Where do the O's come from?

[Cole]

I recently seen this issue arrise in the Canada string. Do you guys feel it is better for an officer to have enlisted experience, allowing him to consider the other side of the fence when making decisions. I always liked the saying "learn to shovel shit before you ride the horse." I think that all officers must first have 3-5 years of enlisted experience. If you have a guy that can not lead a squad, why the hell would you want him taking a whole platoon to the grave. I think this would eliminate two problems:
1) Inept and inexperienced LTs who don't have a lick of operational talent and can often mess up, costing lives.
2) Create more respect between junior officers and the enlisted ranks. A bond of mutual trust and respect can be easier to form if the men know their leaders been in their shoes.
I just thought this was an potential way to produce better O's. my .02

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

And then all of our officers are 26+ year old 2LTs after they are finally done with college. Oh yes let us not forget that some of the best officers I have seen had no prior enlisted service and one of the worst officer I have ever worked with was prior enlisted. I have no doubt he was a great E, but he just could not make the switch to the officer corps. How about we leave it alone and let Es have a chance at OCS like we already do or let Es do ROTC like is already done.

And by the way to answer the question that is the topic of this thread...an officer usually comes as the result of a mommy and daddy loving each other and 9 months later he is squirted out.

RLTW

[WS-G]

First off, there are good, medicre and dismal examples of O's of both types.

And now... if I come across as a socialist for saying what I am about to say on this matter, then that's fine with me. I accept in advance that some who read what I have to say may agree, be indifferent, or disagree altogether. Some will likely be offended, and if others think I'm absolutely full of sh*t on this matter, then that's fine too. Anyway, getting on with it....

It is my well-considered opinion that the two-tiered commissioned-versus-noncommissioned rank structure common to post-Medieval military forces the world over is merely the result of an abberation of history that should have gone the way of the dinosaur but didn't.

To wit: the "officer class" is actually a fairly recent development in military history, merely an invention of the Dark Ages, instituted with the sole purpose of making certain that no unspanked, spoiled royal brat of some Gentile "noble" would ever have to face the possibility of being placed under the authority of a "commoner" (recall that we derive the title "Sergeant" from a corruption of the Latin word servus [n. "slave"]). That's right, folks, there were plenty of armies and navies in the ancient world that got on magnificently with a much simpler, linear rank structure: those who were charge of something and those who were not. In essence, there were no "commissioned" versus "noncommissioned" leaders, but simply leaders, all of whom had been promoted from the rank and file. One need look no further than the Books of Exodus, Samuel (divided into two books in most translations, but one book in the original Hebrew) and Chronicles for an example of such a unilinear structure. E.g.: one could translate the term whose literal meaning is "commander of a hundred" as "First Sergeant" or "Captain" and be equally correct in either case.

However, the idea of eliminating the two-tiered system in favor of a one-tier structure becomes unworkable for one very good reason: it has become so firmly entrenched into modern military doctrine that such a change would be an unacceptable disruption.

This being the case, I doubt that the argument over prior-enlisted O's versus non-prior-enlisted O's is in no danger of being settled.

------------------
ex Co. G (-)(Abn/Rgr), 143d INF(LRRP), TXARNG 1981-1985
ex 433MAW (AFRES), 1985-1991
FAA-certificated pilot and Advanced Ground Instructor

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Ive gone cross eyed

[DBoy]

This is a re-post of mine from another thread.....

2Lts are notorious for having bad reps, being looked at as "lost", and not knowing jack sh*t. Most of which is very true. That doesn't mean they are "bad". They're new. That's how it always is. They're there to learn and develop into a leader. When I took charge of my TOW platoon I didn't think I was "hot sh*t" because I was an "O". I acted like a sponge and learned everything I could from my PSG. I listened to all of the troops. They all knew more than me.

One thing I learned from my PSG went something like this; "Becoming a good leader requires that you accept the fact that soldiers don't follow just stripes and bars - soldiers follow LEADERS who wear stripes and bars. When the chips are down, your soldiers will look at you as a person. They'll look right through your insignia - to your skill, and to your will, and to your heart and your mind. They'll judge you based on a set of standards that have been tradition through centuries. All that in a fraction of a second. And then - if you measure up pretty well - they'll take the risk."

I think that's sound advice.

RLTW

[Cree Warrior]

I'd like to know the rank structures that were used by Ghingis Khans (Sp?) armies. He controlled more of the earths surface than any other group ever has.
Being an officer who was a lowly Batt boy prior, I too have seen good officers from both sides. I think prior service as enlisted is good as it gives you better overall infantry skills, weapons handling, patrolling, rucking, stuff that you rarely get time to sharpen as an O'. However once you've been in too long as enlisted perhaps it can be hard to let go.
I've heard of numerous officers that were once NCO's that would not listen to their NCO's cuz they thought that they knew it all. They didn't have "head sheds" cuz they'd been there, done that and were unwilling to take advice.
I like the way the structure is, although I do not like the classist ideologies it perpetuates. Total difference here though between US, Canadian and UK armies. The US is way more laid back.

I agree with others that say the primary role of an LT is to die gloriously for his platoon, beyond that its all BS really.

Sua Sponte

[LRSC Grunt]

Its not really the fact that if it would be better to be prior enlisted. Although I would have to agree that my former LTs who were Es in their career did adapt easier and didnt have to be -house broken-. Its when you get a jackass butter bar with west point is god mentality who feels they are better than everyone else because they barely passed ranger school by the skin on their teeth.


"Give me an army of West Pointers and Ill win a battle, Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and Ill win a war."

Gen George S. Patton
USMA Class of 1909


[This message has been edited by LRSC Grunt (edited 05-31-2000).]

[Enfield]

As I recall, the Mongols divided their armies by multiples of 10 - units of 10, 100, 1000, etc. They were also notable because - under Genghis's reforms - everyone (except extremely high ranking nobles, like his lose relatives) worked their way up from the bottom, starting as a lowly trooper and earning their way to the top.
The Romans (another successful historical example) had a system where NCO's and junior officers were all from the ranks. Nobles joined as mid-level officers. Just a side note, until 1870 it was standard practice to purchase your commission in the British Army. You wanted a promotion, you had to buy it. You could buy your way in as any rank, lt to colonel. I think we can all agree that's not to great a system...
To add to what Mr. Salter said, the current system is based on the fact that 400 years ago there were a lot of out of work peasants and out of work nobles - so the emerging democracies/merchant societies put them both to work in the army. We've evolved our doctrine to recognize a difference between fighting and commanding, and almost at random, and put this break at the platoon level. But it works, warfare is the ultimate Darwinism, and this method survived.

Enfield

[Cree Warrior]

Sounds like church of scientology.

Thanks for the input.

Sua Sponte

[Enfield]

Sorry for the history lecture gents, keyboard got away on me.. =o)

Enfield