to head Pacific Command -- withdrew his name after facing vehement opposition from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who alleged Martin was tainted by an aircraft procurement scandal. McCain’s late father, Adm. John McCain, held the top Pacific command slot from 1968 to 1972.

A number of media reports recently asserted the Air Force was mounting a newly concerted effort to land the Pacific Command post, including an article last week in InsideDefense.com citing comments from Michael Wynne, the service secretary.

But senior defense officials tell ITP that behind the scenes, Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley undertook something less than an all-out campaign.

In its nomination for the Pacific Command post, the Air Force sent Gates the name of its top commander in the Pacific, Gen. Paul Hester, senior officials say. Currently the Pacific Air Force commander, Hester is well liked and respected in the service. But an array of military insiders contend he is not widely regarded as a strong candidate who could compete successfully against the other services to become Gates’ pick for the job.

Who a service nominates is “the best indication of how serious they are” about landing the command, says one retired senior officer.

Some say Hester may yet prove to be a dark horse candidate who appeals to Gates. But the general was “not somebody to put forth as the next Fallon,” one senior official said last week.

Some officials speculate Moseley and Wynne privately concluded the Air Force could not realistically hope to win the Pacific Command job, so they offered Hester’s name more out of deference to him than with an expectation that Gates would endorse their choice.

For his part, Gates may simply want a Navy admiral as a traditional and non-controversial choice for the Pacific Command nomination. In doing so, the new defense secretary could avoid a potentially bruising congressional fight over a lower-priority concern as he grapples with his initial and overriding focus: stabilizing Iraq.

Some officials say the Air Force leaders did not believe they were ceding the Pacific post to the Navy.

“That was the result, not the intent,” says one senior official. But wresting the wide-reaching post from Navy hands “will take a lot more effort,” this source said.

The Air Force secretary and chief also provided Gates with back-up candidates, which may have included the current deputy commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Leaf, according to one senior defense official. But Gates is not likely to select Leaf or any other Air Force general on the list for this job, this source said.

The Air Force opted not to send up to Gates the names of two other service generals who currently head top combatant commands -- U.S. Joint Forces Command chief Gen. Lance Smith and U.S. Transportation Command head Gen. Norton Schwartz -- officials tell ITP. Had the Air Force been more intent on fighting hard for the Pacific Command post, it might have put forth as its top prospect one of them or perhaps another rising star among its general officer ranks, some officials say.

The apparent loss, once again, of this command assignment to the Navy has many in the Air Force rankled.

One retired officer, calling the Asia-Pacific region even more “strategically important” than the Middle East, called Air Force representation at the top of just two top warfighting commands “pathetic.”

If Keating remains in place at Northern Command and another admiral is selected for Pacific Command, the Navy will lead four of the nine top combatant commands, the Army will lead two, the Air Force will lead two and the Marine Corps will lead one. A Marine Corps general, Peter Pace, also holds another powerful joint position as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Tell me about ‘jointness,’” complains one senior defense official, referring to the concept for integrating personnel and programs from all of the services to become more effective in military operations. “When is the [Defense] Department going to get it?”

“It’s reasonable the Air Force would say it’s important to spread out the expertise, not for an individual combatant command but so that the collective advice” the defense secretary hears from his top officers reflects all service viewpoints, says one retired senior military officer.