# Novel idea for the military:  no rank



## Devildoc (Aug 21, 2017)

An Air Force officer suggests getting rid of rank.  I am at a loss for words.

Commentary: The rank structure is holding us back. It’s time for drastic change


----------



## Gunz (Aug 21, 2017)

The problems he's pointing out probably have more to do with toxic leadership rather than rank structure.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 21, 2017)

China tried this IIRC, they now have ranks.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 21, 2017)

Yeah I know the Chinese police did but I'm not sure about the PLA. They didn't have ranks but they did have positions of authority, which really are just de facto ranks anyway.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 21, 2017)

Hell, even the Federation had rank...and they weren't a military force.


----------



## Board and Seize (Aug 21, 2017)

I haven't gotten into Deibler's  dissertation yet, but the other (and much shorter) paper (~20min read) linked in the OP article is a pretty decent presentation of his argument.

I have to say, I like the way this guy thinks.  His argument is a bit naive regarding the volume and vehemence of opposition it will face, but he makes some solid points.

I'll have to come back later to expand on my thoughts, but Deibler definitely deserves a more considered than anyone's presented so far.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 21, 2017)

I read the article.  This suggestion comes up every few years and I have yet to read a convincing argument for its implementation.  I look forward to reading B&S's summary of Deilber's dissertation, because I usually refrain from reading things like that.  They tend to be self-aggrandizing fluff pieces that cherry-pick data to support a conclusion that was determined before the candidate even started research.  

But who knows, maybe this one is different.



DA SWO said:


> China tried this IIRC, they now have ranks.





SpitfireV said:


> Yeah I know the Chinese police did but I'm not sure about the PLA. They didn't have ranks but they did have positions of authority, which really are just de facto ranks anyway.



I think, but I'm not certain, that I read in a Korean War history (This Kind of War?) that in the early days the PLA didn't really have ranks, leaders were chosen by committee or popular acclaim or something.  I think that kind of decentralization might work well in an insurgency, but if you want to run a large, effective, modern army you need a large, effective, modern bureaucracy, and people need to know where they fit in that overarching order.  This is why, AFAIK, China now has a military organized much the same as ours.  Why?  Best practices.

One of the reasons our system works so well is that we have the luxury of specialization.  "Leadership" is a specialization.  One of the great things with the formal split between the Officer and NCO Corps in our military is that each gets to concentrate on what are very different aspects of leadership, and at the same time they don't compete with each other for promotions or positions.  Imagine what the relationship would be like if you knew that at any moment you could be replaced by the guy in the next cubicle, who is technically your subordinate, because he can now code marginally better than you can.  How much are you going to trust him, how collaborative are you going to be, how ready are you going to be to assume prudent risk if you know it could torpedo your chances of keeping your job or to progress to the next one?


----------



## pardus (Aug 21, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I think, but I'm not certain, that I read in a Korean War history (This Kind of War?) that in the early days the PLA didn't really have ranks, leaders were chosen by committee or popular acclaim or something.  I think that kind of decentralization might work well in an insurgency, but if you want to run a large, effective, modern army you need a large, effective, modern bureaucracy, and people need to know where they fit in that overarching order.  This is why, AFAIK, China now has a military organized much the same as ours.  Why?  Best practices.



During the Boer war, the Boers had Commandos (a unit, IIRC around a company size, later much reduced in size), the Commandos elected their leaders, which was often disastrous at the start of the war as the men were armed civilians. Things settled into place eventually and the Commandos operated efficiently under great leadership until the end of the war. But as @Marauder06 wrote, this was largely a guerilla war.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2017)

Aircrew in charge of a comm squadron, unless he's prior enlisted who went comm? His backstory must be amazing.


----------



## digrar (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm pretty sure everyone in the RAAF calls each other by their first name. Just one of the reasons we call them the militant arm of the Australian Public Service.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 22, 2017)

Unlike the NVA, the Viet Cong didn't have a conventional rank structure. And arguably they were one of the more organized and successful guerrilla organizations in history. But where rank did not exist, certainly indoctrination and political structure did to the point where everybody knew where they stood in the hierarchy.




Board and Seize said:


> I haven't gotten into Deibler's  dissertation yet, but the other (and much shorter) paper (~20min read) linked in the OP article is a pretty decent presentation of his argument.
> 
> I have to say, I like the way this guy thinks.  His argument is a bit naive regarding the volume and vehemence of opposition it will face, but he makes some solid points.
> 
> I'll have to come back later to expand on my thoughts, but Deibler definitely deserves a more considered than anyone's presented so far.




You're trained to operate within a small unit and I can see where something like this would work in SOF. After all, Carlson greatly relaxed  rank in his original Raider Bn. But I can't see it working well on a the large scale among conventional formations.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 22, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> <SNIP>I'll have to come back later to expand on my thoughts, but Deibler definitely deserves a more considered than anyone's presented so far.



Looking forward to reading this.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Unlike the NVA, the Viet Cong didn't have a conventional rank structure. And arguably they were one of the more organized and successful guerrilla organizations in history. But where rank did not exist, certainly indoctrination and political structure did to the point where everybody knew where they stood in the hierarchy.
> 
> You're trained to operate within a small unit and I can see where something like this would work in SOF. After all, Carlson greatly relaxed  rank in his original Raider Bn. But I can't see it working well on a the large scale among conventional formations.



I agree and think that's a fantastic example.  IIRC they won the war by rolling tanks through Saigon under the direction of a professional, hierarchical army.  Mao even says you go guerrilla to get to conventional.


----------



## pardus (Aug 22, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree and think that's a fantastic example.  IIRC they won the war by rolling tanks through Saigon under the direction of a professional, hierarchical army.  Mao even says you go guerrilla to get to conventional.



I believe it was the NVA, not the VC who had the tanks. IIRC the NVA took the lead in the war in the south after Tet, when the VC took a beating that decimated them. A beating they never recovered from.
But it been a while and I'm a bit rusty on the history.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2017)

pardus said:


> I believe it was the NVA, not the VC who had the tanks. IIRC the NVA took the lead in the war in the south after Tet, when the VC took a beating that decimated them. A beating they never recovered from.
> But it been a while and I'm a bit rusty on the history.



Right- I think we're saying the same thing.  "They" (the north) won through the NVA.


----------



## AWP (Aug 22, 2017)

The NVA most assuredly had ranks and a hierarchy.

I don't see how you can structure any organization without rank or some type of tier system.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2017)

^read that guy's PhD and I'm sure you'll be fully educated on it!


----------



## Teufel (Aug 23, 2017)

Carlson relaxed the rank structure but I don't think there was any confusion about who was in command. 

All these articles focus on company grade officers. The officer corps is designed to groom young men and women to become senior field grade officers and General Officers. This takes quite a bit of time. A senior NCO can certainly handle a platoon or company but they are not generally trained to command and plan at the operational level of war unless they accept a commission and work their way up the officer ranks.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 23, 2017)

I do think that as more and more people become educated, we should revisit the way officer's are selected. Perhaps it is time to move to a system where you must be enlisted first.


----------



## digrar (Aug 23, 2017)

I served with plenty of shit officers who had been in the ranks first. And some good ones. And some good ones that were direct entry officers. For mine, prior service is not a magic bullet.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2017)

Being enlisted puts you on track to being a good enlisted soldier.  It doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a good officer.  The skills are not directly transferable.

Generally speaking, officer trainees learn the basic soldiering skills they need in their pre-commissioning and post-commissioning training.  They don't need to enlist for that.  If they were to spend time in the enlisted ranks, they'd be officers that many fewer years.  

In the Army, many if not most officers-to-be who didn't come up through the ranks also get to serve a short summer internship/apprenticeship in a "real" Army unit in between their third and fourth years of school.

The current system seems to not only be working well, but appears to be the best available alternative.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 23, 2017)

Oh I 100% agree, but you have that with non mustangs as well.


----------



## AWP (Aug 23, 2017)

I think prior enlisted O's tend to fall into two categories, exceptions happen of course, but those two groups? Really great officers and really bad officers.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 23, 2017)

Our current system also affords qualified enlisted personnel numerous opportunities to join the officer ranks if they so desire. Many do not. 

An enlisted soldier with 10 years in service is normally a mid to senior mentor at the tactical level. An officer at that point is normally riding a desk doing staff work until he or she gets a battalion command. The two positions are both critical but also very different and not interchangeable.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 24, 2017)

Not sure how common, but mustangs showing up to Division during my time were squared away. I can recall 2 of my batt. P.A.
s, one was an 11B2P that went SF/18D turned CAG medic then assaulter. He did time there, a while, then chose OCS/P.A. route, had to do big Army time, came back to the 325. Second P.A. was 11B2P also, turned OCS/P.A. Both squared up. Third mustang was a former NCO, turned ROTC, came back, was prior Ranger Batt boy, then 325, combat scroll and CIB. Lt. Ames. He went to Aco. He was cool as fuck.

M.


----------



## digrar (Aug 24, 2017)

You would expect guys with that background to be sold performers.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 24, 2017)

I was going to say LOL


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 24, 2017)

I'd argue that most officers couldnot  plan their lunch break without a good NCO's help, much less a operation/war. I have firmly believed that all officers should serve a minimum of two years as a junior enlisted person before officer training and commissioning.

I wold also argue that SrNCO's are very capable of command at the platoon and company levels and are irreplaceable at the battalion staff levels. I know officers like to claim they train their own, Jr's to Sr's, etc. But tend to forget all that wisdom, lessons learned and experience being offered by their senior enlisted advisor, that helps them accomplish their command and intent.

That said, the reason we can have half-assed leaders operate effectively as 'good' commanders is because of those experienced Sr NCO's. So IMO, the system works, however, both sides (O's and NCO's) need to do a much better job at policing their own, and culling the poor performers out of their ranks, while properly identifying those who are great performers and utilizing them before they get fed up with the bullshit shit bags in charge of them and seek life elsewhere.

Just my $.02

ETA: Alexander the Great, accomplished most of his greatness leading Armies in warfare before the age of thirty. Most officers in our Army are pushing thirty as they take a company command. Food for thought.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 24, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Our current system also affords qualified enlisted personnel numerous opportunities to join the officer ranks if they so desire. Many do not.
> 
> An enlisted soldier with 10 years in service is normally a mid to senior mentor at the tactical level. An officer at that point is normally riding a desk doing staff work until he or she gets a battalion command. The two positions are both critical but also very different and not interchangeable.



I wouldn't expect you take someone on their first day of commissioning and put them in as a BC. They would still have to work their way up billet by billet, just like you do today.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 24, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> *I'd argue that most officers couldnot  plan their lunch break without a good NCO's help,* much less a operation/war. I have firmly believed that all officers should serve a minimum of two years as a junior enlisted person before officer training and commissioning.



I'd argue that's a BS statement, and that your opinion is probably distorted by the kind of units you were in and the short time you spent in the service.  If you had been in longer, and served in higher-performing units, your opinion of the value of the Officers' Corps would probably be dramatically different.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 24, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> *I'd argue that most officers couldnot  plan their lunch break without a good NCO's help, much less a operation/war. *I have firmly believed that all officers should serve a minimum of two years as a junior enlisted person before officer training and commissioning.
> 
> I wold also argue that SrNCO's are very capable of command at the platoon and company levels and are irreplaceable at the battalion staff levels. I know officers like to claim they train their own, Jr's to Sr's, etc. But tend to forget all that wisdom, lessons learned and experience being offered by their senior enlisted advisor, that helps them accomplish their command and intent.
> 
> ...



This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant statement. Did you observe this trend at the company/battalion level or at the Corps/combatant command level? It sounds like you had a fairly sour experience in uniform that isn't representative of the entire officer corps.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 24, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I wouldn't expect you take someone on their first day of commissioning and put them in as a BC. They would still have to work their way up billet by billet, just like you do today.


So how is that different than the current system then? The name of the ranks?


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 24, 2017)

Teufel said:


> So how is that different than the current system then? The name of the ranks?



The rank structure would stay, only you would be a private before becoming a 2nd LT/Ensign. I believe by being enlisted first it would provide more well rounded officer's because you'll have more experiences at different levels.  When you are commanding your troops and you give an order, you'll have a much better grasp of the mindset of those in your care if you've spent any considerable amount of time actually serving in that role other than maybe a few weeks in ROTC or OCS where maybe during one field exercise you rotated through. I am not familiar enough with the academies so I can't answer the differences you went through once you selected Marine option over the Navy, but it was probably not much different.

I also don't believe that a college degree makes you a better leader. Not every college degree require a leadership or management course.  I'm fine with keeping the degree portion a requirement to be an officer, but I think the training one receives is far more important than the piece of paper collecting dust somewhere and the military ensures you receive that training.  A field grade officer will spend a tremendous amount of time in a classroom to prepare them for a position in a leadership billet. How often does an E3 have to the ability to attend a leadership course?  Officer's can attend a post graduate school as their primary job while they are in which only helps them once they take charge of a command. 

All I'm trying to get at here is officer's aren't just thrown to the fire and expected to succeed (yes, it will happen from time to time but it isn't the norm). They are groomed and trained so they have tools at their disposal to help them succed at the task at hand. If you sent an NCO through the same training, i believe you will get similar results.

But i think most important to my argument is they would have experienced first hand what it's like to be Pvt.  Schmuckatelly and see how their decisions can make or break a career, and I'm not talking NJP's here. Quality of life is a huge reason why many good enlisted Marines exit service after four years. When I got out, E5 and below had to live in the barracks unless you were married. As a squad leader there was never a break from my something because anytime you were "home " it was easy for someone to come get you, even if it was someone else's squad. And you did it because that's what is expected of you as an NCO.  At some point you mature and you don't want the barracks lifestyle so you have two choices, get married or get out. Barracks life sucks. I'm sure it always has, but just because someone is married doesn't mean their quality of life should be better than a single person. Officer's don't have to live in the barracks deal with it all the time. Maybe if they were forced to live there for a while things such as that might actually change.

I openly admit that there are a LOT of really good officer's in uniform who have never been enlisted and my comments may not make the best argument for why this is what should be done. Thankfully there are far smarter people than myself who can articulate their stance better (for both sides of the argument) but to avoid group think, I enjoy seeing both sides of a discussion. I'll also say that what I'm proposing is probably not sustainable or practical, because like you have said, there already exist a few opportunities for enlisted to officer programs that some people just don't want to do. I'll just end with because somethings been working for X number of years does not mean it can't be improved by changing it.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 24, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> The rank structure would stay, only you would be a private before becoming a 2nd LT/Ensign. I believe by being enlisted first it would provide more well rounded officer's because you'll have more experiences at different levels.  When you are commanding your troops and you give an order, you'll have a much better grasp of the mindset of those in your care if you've spent any considerable amount of time actually serving in that role other than maybe a few weeks in ROTC or OCS where maybe during one field exercise you rotated through. I am not familiar enough with the academies so I can't answer the differences you went through once you selected Marine option over the Navy, but it was probably not much different.
> 
> I also don't believe that a college degree makes you a better leader. Not every college degree require a leadership or management course.  I'm fine with keeping the degree portion a requirement to be an officer, but I think the training one receives is far more important than the piece of paper collecting dust somewhere and the military ensures you receive that training.  A field grade officer will spend a tremendous amount of time in a classroom to prepare them for a position in a leadership billet. How often does an E3 have to the ability to attend a leadership course?  Officer's can attend a post graduate school as their primary job while they are in which only helps them once they take charge of a command.
> 
> All I'm trying to get at here is officer's aren't just thrown to the fire and expected to succeed (yes, it will happen from time to time but it isn't the norm). They are groomed and trained so they have tools at their disposal to help them succed at the task at hand. If you sent an NCO through the same training, i believe you will get similar results.



2nd Lts are very much thrown into the fire and expected to succeed. Brian Chontosh comes to mind. I graduated IOC and deployed to Iraq a few months later. My first platoon sergeant got fired for bring a shit bag and my second wasn't much better. My Company Commander was competent but incredibly arrogant and selfish. Thankfully my company GySgt was phenomenal. It was definitely a trial by fire.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> I'd argue that's a BS statement, and that your opinion is probably distorted by the kind of units you were in and the short time you spent in the service.  If you had been in longer, and served in higher-performing units, your opinion of the value of the Officers' Corps would probably be dramatically different.





Teufel said:


> This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant statement. Did you observe this trend at the company/battalion level or at the Corps/combatant command level? It sounds like you had a fairly sour experience in uniform that isn't representative of the entire officer corps.



It was meant to be inflammatory (yes I know you gentlemen can plan your lunch break), and the reason for it was the aspect that the officer corps is nothing without its NCO's who are in fact very capable of command when needed, and very much involved in the development of junior officers, day to day operations, which you both happend to gloss over in your earlier post's.

As for the units I served in, and their abilities, leadership and performance. Hey, I'm a product of my environment, I didn't build the Army, I just served in it and did my best. If that makes my opinions of the officer corps tainted, unfounded, or ridiculous, well it is what it is. I will say however, the same bullshit leadership problems I saw in my units, have been reported Army and USMC (albeit not as much as the Army) wide, and have hit news stand far too often, for either of you two to state that my statements are ridiculous or complete bullshit. Obviously excluding my inflammatory statement about the lunch break, as that was to gain both of your attention.

That said, I have immense respect for both of you as officers as you both have impeccable records, as I also have immense respect for the 'few' great officers, that I have served with in my apparent shitty units, for my apparent too short of time to observe anything. If you took my comments as personal attacks, they were in fact not. However, a personal observation of the officer corps as a whole, from my inexperienced eyes, and apparently inadequate knowledge due to time and type of service.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 25, 2017)

Teufel said:


> 2nd Lts are very much thrown into the fire and expected to succeed. Brian Chontosh comes to mind. I graduated IOC and deployed to Iraq a few months later. My first platoon sergeant got fired for bring a shit bag and my second wasn't much better. My Company Commander was competent but incredibly arrogant and selfish. Thankfully my company GySgt was phenomenal. It was definitely a trial by fire.



I had a 2nd LT who was a shit bag and should have been fired but the BC allowed him to stay because we were in Iraq and it, "would be too difficult to find a replacement." That's a direct quote from our BC. I think all we've established is there are shit bags everywhere.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 25, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> "would be too difficult to find a replacement.



And yet again I am saddened and disappointed to be reminded how similar the military and business world are.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> It was meant to be inflammatory (yes I know you gentlemen can plan your lunch break), and the reason for it was the aspect that the officer corps is nothing without its NCO's who are in fact very capable of command when needed, and very much involved in the development of junior officers, day to day operations, which you both happend to gloss over in your earlier posts.



When this become officer vs. NCO?  The Noncommissioned Officers Corps is the backbone of our Army.  Of course officers would be nothing without NCOs.  The whole US military would be nothing without our NCOs.  I wouldn't be the officer I am today if it weren't for my NCOs.  Seeing the value in having a commissioned officers' corps and believing that officers are better served going straight into the officer ranks vs. enlisted ranks first does not diminish the NCO Corps in any way.  We didn't "gloss over" this point, it's simply not what this thread is about.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> As for the units I served in, and their abilities, leadership and performance. Hey, I'm a product of my environment, I didn't build the Army, I just served in it and did my best. If that makes my opinions of the officer corps tainted, unfounded, or ridiculous, well it is what it is. I will say however, the same bullshit leadership problems I saw in my units, have been reported Army and USMC (albeit not as much as the Army) wide, and have hit news stand far too often, for either of you two to state that my statements are ridiculous or complete bullshit. Obviously excluding my inflammatory statement about the lunch break, as that was to gain both of your attention.



We're all products of our environment, and slaves to our own experiences.  When our experience base and sample size are low, it limits our ability to form and articulate credible and well-informed opinions instead of grossly malinformed ones.  

Baz and I both highlighted the same one sentence in your post as BS, because it is BS.  If you thought our support of the current rank structure was demeaning or downplaying the importance of NCOs, you could have just said so.  And why would you want to get our attention? We're both already active in this thread.  Did you think that I wouldn't think what you have to say is important otherwise?    You could have just said what you meant to say...



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That said, I have immense respect for both of you as officers as you both have impeccable records, as I also have immense respect for the 'few' great officers, that I have served with in my apparent shitty units, for my apparent too short of time to observe anything. If you took my comments as personal attacks, they were in fact not. However, a personal observation of the officer corps as a whole, from my inexperienced eyes, and apparently inadequate knowledge due to time and type of service.



When you attack someone's profession and paint everyone in a group with the same brush, you're going to get pushback from that group.  There are a number of legitimate critiques one can make about the Officers Corps both in the Army and in the US military as a whole.  However, posting something false, inflammatory, and easily-disprovable stirs discontent and detracts from the point you're trying to make.

I'm pretty sure our point throughout this thread has been that the system works better when there is a definitive, rank-based hierarchy, with responsibilities and authorities distributed through a commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps vs. a "no ranks" structure, which was (I thought) what this thread is about.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I had a 2nd LT who was a shit bag and should have been fired but the BC allowed him to stay because we were in Iraq and it, "would be too difficult to find a replacement." That's a direct quote from our BC. I think all we've established is there are shit bags everywhere.



So would "no ranks" or making them enlist first weed out the shit bags, or would they just be in the system longer before someone pulled their card?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 25, 2017)

@Marauder06, I'm not going to do the multi quote thing to explain my original post. There were several comments made by you and @Teufel that spurred my response. I apologize that you felt I attacked your profession or that you took it as a personal attack on you or Baz Kahn. That was not my intention, however, I can see how it comes across as such.

I disagree with a no rank system of leadership, or a from the bottom up through the ranks system.

I believe the Jr Officer can not grow to become a good commander without strong NCO mentoring and believe it sets the standard to which an officer will approach command in the future. I also believe the jr enlisted soldier cannot acomplish the commanders intent without proper training and leadership from the NCO. Thus the requirement for a senior experienced NCO'S who remain within the NCO corps is a necessity.

I also believe every leader, officer or NCO should gain experience from the bottom level (be a Joe for awhile), to yes weed out shit bags, and give understanding to practicality, capability and moral and welfare that the Jr enlisted face.

I do believe SrNCO's at the platoon and company levels can and do exercise command and can function as such as required (I've seen it too many times).

I believe jr staff officers at the BN level would not be able to learn their jobs, or perform well without bn staff nco mentorship and experience, regardless how good their schooling or  Sr O's maybe or have been in such capacity.

My overall point, is that, the Officer corps would suffer and would be drastically reduced in capability, without a very senior experienced nco corps. I state this to make the point for a division in ranks, specifically experience and knowledge between the two corps is an optimum system to reduce shortfalls in the overall command and staff at the battalion and below levels.

Finally, I think the officer corps has short commings in identifying good and bad officers at an early level, and dealing effectively with such. It takes too long to build a good commander and too long to remove remove poor officers from leadership and staff positions. The NCO corps has faced the same problems, however, it's easier to neutralize poor leadership in the NCO side vs the Officers side, which can have devastating effects on a unit as a whole, top down, bottom up.

Again, I do apologize for my disrespectful and or insulting comment's, I will step back into my lane and refrain from further posts on the matter in this thread.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 25, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> So would "no ranks" or making them enlist first weed out the shit bags, or would they just be in the system longer before someone pulled their card?



I think ranks are an important part of the military. Is there a place in the military for No ranks? I could see certain areas that one might be able to make the case for that, but you would still have a person in charge and a hierarchy of authority.

Maybe being in the que longer would weed out a few, but there is always a few who manage to slip through the cracks, like Teufel's first Platoon Sergeant.

What are your concerns for requiring everyone to be enlisted first?


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 25, 2017)

I believe this to be a terrible idea.  Ranks are what provide a measure of structure and authority in the disciplined culture of a military organization.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 25, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> No ranks? I could see certain areas that one might be able to make the case for that, but you would still have a person in charge and a hierarchy of authority.



They are called Warrant Officer's, the  sneaky little devils they are.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 25, 2017)

The 2nd MarDiv Gunner has cooked bacon on his AR. He's g2g in my book.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> What are your concerns for requiring everyone to be enlisted first?



I think it's needlessly expensive, unnecessarily time consuming, and highly unlikely to produce meaningful improvements in outcomes.  In light of my inability to find any studies or other documentation to the contrary, I'll rely on anecdotal evidence and my own experiences, which indicate no real difference in ability to "officer" between those who commissioned straight in or those who came up through the ranks.  In short, if we were able to establish that it made a lot of difference, then I'd probably be supportive.  But I don't think it does.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 25, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> What are your concerns for requiring everyone to be enlisted first?



Not sure if @Diamondback 2/2 was making this point or something else but we already have officers who were all enlisted first - they're called Warrant Officers.  Significantly different capabilities from the commissioned side of the officer corps.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 26, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I had a 2nd LT who was a shit bag and should have been fired but the BC allowed him to stay because we were in Iraq and it, "would be too difficult to find a replacement." That's a direct quote from our BC. I think all we've established is there are shit bags everywhere.


Was this an infantry battalion? I've seen at least one company commander get fired every I've deployed, along with a few platoon commanders. They usually end up in the S3.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 26, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I think ranks are an important part of the military. Is there a place in the military for No ranks? I could see certain areas that one might be able to make the case for that, but you would still have a person in charge and a hierarchy of authority.
> 
> Maybe being in the que longer would weed out a few, but there is always a few who manage to slip through the cracks, like Teufel's first Platoon Sergeant.
> 
> What are your concerns for requiring everyone to be enlisted first?


There are lots of guys who slip through the cracks on both sides of the commission. Remember SgtMaj Vines?


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 26, 2017)

Teufel said:


> Was this an infantry battalion? I've seen at least one company commander get fired every I've deployed, along with a few platoon commanders. They usually end up in the S3.



Yes, it was an infantry battalion. 



Il Duce said:


> Not sure if @Diamondback 2/2 was making this point or something else but we already have officers who were all enlisted first - they're called Warrant Officers.  Significantly different capabilities from the commissioned side of the officer corps.



I understand the difference, but if the main argument against having everyone enlist first is that an enlisted person couldn't take on the responsibility to that of an officer, I dont find that to be a very strong argument. As I've already said, one would still be required to work their way up and take on more responsibilities, just like they do today. 



Marauder06 said:


> In short, if we were able to establish that it made a lot of difference, then I'd probably be supportive.  But I don't think it does.



So based upon your years of experience, and mentoring junior officer's, you've found that on average officer's are neither better nor worse for having spent time enlisted? Keeping mission accomplishment first, if your troops seem to hold mustangs in a higher regard, just for motivational purposes, I would then assume that it would be a good thing to have everyone enlist first.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 26, 2017)

I


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> So based upon your years of experience, and mentoring junior officer's, you've found that on average officer's are neither better nor worse for having spent time enlisted? Keeping mission accomplishment first, if your troops seem to hold mustangs in a higher regard, just for motivational purposes, I would then assume that it would be a good thing to have everyone enlist first.



Not just my experiences but yes, that's what I've found.  I'm sure someone has studied this issue at length, but in a quick Google Scholar search I couldn't find anything that confirmed or denied the hypothesis.

Similar conversation on another site:  Do prior enlisted service members make better officers? | RallyPoint 

Even if we accept the assumption that enlisted troops like prior enlisted officers better (and I'm not sure I do), that's not a good reason to make the change, especially if that's the only reason.  Soldiers might like a certain officer simply because he's _*not*_ a good officer; too familiar with the Joes and lets them get away with too much, or thinks she knows the job better than her troops, or wants to do "soldier" work because that's what they area familiar with and are intimidated by the myriad of officer responsibilities.  I don't think soldiers are "motivated" one iota by source of commission, I think any motivation they draw from being an officer comes from whether that officer is good or not.  So again, if there is no marked difference in outcomes, why go though the hassle and enormous expense (and time suck) of having everyone enlist first?


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2017)

I think I've posted these thoughts before, but anyway....

Take a plane that "hangs on its prop." That's a nice way of saying it is on the verge of a stall and as long as the engine and prop works it will fly. The second it hesitates the things crashes. No room for error, no extra airspeed to trade for control, one sputter and it drops out of the sky.

That's some officers. They hang on their rank. That's all they have.

The good ones don't need a tab or badge to lead....because they are leaders. Those are the men and women people would gravitate to if rank didn't matter. Rank gets your foot in the door, but your effectiveness is on you...not something hanging on your uniform. Your prop.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 27, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> I understand the difference, but if the main argument against having everyone enlist first is that an enlisted person couldn't take on the responsibility to that of an officer, I dont find that to be a very strong argument. As I've already said, one would still be required to work their way up and take on more responsibilities, just like they do



I think the main argument is that it takes too much time and isn't necessary. You're pretty old by the time you screen for O6, never mind General. Adding time on the front end would only make it worse.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 27, 2017)

I really don't think there's a need for O's to do enlisted time first. It would lead to an older Officer Corps down the line and is there any real tangible, defined benefit to it? Aside from some belief that it will somehow lead to a better Officer? When militaries across the world have realised that just because someone was once a Pte, doesnt mean they'll somehow be better leaders... How many ballbag Cpls, Sgts etc have we all crossed paths with? I've met Officers who were commissioned from the ranks who were garbage.

If there's a perceived problem with the overall standard of Officer being commissioned... Surely it's a training issue at the various service academies?

If it's just a case of some peoples experiences with certain Officers during their careers... Well that's just the nature of the beast. People will slip through the net at all levels and ranks.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2017)

The military doesn't need to abolish rank, it needs its O-1's - O-3's to spend more time leading troops and less time on staff. If anything, you could make the case for splitting at the O-4 level into an Ops/ General Staff breakout. Your upward moving Ops guys and gals would still do some staff time, especially at the Brigade and higher levels, but it would allow CGO's to spend more time in platoons and companies.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> The military doesn't need to abolish rank, it needs its O-1's - O-3's to spend more time leading troops and less time on staff. If anything, you could make the case for splitting at the O-4 level into an Ops/ General Staff breakout. Your upward moving Ops guys and gals would still do some staff time, especially at the Brigade and higher levels, but it would allow CGO's to spend more time in platoons and companies.


Fucking. Agree. 

Well said.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 27, 2017)

AWP said:


> The military doesn't need to abolish rank, it needs its O-1's - O-3's to spend more time leading troops and less time on staff. If anything, you could make the case for splitting at the O-4 level into an Ops/ General Staff breakout. Your upward moving Ops guys and gals would still do some staff time, especially at the Brigade and higher levels, but it would allow CGO's to spend more time in platoons and companies.


I was a platoon or company commander until I was selected to Major and became a battalion OPSO.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 28, 2017)

Regarding the original topic, I served in a pretty tightly knit, small unit environment in Vietnam and my XO called me Al and I called him Charlie. It worked there, it was the right environment...but when I eventually got reunited with him stateside at 2/6, he was "Sir" again. As it should be.


----------



## CDG (Aug 28, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I was a platoon or company commander until I was selected to Major and became a battalion OPSO.



That's somewhat atypical though, isn't it?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2017)

CDG said:


> That's somewhat atypical though, isn't it?



Baz is a Marine so I can't speak to how common that is in the Corps.  In the Army it would be unusual.  Most officers in most branches spend some time on staff as a captain while they wait for the command queue.  And, IMO, that's a good thing.

Being on staff as a company grade officer isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Think of how much better-prepared a young captain would be if he or she spent a year, or even six months or so, on staff seeing the ins and outs of not only the battalion-level bureaucracy but also how other company commanders do their jobs?  They would have time to think and reflect a bit and to see (and hear) the good and bad things commanders do.  It gives them the opportunity to see outside the soda straw of experience that they gained in what at best is two, but more likely one, company they served in previously.  I kind of see it as the last step in a pre-command apprenticeship.

I commanded four times at the detachment/company/troop level.  The two years I spent as an Infantry PL prior to that definitely helped, but what also helped was the staff gigs in between.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 28, 2017)

I was a Mustang.  I went E5 to O1E.  The biggest leg-up wasn't in application of leadership, but that I understood and could navigate the military bureaucracy.  I could always massage and rely on the E4 Mafia to help me, and to help me make them look better (it reflected well on all of us).

I will say that once I got to O3 and had a bigger pool of enlisted/NCOs, I did manage the senior NCOs more effectively, I think because of my enlisted time.  I understood what E7s/E8s could/couldn't do and understood better what I could/couldn't delegate.

For clarification I was not in a line/combat unit, but mission was mission.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 28, 2017)

CDG said:


> That's somewhat atypical though, isn't it?


It depends. Infantry lieutenants will serve as platoon commanders for three years unless they are picked to be a company XO on their second deployment or get fired. Most officers will leave their primary MOS and serve in a "B" billet for three years before coming back for company command. One Captain in a battalion will serve as the assistant S3 but the rest will go directly to company command and not spend anytime on staff until they are Majors. 

I went to a recon unit for my "B" billet and gained another opportunity to serve as a platoon commander and recon company commander on a subsequent tour. That part is atypical. I've only spent two years out of the Fleet Marine Forces and half of that was PME. I enjoyed my career path but I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## CDG (Aug 28, 2017)

@Teufel and @Marauder06, thanks for the responses and anecdotes. It seemed odd because of the amount of CPTs I've seen on BN and BDE staffs. My experiences are limited comparatively speaking,  but I always kind of got the impression that you were hurting your career as a senior CPT if you weren't on a staff somewhere.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 28, 2017)

CDG said:


> @Teufel and @Marauder06, thanks for the responses and anecdotes. It seemed odd because of the amount of CPTs I've seen on BN and BDE staffs. My experiences are limited comparatively speaking,  but I always kind of got the impression that you were hurting your career as a senior CPT if you weren't on a staff somewhere.


The Marine Corps treats career progression differently. A regimental S-3 will have one or two Captains in it. The rest are down in the rifle battalions commanding companies.


----------



## Frank S. (Aug 28, 2017)

Teufel said:


> The officer corps is designed to groom young men and women to become senior field grade officers and General Officers. _This takes quite a bit of time_.



This. When payment comes due on all those checks your body wrote is when you  understand clearly how much time is of the essence.

May your polyps be benign.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 29, 2017)

[QU8


----------

