Elimination of Officer/Enlisted System

[Jim Martin]

In another thread about a week ago, someone recommended the elimination of the twin tracks of NCO vs commissioned officers, saying that it was an anachronistic system dating back to landed gentry vs the poor commoners.

 

I have to say that I'm not entirely sold on the idea; no army in the world, so far as I know, has abolished the officer/enlisted system. Even Communist armies, founded on the idea that everyone is totally equal, had an officer class and enlisted ranks. It would seem that if there were a better way of doing business, someone would have found it.

 

On the other hand, the other night I was watching a show in which US Special Forces were pinned deep inside Iraq during ODS, and had to call in CAS. It struck me that those SF operators likely had as much money and time invested in their training, and specialized skills equal to, the fighter jocks supporting them. Yet the SF guys were enlisted, making far less money than their flying counterparts--and would never be permitted to fly an aircraft due to their rank. Can anyone defend the idea of moving to a new system, with justification for the change?

 

I'll have more thoughts tomorrow likely...it's 0520 and I just woke up with insomnia, so my analytical functions are rebooting right now.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[MattB]

The Chinese tried it;during the cultural revolution they abolished the officer ranks for exactly the reason you described first. After the failures in the Sino-Vietnam War they decided that maybe having officers was a good idea.

[T19]

Its a silly idea that will not work.

 

Sr NCO's and Officers have different criteria for MSN success (and I may be writing this wrong)

 

the #1 priority of an Officer is successful completion of the MSN

 

the #1 Priority of a Sr NCO is the protection and care of thier soldiers

 

Often those two priorities are in conflict, the present system allows for quick resolution. That does not mean that Officers do not or should not worry about their soldiers, its just not priority #1.

 

NOTE: I hope that does not sound to callus, but that has been my observation

[Paul in Qatar]

Like he said. Military people are very conservative in regards to the profession of arms. If it works, we ought not to change it. Other armies (like the PLA) gave this the old college try. It seems it does not work. (Now, as to why it doesn't work, I am not sure.)

[Guest JamesG123]

Often those two priorities are in conflict, the present system allows for quick resolution. That does not mean that Officers do not or should not worry about their soldiers, its just not priority #1.

True, but that does not mean that the same person can not "change hats" or roles. It relatively common in the US Army for enlisted soldiers to convert to officers via OCS or ROTC if they are young enough. But even in the American system/society, you do have class effects where the officers have privileges above their actual importance that would be jelously guarded. And don't get me started about the Navy/Marine Corps.

 

I think that established national forces have too much inertia from tradition and societal pressures (the Chinese case) for them to transition to a true egalitarian structure, even with a purely professional setting. Security contractors (ie: mercenaries) however have shown that it can work. Though that is probably due to attempting to be efficient, and perhaps a bit less organization and discipline than could be tolerated at a large scale.

[Danno]

We need officers to run the higher-level functions of the military, we can't get rid of them. I do think we need a different route to becoming an officer and it would be nice to give the NCO Corps a little more status. A Sergeant First Class shouldn't have to salute and 2nd Lt. Plus I don't like the idea of having a 2nd Lt slide into a major leadership role while he or she is still wet behind the ears from college. I think everybody should start as a enlisted until they reach the rank of just below NCO. At that point they are selected either for Officer, NCO rank or they are given the boot; based on their qualifications and service record.

[Richard Lindquist]

This topic seems to come up periodically.

 

Let's look at the construction industry. Engineers come out of college and quickly work their way up from the drawing board to supervisory and managment positions. While some senior managers begin life as ditch diggers and work their way up through bulldozer operator to foreman and then into managment, most ditch diigers aspire to be foremen and top out their. Should the civil engineer have to dig ditches and operate bulldozers for fifteen years before moving into design or management??

 

Should doctors or nurses have to work as hospital orderlies for "X" years before they can practice??

 

The bulk of senior people in any field come up through the "college track" and not by way of the entry level position.

[Bearded-Dragon]

The Chinese tried it;during the cultural revolution they abolished the officer ranks for exactly the reason you described first. After the failures in the Sino-Vietnam War they decided that maybe having officers was a good idea.

 

My understanding was that the PLA abolished the symbols of rank, not the actual ranks. There were still officers but there was no symbols to differentiate between them and the ORs. They still received different training and pay. The result was that when messengers arrived in the midst of battle, they often couldn't find those in positions of responsiblity because everybody had the same uniforms on!

[T19]

Did not say they could not go from one to the other... but some find it difficult to work with the new priorities

[Richard Lindquist]

Did not say they could not go from one to the other... but some find it difficult to work with the new priorities

 

 

This includes promotions within the enlisted ranks. At grade E-5, the soldier has to decide between being "one of the boys" and being part of the "evil" managment. A lot of E-5 have trouble making that transition.

[Gunguy]

I think as an E-4 or above, you should be able to convert to an officer by meeting certain requirements and then attending OCS and passing. It would be a HUGE boost for the enlisted to be able to have that path open to them. Then if you stay as an enlisted up until E-6 or above, you lose the chance to as you now have too many years in service. So, the chance starts at promotion to E-4 and ends at promotion to E-6. I also agree with not saluting Lts and Capts that are wet behind the ears. Especially Lts.

[Guest JamesG123]

Right now that is the situation. The RA, NG, and even RC are desperate for junior officers. Just about anyone who qualifies can apply for OCS to earn their commission.

[Scott Cunningham]

Anyone above the rank of E-4 recognizes the need for officers and enlisted in the military. All militaries have done it for 3000 years. Those that dropped it quickly re-adopted it. Are we somehow different to think that time tested systems somehow are not applicable to modern armies anymore??

 

Up from the ranks is a great system for officer promotions. It works. Not perfectly (many can't make the transition), but good enough for it to function.

[Sven Arvidsson]

I know that Sweden, Norway and Finland has at various times in the 20th century made away with the traditional, professional NCO. It has worked after a fashion, but since all three countries now have reintroduced the professional NCO in practice (if not always in name) I believe the concept of only one single officers corps has proved somewhat less than entirely satisfactory.

 

The current system here in Sweden is that we have one single officers corps, but within that corps there is two categories: taktisk/operativ officer and specialistofficer (I won't translate as I think you get the gist of it anyway). The T/O officer is the traditional commissioned officers corps, beginning as a humble 2LT and climbing forever upwards and onwards. Or at least to major, after that he'll either wander off into civvie street or continue up the slippery pole as staff officer. The officer /S is to shoulder much of the traditional NCO role, moving from sergeant to captain and being a specialist in his field, providing routine and stability. Since this system is brand new we'll have to wait and see how it works out, but my personal opinion is that it is at least better than the previous one. I think the Norwegians has had a very similar system for some time, with specialistofficer corresponding to avdelingsbefal. Could some of our Norwegian members provide a few insights?

Edited August 26, 2007 by Sven Arvidsson

[TheSilentType]

On the other hand, the other night I was watching a show in which US Special Forces were pinned deep inside Iraq during ODS, and had to call in CAS. It struck me that those SF operators likely had as much money and time invested in their training, and specialized skills equal to, the fighter jocks supporting them. Yet the SF guys were enlisted, making far less money than their flying counterparts--and would never be permitted to fly an aircraft due to their rank. Can anyone defend the idea of moving to a new system, with justification for the change?

 

This is somewhat off topic, but that sounds like a good argument for making flying positions open to non-officers. It seems to work well for the Army.

[Rocky Davis]

I also agree with not saluting Lts and Capts that are wet behind the ears. Especially Lts.

 

Let's see:

 

1. The E-2 with 90 days of service (mostly in boot camp and AIT) doesn't have to salute the West Point grad (a 2LT that has lived, eaten and breathed military for four years) because the 2LT is "wet behind the ears?"

 

2. A Captain is "wet behind the ears," yet has enough rank and time in service to become a Company Commander - responsible for the lives of all under his command and responsible for millions and millions of dollars worth of vehicles and equipment?

 

I know what I went through for years before getting my commission. I earned that first salute and all of those afterwards.

 

So, who gets to decide who is and who is not "wet behind the ears" and deserves a salute?

[JWB]

The Chinese tried it;during the cultural revolution they abolished the officer ranks for exactly the reason you described first. After the failures in the Sino-Vietnam War they decided that maybe having officers was a good idea.

What failures during the Sino-Viet war? The PLA won their revolution and drove the US military half way down the Korean peninsula with company commanders who were illiterate.

[SCFalken]

Perhaps the problem is less with the fact of an Enlisted/Commissioned system, and more with the ratio of Officers to Enlisted?

 

 

Falken

[EchoFiveMike]

I couldn't GAS less about saluting, calling people "sir" or any of that other anachronistic shit left over from the days of fuedalism. All that does "out on the job" is distinctively mark your leadership for killing. Not that is generally isn't obvious anyways, but why make it easy? IME far too many sub par performers seem to be in love with the drill and cermonies, pomp and circumstance bullshit(that applies both E and O). It also feeds the ego of people who can do MASSIVE and immediate damage when/if they develop megalomania. I've seen a lot of problems that could have been solved with a little more pushback from the bottom and a little more deliberate contemplation/consideration from the top.

 

I don't know what the Army does, but USMC side, EVERY Marine has the same priorities: #1 Mission accomplishment #2 Troop welfare.

 

I don't know what the support side/soft skill MOS needs are WRT training and career progression. In the USMC infantry, officers spend almost all their initial level tactical training trying to learn basic FT and squad level tactics that are expected of any E4/Cpl squad leader. At the point they are done with that, they know just enough to be dangerous.

 

A lot of the problems WRT bureaucratic bloat and generalized inefficiency can be resolved through radical cuts in officer T/O. Officers should be executive LEADERSHIP positions, thus fairly few and far between, familiarity breeding contempt and all that. All these STAFF positions should be filled with warrants, SNCO's and civilians, the mil/civ split being determined by whether they are deployable positions or not. S/F.....Ken M

[JOE BRENNAN]

What failures during the Sino-Viet war? The PLA won their revolution and drove the US military half way down the Korean peninsula with company commanders who were illiterate.

The PLA fought poorly in the later of two wars by most accounts, relative to it numbers. In the Korean War the majority of Chinese troops were illiterate. Chinese senior officers were generally literate. When you have the literate leading the illiterate you're back to 90+% of military history, and de facto more strict differentiation between leaders and those led than modern armies from societies with universal literacy, no matter what revolutionary phraseology you paper it over with. Also the North Koreans could be pretty tough too, and most of their soldiers were literate. I don't know what % of their officers were literate but captured docs by ~ company grade people are well written, sometimes in the more formal and difficult (to read, for sure ) part-Chinese way of writing.

 

Anyway since the PLA of today doesn't pattern itself on either 1950 or late '70's it seems moot.

 

Re: Richard L's point about doctors having to be orderlies first, seems to me most proposals for no Off/EM, or no 'college track'/'entry level track' in other professions tend to be from people on the EM/'entry level track' thinking of how that would benefit people like them. Not in a selfish way necessarily, how it would benefit the institution by maximizing the contribution of people like them, maybe that's fairer. But they aren't looking at big picture aspects such as Richard's example suggests: if you force people with more formal education to do all the same 'dues paying' as those without, that encourages them to look elsewhere than your institution or profession for someplace that compensates them for those credentials, or else disincentivizes them to improve themselves by gaining those credentials if you're the only game in town. And those tend to be the more talented people on average. That cost seems seldom to be estimated or dealt with by people proposing no 'college track'.

 

Joe

Edited August 26, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[Rocky Davis]

I couldn't GAS less about saluting, calling people "sir" or any of that other anachronistic shit left over from the days of fuedalism. All that does "out on the job" is distinctively mark your leadership for killing. Not that is generally isn't obvious anyways, but why make it easy? IME far too many sub par performers seem to be in love with the drill and cermonies, pomp and circumstance bullshit(that applies both E and O). It also feeds the ego of people who can do MASSIVE and immediate damage when/if they develop megalomania. I've seen a lot of problems that could have been solved with a little more pushback from the bottom and a little more deliberate contemplation/consideration from the top.

 

I don't know what the Army does, but USMC side, EVERY Marine has the same priorities: #1 Mission accomplishment #2 Troop welfare.

 

I don't know what the support side/soft skill MOS needs are WRT training and career progression. In the USMC infantry, officers spend almost all their initial level tactical training trying to learn basic FT and squad level tactics that are expected of any E4/Cpl squad leader. At the point they are done with that, they know just enough to be dangerous.

 

A lot of the problems WRT bureaucratic bloat and generalized inefficiency can be resolved through radical cuts in officer T/O. Officers should be executive LEADERSHIP positions, thus fairly few and far between, familiarity breeding contempt and all that. All these STAFF positions should be filled with warrants, SNCO's and civilians, the mil/civ split being determined by whether they are deployable positions or not. S/F.....Ken M

 

Why does the crusty old E-8 or E-9 salute the baby-faced 2LT? Because it is the way it is, the way it has been and the way it will always be. If you don't like it, tough fucking shit. If you know that's the way it is and don't like it, don't join - because it will NOT be changing in any of our lifetimes.

 

Re Staff vs. Command assignments: The concept has always been that as one climbs the "corporate ladder," one must learn and know of the various job aspects that keep the entire machine moving forward. Officers rotated from a command to a staff job every three years. By the time that officer is a Bn. Commander, he would have had command positions as:

 

Platoon Leader

Company Commander

 

and he would have had the following staff roles:

 

Company XO

Battalion-level 1LT staff job (e.g. Support Platoon Leader)

Battalion-level CPT staff job (e.g. Bn. S-4)

Battalion-level MAJ job (Bn. XO and Bn. S-3)

 

The concept has always been that the supervisor should know of the jobs of each of his subordinates - maybe not as expertly as the subordinate, but to have enough knowledge of that subordinate's job to have it figure into command decisions. I've met my share of officers that were commanders or S-3s that tried to run grandiose plans that were unsupportable on the supply side (they ALL failed) and I've known some that knew everything about logistics but were timid mice when it came to making tactical, combat-related decisions (and they ALL failed). Those that had the balance all succeeded.

 

By the way: I was O-1 thru O-4 . . . AND . . . I was E-5 thru E-8. I've seen it from both sides.

[Exel]

We need officers to run the higher-level functions of the military, we can't get rid of them. I do think we need a different route to becoming an officer and it would be nice to give the NCO Corps a little more status. A Sergeant First Class shouldn't have to salute and 2nd Lt. Plus I don't like the idea of having a 2nd Lt slide into a major leadership role while he or she is still wet behind the ears from college. I think everybody should start as a enlisted until they reach the rank of just below NCO. At that point they are selected either for Officer, NCO rank or they are given the boot; based on their qualifications and service record.

 

Even though we have a conscription system and is thus in a lot of ways different from the US system, it might be something to think about. In our system everyone starts on the same line basic. During basic the instructors determine who is selected for NCO training and who continue in "enlisted" tasks. After the first phase of NCO training the instructors there again determine who is selected for RO (=Reserve Officer) training and who continue to be trained as NCOs.

 

That's for the conscript service. After that the NCOs* and ROs have the option to apply for Military Academy to become Officer Cadets and the full-time Commissioned Officers.

 

*If an NCO qualifies into the Academy, he must first take a RO-equivalent course before becoming a Cadet.

 

Not applicable as such to a professional army, and I'm not arguing it's perfect even in our system, but some food for thought.

 

A lot of the problems WRT bureaucratic bloat and generalized inefficiency can be resolved through radical cuts in officer T/O. Officers should be executive LEADERSHIP positions, thus fairly few and far between, familiarity breeding contempt and all that. All these STAFF positions should be filled with warrants, SNCO's and civilians, the mil/civ split being determined by whether they are deployable positions or not. S/F.....Ken M

 

Definitely agreed. The officer cadre seems very bloated with all the non-leadership tasks filled with officers. Why can't specialists be specialists and leave command to officers.

[T19]

I think as an E-4 or above, you should be able to convert to an officer by meeting certain requirements and then attending OCS and passing. It would be a HUGE boost for the enlisted to be able to have that path open to them. Then if you stay as an enlisted up until E-6 or above, you lose the chance to as you now have too many years in service. So, the chance starts at promotion to E-4 and ends at promotion to E-6. I also agree with not saluting Lts and Capts that are wet behind the ears. Especially Lts.

Maybe its different in your Military, but in ours you are saluting the commission not the person

[Exel]

The concept has always been that the supervisor should know of the jobs of each of his subordinates - maybe not as expertly as the subordinate, but to have enough knowledge of that subordinate's job to have it figure into command decisions. I've met my share of officers that were commanders or S-3s that tried to run grandiose plans that were unsupportable on the supply side (they ALL failed) and I've known some that knew everything about logistics but were timid mice when it came to making tactical, combat-related decisions (and they ALL failed). Those that had the balance all succeeded.

 

So why not have the guys who know all about logistics serve as logistics specialists and not have them wasted by having them fail a command task they're forced into as officers? There are people who would excel at tactical command but should never be allowed anywhere near management, and people who excel at managerial tasks but couldn't command a puppy to save their skin. Instead of losing both types, why not take the benefit of having them do the jobs they're best doing as specialists?