Novel idea for the military: no rank

[BloodStripe]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Marauder06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

I

 

[Marauder06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.