View Full Version : Two questions/suggestions on how the military should be run.

24 October 2011, 16:26
I don't have any military experience, so I really hope this doesn't come off as "I know better than you do." These two things seem fairly obvious to me, and if there is an obvious explanation for these things that I didn't notice, feel free to say "Hey dumbass! We do this because of X, Y, Z!" I have searched the forum and didn't find either of these questions being addressed, I have also searched Google and even asked former military members. All without getting a satisfactory explanation. My suggestions, in a nutshell, are get rid of the enlisted/officer distinction and merge all the branches into one.

Officer/Enlisted Distinction:
This exists for historical class reasons. (ie The children of nobles/kings getting more privileges.) Nowadays, it seems completely idiotic and anti-meritocratic. It seems to me that everybody should start at the bottom and that promotions should basically come at twice the speed. Yes, I'm aware that higher ranking enlisted and officer promotions take more time, but they could standardize this so that all officers start at the bottom and work their way up. From everything that I've seen in movies/on television, read in books, or heard from former soldiers, most officers, particularly new ones, aren't respected by their subordinates because they simply aren't qualified to lead. Most of them are very young and have little to no experience and they are in command of much older much more experienced soldiers. Who by right, should be the ones leading. The only thing separating them is a college degree, and career enlisted soldiers often have at least a bachelors degree. Which makes them even more educated than their leaders in many cases. Any reason to maintain this separation?

Merge the Branches:
There seems to be a lot of redundancy in military jobs. Not just the obvious like cooks and doctors, but in virtually all areas. Marine infantry vs Army infantry, Navy SEALs vs Army Combat Divers, DEVGRU vs Delta Force, snipers from several branches, fighter pilots in the Navy and Air Force, etc. In the old days, there was a clear reason for a distinction between armies and navies. But now, with the level of technology that we have, every branch has a ton of people doing virtually the same thing. It seems to me that they should merge them into one to get rid of the redundancy. It would also do away with all of the dumbass hypothetical questions. (ie "If you put one Army Ranger, one Navy SEAL, one Delta Force Operator, One DEVGRU guy, one Green Beret, One Marine Force Recon dude, and one Marine Sniper all on a small island, and gave them each an M4A1 with precisely 60 bullets and a hunting knife, who would win lolz hehehe?") The only thing that I can think of for having this is the rivalries. But that to me doesn't seem like enough to justify the competing commands which result on various groups stepping on the toes of their fellow special force units, nor the redundancy and inefficiency of it all.

Thoughts? Comments?

24 October 2011, 16:42
I don't have any military experience....This is the only relevant portion of your post....

24 October 2011, 16:43
The fact that you put "lolz" in your post completely negates anything of value that may have been in it.

24 October 2011, 16:44

24 October 2011, 16:51
This probably isn't going to go the way you expected, but it should be "lolz" for everyone else.

24 October 2011, 16:52
This is the only relevant portion of your post....

Ain't that the truth.

24 October 2011, 16:53
The fact that you put "lolz" in your post completely negates anything of value that may have been in it.

I put it as a quote, discussing the people that make those hypothetical "Ranger VS Seal" type of questions. All you have to do is spend 5 minutes on Yahoo Answers to see the million and one questions of that very nature.