Novel idea for the military: no rank

[Marauder06]

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]

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

 

[AWP]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SpitfireV]

I was going to say LOL

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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...

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]

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]

@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.