Could the Army run better with fewer Officers?

2015-12-16T14:54:24-05:00

Officers are the decision makers, but could we do less without them. I agree the Commander should be an Officer, but do we really need Officers for many of the Staff positions? If a NCO can earn the degree and do the same work for a lot less money, would that be cost effective? Bottom line, I have the same degree as many Officers and a LOT more experience. Why not let me just have their job?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 2:56 PM

2015-12-16T14:56:20-05:00

This will be an interesting thread to watch.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 16 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-12-16T14:57:50-05:00

Staff positions (both key leadership and worker bee roles) are important for the professional development of future commanders.....

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-12-16T15:01:42-05:00

If you feel that you have the qualifications to serve in a position that is generally filled by an officer, then why not apply for OCS?

I think this question is asked from a perspective of bureaucracy and blurred lines. Officers are generally command oriented where NCOs are task oriented.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 16 at 2015 3:12 PM

2015-12-16T15:12:04-05:00

Counterpoint.

The USMC back in the 1990s used Warrant Officers (Former Enlisted) as Intel Officers. The drawback of this was that you could train an WO1/CWO2 or a 1Lt/Capt. One took 8-12 years and really couldn't be fired*, and the other took 4-8 years and could**. This was at BN level.

*Oversimplified term because they were a SNCO with 12 years in who would revert to SSgt-GySgt and stay in to 20years.

**Another Oversimplified term because they would just not be augmented (not extended to Career Path).

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 3:32 PM

2015-12-16T15:32:39-05:00

I'd rather be on the ground, I'm happy to leave the Officers in the Staff positions. As long as they don't make stupid calls from the TOC.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Dec 16 at 2015 3:39 PM

2015-12-16T15:39:10-05:00

Shrug, I am still not sure why you need a commission to fly a helicopter but can be an E-1 and drive a tank.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 3:40 PM

2015-12-16T15:40:27-05:00

Those positions are necessary to build the leaders of tomorrow. We need general officers who have been S4's and S1's and S3A's and the rest to have an Army that knows what it is doing at the higher levels. If all officers are single tracked through certain jobs as a CPT-LTC then you will have a very narrow understanding of the Army. Leader development. Now...if you cull the herd at the top, you won't need as many officers. Then you could make the cuts you are talking about. For that matter, why have officers at all? Why not just have one rank system? 1-12...no O, W, or E. Why have company commanders? 1SG's have much more experience. Hell, the first time there is equal experience is when you are at the Battalion level where both of you have served between 18-20 years. Even then, the majority of the CSM's time has been on the line when the officer has spent time doing "other jobs." The CSM is obviously more experienced. Why do we need a Battalion Commander? Walk this up the logic ladder and then back down again.

Response by LTC Chris Norton made Dec 16 at 2015 3:45 PM

2015-12-16T15:45:18-05:00

I've been Drilling USAR most of my career and have lost count of the number of times an NCO has in reality been the senior person in a given shop. MSG Private RallyPoint Member is very correct in that it can be done, and done well, but I think it's one of those "exception rather than the norm" scenarios. The civilian analogy that's closest is the "management vs. rank-and file" path. Nothing wrong with either, and a lot of people can and do move from one to the other out in the world. As several have mentioned, if you find yourself on that path, and it pays more, AND you can always resign your commission (advantage: NCOs), it's probably worth looking at with a very serious eye.

**There is NOTHING wrong with getting paid more money, unless we're talking Brewster's Millions**.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Dec 16 at 2015 4:02 PM

2015-12-16T16:02:00-05:00

A valid question for every service, USAF included. Are all NCOs as educated and willing to take their OIC's job responsibilities as you? No, but many are. For staff positions, I would evaluate span of control, technical education requirements, funding levels, operational impact and clearance levels. Some staff roles (ie, Request for Forces, deployment orders, JTF HQ) have direct operational impact. But none of those are absolute showstoppers for denying the position to NCOs. The US military already expects more from, and gives more authority to its NCOs than most militaries today, and it is one of our great advantages. We should at least be willing to explore giving (qualified) NCOs even more responsibility and authority of staffs.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 4:13 PM

2015-12-16T16:13:22-05:00

More senior people (commissioned and enlisted) may have better eyes on this...but for my own part, I agree with you. We would elevate the senior NCOs to higher decision making billets, and reduce the number (i.e. improve the quality) of junior officers who will very likely not serve beyond five to seven years.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 16 at 2015 4:15 PM

2015-12-16T16:15:52-05:00

A few thoughts:
- Simple question but does not have a simple answer when viewed through different lenses such as: ratio officer to Army size, temporal (time) issues, leader development, and promotion rates. I will take each in turn.
- Officer to Army size ratio. Would require research to prove but I think we have a higher ratio now than we have historically. Reason being, especially at senior levels, an officer is surrounded by staff. We need to keep the officer-Army size ratio lower which argues for fewer officers.
- Temporal (time) issues. Private industry creates senior leaders on a 70:30 mix. 70% grown internal and 30% recruited from external. The Army, however, grows 100% of our own leaders. This means we take in X number of LTs this year not because we need X number of LTs now but because we need Y number of LTCs 20 years from now. Having excess numbers of junior officers now mitigates the risk of not having enough senior officers in the future. Argues for more officers at least at lower levels.
- Leader development. As others have written, good senior officers have a breadth and depth of institutional and operational experience. This argues for more opportunities/experiences at junior levels.
- Promotion. By promotion rates I mean that we should not have so few officer positions that we have excessively high promotion rates which translates into less qualified officers reaching higher rank vs so many officer positions that the promotion rate is excessively low. Requires a balance here.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 16 at 2015 4:35 PM

2015-12-16T16:35:16-05:00

Yes at the Platoon Level I was dispensable.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Dec 16 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-12-16T17:15:29-05:00

You need to transfer to the Air Force. They have already pushed down some jobs that were always an officer's job in the Army to NCOs in the Air Force. Budgeting for example. In the Army, an officer has to sign off on expenditures. In a great many Air Force squadrons, the RA is a SNCO or a Tech Sgt. Most decisions that are made by a 1LT or CPT in the Army could be made by a MSgt, SMSgt, or CMSgt.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-12-16T17:43:58-05:00

My first company command, I was a 1LT. we were so short on officers that I had no XO and my PLs were a cadet and 2 E7s. Bottom line, in most cases Officers are planners/managers. Having a lot of field experience doesn't always translate well into being a good manager. I see this all the time on the civilian side. They take some guy who has 10-15 years as a test engineer and promote him into a management slot and he is lost in the sauce.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Dec 16 at 2015 8:22 PM

2015-12-16T20:22:41-05:00

Few officers do work. Let's be honest, most do leadership. That said, why have 20 Captains, and 3 E-4's?

Response by SrA David Steyer made Dec 16 at 2015 8:48 PM

2015-12-16T20:48:00-05:00

I don't want to say there should be less necessarily and I can't speak for the Army or other branches. But for the USAF I always thought the USAF should look take a look at the numbers of SNCO's and FGO's and possibly reduce them, or at the very least change the requirement and expectations that come with rank. For instance: Only a Lt. Colonel or Colonel can only be a Squadron commander in most AFSCs (MOS) but some, a Major can be a squadron commander. Why can't a Lt. Colonel be a group commander? Why does it always have to be a Colonel? I remember at my first base, there was a medical support squadron that had about 40 military members in it, commanded by a Lt. Colonel. When I PCS'ed, the medical support squadron at that base had over 200 military members in it and was still commanded by a Lt. Colonel! What would be so bad about a Major being the commander in the smaller size medical support squadron?

I was in the Medical world my entire time in but it's just odd to me that you have Captains in the Army who can no joke lead a lot of people but in the USAF you may be a Lt. Colonel by time you lead an equivalent number of people.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Dec 17 at 2015 7:55 AM

2015-12-17T07:55:02-05:00

I'm another fairly well educated senior NCO. We tried it in the Navy - there was a ship a number of years back (we had a MCPON who thought the way you do) where most of the division officer slots were given to Chiefs.

Here's the problem. Some Chiefs do a good job at doing both the SNCO job and the Divo job. Many do not. They are distinct, even though as a Chief I have more experience and education than many Divos. Also, how are the junior Officers going to get the training and leadership development they need?

Long story short, it didn't work very well and we abandoned the concept. There have been divisions I've run where I had to do the Divo job as well, and I can when it's needed, but as a matter of policy it doesn't work well.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Dec 18 at 2015 10:22 AM

2015-12-18T10:22:56-05:00

We saw a huge rise in the number of Officers per capita during the 1990's due to the drawdown during the 2nd term of President Clinton. As it was explained to us in one briefing after another "our target goals are for 50% of the E-5 and below to leave the service under the VSSI and SSB initiatives... a corresponding 25% of the E-6 to E-8 and O-1 and O-2 grades are also being targeted... with an approximate 2% of the remaining force leaving as well..."

Within less than a year our Battalion Staff climbed from a handful to over 100 soldiers, and the term "Power Point Officer" came into existence. Titles and positions were invented or expanded so that the remaining Officer Corps had ample opportunity to excel and gain promotion. As an example, as it was explained to me, the duty position of 'Community Commander' was elevated to a 'Command Position" from an "assigned Duty". This being done so that more opportunities for Command were available to a now swollen Officer Corps. In my own case, the tour for Platoon Leaders was shortened from 24 months to 12 months in some cases to allow for more Junior Officer Professional Development. This was a DISASTROUS decision since it was already difficult to properly train a new 2LT in the 24 months and the 12 month tour made it more of a rubber stamp in most cases.

I retired within just a few months of 9-11, and I am VERY Tech Savvy, so I understand what technological advances have happened and what that has done to Bn Staff and higher. It has become necessary for a lot more people to be on the Bn Staff or higher so as to ensure that the CO has all the information possible so he/she can make the 'right decision' based upon a solid grasp of the situation. However, even within the Tech Constraints that we now face, the sheer number of Officers to Enlisted in many places still seems skewed.

Warrant Officers are supposed to provide their Specialty know-how and bridge the gap
Sr. NCO's are supposed to provide their experience and support the mission overall
Officers are supposed to provide that direct on-the-ground leadership

If we take a good look at the way in which a military order propagates down the Chain of Command...any extraneous Officer not involved in carrying out that decision could be labeled as "unnecessary" and could be replaced by a Sr. NCO. Bear in mind however, there always has to be a backup, and we have to continue Officer Professional Development as well as NCO Professional Development. Still, within those constraints, I do believe we still may have more than what is necessary to properly execute any order directed by higher ranking officers.

Response by SPC Private Murphy made Dec 18 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-12-18T17:33:56-05:00

The original statement said something like only officers can fly, but a private can drive a tank. My response to that, I wouldn't have as much confidence in a plane driven by private, I'd probably rather walk.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 5:55 PM

2015-12-18T17:55:06-05:00

If your talking about "many of the staff positions", I understand. I've seen in a battalion s3 5 x captains, 3 lt's, and obviously a MAJ, plus the NCOs, it was crazy, the only reason I saw it was my old PL was one of the CPTs, he was waiting for his school. He told me his only job was to re-review fragos and help out other staff sections......and that was him looking for stuff to do.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Dec 18 at 2015 6:34 PM

2015-12-18T18:34:26-05:00

Possibly. It is. It not just an issue of Officer to enlisted ratios, it is also a matter of statutory authority which is vested in officers vice other ranks. When I was a young Lieutenant, three of my soldiers had graduate degrees and had joined the Army for the adventure. Clearly they were capable of doing many of the things I was charged with doing, however they lacked the specific training and authority.

Response by CSM Colin Patterson made Dec 18 at 2015 6:38 PM

2015-12-18T18:38:14-05:00

I think the Army can run better with less officers having served on Active Duty, Army Reserves and returned to Active Duty from where I retired. I will give my perspective about what I saw in the Army Reserve and on Active Duty. In the Army Reserve I saw a lot of Senior NCO's serving with excellence in Officers position because of a shortage of officers in the Reserve. However theses NCO's brought a lot to the table because some of them held executive level positions as civilians and at times were more educated than some of the officers in the Unit and were great critical thinkers. I even deployed once with SFC and MSG in 1LT and Captain slots as members of a battalion staff because of the shortage of company grade officers. On active duty I saw lots of officers in staff positions that i felt did not need officers, because the officer had a senior NCO subject matter expert in their section who the officer got their information from which they would brief the commander. I always felt why put the officer in the middle when that senior NCO can run that shop and also brief the commander. The NCO Corps today is much more educated, have a lot more critical thinkers than in the past and are the subject matter experts who are now involved in planning at all 3 levels of war. Therefore senior NCO's can replace a lot of the staff officers positions because these Senior Staff NCO's are the SME's in those sections and are the ones who create the deliverables for their section leader the officer to brief the CO.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Dec 18 at 2015 6:39 PM

2015-12-18T18:39:29-05:00

I had the same idea...then as SSgt had me the Sgt digging a cable trench in a typhoon while everyone else was setting up antennas (impressive that they got them up),the Captain came out and said cut it out before we die and he had to fill out paperwork. Stage two of my glorious career. SMSgt had us on top of a horizontal stabilizer during a blizzard taking out a 250 lbs actuator because a jet was flying next week. A pilot (bless his soul) was looking out of their cozy beer garden and called our boss to knock it off. All four men had degrees, but only two of them weighed the risks. I concluded that at least I needed officers to keep other enlisted guys from killing me out of sheer motivation.

Response by SPC Stephen Gerard made Dec 18 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-12-18T18:57:08-05:00

Why is a degree even necessary for a commission or appointment? When you get philosophical for a moment, you'll probably see that it doesn't qualify anyone to be a leader. The best leaders I've EVER had wore stripes, not bars. Those were the men dealing with me every day, not some busy, over worked commander. Sure, many of my commanders were great, but they're usually not dealing with the small headaches day in and day out. The troops appreciate that, and thus see their first line leadership as the genuine motivators. One of them barely graduated high school, and he was the best man I've ever worked for. Truly a great leader. Having a degree didn't make him that way. It was probably the result of this previous leaders.

I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry. I can hardly see how talking to a soldier about stereoisomerism or physical processes is going to motivate him to work on PT or go to his appointment on time.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-12-18T20:59:06-05:00

I think it's more of a leadership style switch from enlisted to officer. After 7 years prior enlisted, 3 of it as a SGT, I can definitely tell the whole world is different. Now I'm in ROTC getting my Master's and the leading is more about conceptualization than when I was an NCO. It was hard to let go of the NCO mentality at first, and I still lean on the experience a lot, but it's not the same style at all.

At AT, I was told to drive a Knight after sitting in it for 5 minutes. Probably shouldn't/couldn't do that in a chopper. lol

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 18 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-12-18T21:40:15-05:00

Absolutely!!! I think it's the " us and them" mentality. Officers hang out with other officers. They want to see each other succeed. Enlisted and NCO's just want to get the job done. Officers=Politics....Enlisted=Work.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 10:08 PM

2015-12-18T22:08:28-05:00

So if we did away with all the junior officers on staff when and where would they learn what they need to know to be commanders? If you want the job, take the commission. I took a commission to 2LT as a CW4 because I wanted to command. If you want the job pay the price.

Response by SGT Barry Third made Dec 18 at 2015 11:04 PM

2015-12-18T23:04:46-05:00

I was proud to serve with the officer that were around me,, Except that one Lt, that was crying on the Heli on our way to border of Saudi and Kuwait, i guess he had good reason we only had 1 mag each and 4 greanades

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Dec 19 at 2015 2:12 AM

2015-12-19T02:12:48-05:00

As you consider the topic of the necessity and number of Officers needed, it is useful to note the intended differences between Commissioned Officers and others. This link below gives a nice concise explanation. To it I would add that Commissioned Officers must be approved by Congress and appointed by the President for their positions.

What’s the difference between Officer and Enlisted?
Commissioned Officers have to have at least a bachelor’s degree to apply, and they go through a more demanding and competitive qualification process, including approval by Congress. Their assignment is focused on leadership and administration. They are like top management in the corporate world. Because they have more responsibility, they have more authority and higher pay. They have more administrative headaches and more social demands, but they enjoy higher status and more privileges in the overall chain of command.

Enlisted members are not required to have as much previous education, although many do have college degrees. The Enlisted focus more on technical aspects of the work, and are therefore trained in one of many Air Force specialties. Enlisted members can rise to become Non-commissioned officers, which puts them in positions comparable to middle management in a corporation. They earn somewhat less pay and have fewer privileges than COs, but they carry great responsibilities and form, as it were, the backbone of the Air Force, being greater in numbers and closer to daily operations; but they always function under the direction of the Commissioned Officer Corps.

https://afreserve.com/faqs/joining/what’s-the-difference-between-officer-and-enlisted

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Dec 19 at 2015 3:33 AM

2015-12-19T03:33:03-05:00

I had several staff jobs that I would gladly given over to an NCO, but I had too much respect for them to do that to them

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 3:34 AM

2015-12-19T03:34:20-05:00

This question is no utterly ridiculous it attacks the very foundation of our military. For one, it foolishly assumes that all senior NCOS are the same. That each brings so much experience and knowledge to the table there is no need for officers. Let me back track, when I was a junior NCO and even a senior NCO, without any staff time, I too thought things just happen automagically. That's not the way it works, while Soldiers and leaders execute the staff compromised of officers and senior NCOs is laying the foundation for success. Why does this work? Because it has always worked. The officer is learning from the experience of the NCO and the officer provides the strategic thought derived from the commander's intent, METL, and lines of effort nested all the way up to the CG. That may not sound like much, but trust me it isn't as easy as it looks. The next time you want to assume officers do nothing but smoke cigars and watch Soldiers march around endlessly, visit a battalion staff at midnight in the middle of an MDMP session after a mission has come down.

Response by CPL James Mellar made Dec 19 at 2015 3:35 AM

2015-12-19T03:35:57-05:00

You must be in an administrative part of the military. In the infantry, the commander is a commissioned officer, usually a Captain, but could be a first lieutenant, and each platoon has a commissioned officer who could be a first or second lieutenant. The reason for this is each platoon might be detached from its company and need to act as a separate unit with its own command structure. I have no experience in the administrative elements of the military, so I cannot speak on it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 7:18 AM

2015-12-19T07:18:46-05:00

Maybe some part of SECDEF's Force of the Future initiative will address this issue to some degree. The Atlantic every year focuses an issue on the military, and this last year showed how the ratio of general officers to other service members is now higher than it has ever been, and I've written elsewhere about how even the the Army has shrunk by around 100,000 troops, we haven't reduced GO ranks at all (in fact, we keep creating more, circumventing legal caps on GO billets creatively). So, in general, I agree we could do with fewer officers. I'm not sure how we need the same number of GOs (and the robust staffs that go with them) if we've cut the active Army by around 15%.

There seems to be a logical disconnect with your position that commanders should be officers but NCOs can do other officer jobs. Part of an officers job is to step in as the commander in the commander's absence. This would seem to argue against your position.

I do think it would be possible to flatten the rank structure so there aren't any officers, NCOs, or Enlisted, just Soldiers, and job descriptions and requirements could drive who is selected for any given position, This will never happen, though, as it would require fully revamping DoD, personnel policies, etc, etc. Even with such a system, though, more qualified people would serve in positions currently labeled as officer billets, as these positions would simply require higher levels of qualification. While experience is part of a qualification, it only counts for so much.

As the current system is here to stay, with a major part of the personnel system designed to produce one or two four stars out of every officer year group, substantial change is unlikely.

Your cost-effectiveness point is interesting, but I think misinformed. We could do some pointed research, but my initial thought based upon on similar research topics would be that to a certain point (say, up to the senior captain level), officers are cheaper than their senior NCO counterparts. Look at the pay scale: E-6s make more than O-1s, E-7s make more than O-2s, and E-8s make more than all but senior captains. So, on the face of it, NCOs filling officer billets cost more. Adding in all the rest of the money the Army spends on mid-grade NCOs (because they are more likely to have families, which costs the Army more), officers become even better value for money. At the E-9 / O-4 level, the pay discrepancy begins to tilt the other way, with officer pay becoming higher than NCO pay, and the other costs evening out (as officers and NCOs at these levels are probably just about as likely to have families). But the pay discrepancy in either case really isn't that much, and there wouldn't be much cost savings here, given that the Army budget is so enormous.

Final point, if you want an officer job (in the current system) and think you are qualified and well-suited, what's stopping you from becoming an officer? Pathways exist for NCOs to become officers, yet very few pursue these opportunities.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 2:24 PM

2015-12-19T14:24:53-05:00

Maybe. When we decide something new is now important, we create a center of excellence/department/task force and promote someone to BG and give the responsibility to them even when the concept is so new and is not proven. Resilience is an example. Yes, I am a naysayer to resilience as I believe that it is something ingrained during formative years and when you are building character. Has resilience centers done something for me personally, yes. I enjoyed the massage chairs and quiet areas but in the final analysis, can we look at resilience of the greatest generation, the baby boomers, my generation and the millennials and see if there is proof in the pudding?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-12-19T14:31:44-05:00

There needs to be a serious look at this. I have been on staff jobs for my last 4 assignments. I have seen too many under worked officers and over worked NCOs. Pay us, or let us go back to the menial job of policing up Jr. Enlisted Soldiers. That is what a Senior Enlisted Advisor is supposed to do, not writing orders, policy, and doing what officers are supposed to be doing. Can't wait until I retire.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Dec 19 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-12-19T17:10:31-05:00

reading military history - when enlisted men learned how to read, LTs no longer had a purpose, You can't wear that award or that rank until an officer reads you the orders. Why?, because by definition enlisted can't read the orders themselves. ( I once asked if I was supposed to wait until the award was posthumous before I wore it)

Or news article mid-80s, I don't no current status, the army had the same number of generals that it did at the end of WWII, is that your reference?
at the same time as the news article I was in college, a classmate, a retired farmer who wanted to be smart before he died, had been an enlisted pilot in the Navy in WWII, and one of the professors had been an enlisted pilot in the Army in WWII.

I think there are a whole lot of officer obsession rules that can be done away with.

Response by MAJ Joseph Ward made Dec 19 at 2015 6:42 PM

2015-12-19T18:42:04-05:00

Having been a civilian for awhile now folks in business organizations ask the same questions about Managers, definitely going to follow this thread.

Response by MSG David Gagnon made Dec 21 at 2015 10:45 AM

2015-12-21T10:45:56-05:00

The Army needs less Sergeants Majors, talk about political officers they guys have cause more damage than the officers.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Dec 21 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-12-21T11:13:16-05:00

Correct me if you want, but I thought NCO's were officers of the non-commission type? As a prior enlisted, my position is simple, In may cases, NCO's are the subject matter experts, who spend several years in the same occupation in order to gain expertise in a system. On the other hand, officers are moved from company level to Battaiion Level and Higher to develop the strategic level of thinking needed in todays military. Just one soldiers opinion.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-12-21T13:57:53-05:00

I would have to agree with SFC Sutherland on this one. Some officers are needed, but NCO's with a degree (like I had, I took the same exact state boards as officer/bsn nurses did and had a civilian RN license, but wasn't an officer, I was an NCO). But the ONLY thing that makes sense, is that 'hey, we got a full class at VMI, West Point, etc; so these officer slots must get filled...' Isn't the army downsizing? again?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 6:00 PM

2015-12-21T18:00:39-05:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member I would say that we could do with less officers. I think that we have to many right now with the draw down of the army we are not removing field grades like we are lower enlisted. I have never worked at that level but I have never understood why a unit would need for example an O6 commander with an O5 deputy commander, chief of staff, executive officer, and S-3 OIC and that is not encoding all of the subordinate commanders all at the O-5 level. I know that the army is always changing and change takes time. maybe there is good reason for that but I just don't understand why we would need so many staff positions like that. Maybe someone hear on RP could explain why that it. Great question SFC Sutherland.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 21 at 2015 11:41 PM

2015-12-21T23:41:22-05:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member NO! The Army works well, as is.... I do, however, think we need to shrink or HQ structure both Officers and NCOs. We have too much overhead in the military.

There is more to being an Officer than a degree and more money. Have you ever been responsible, really responsible, for any military unit? I suspect not....

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-12-23T11:00:46-05:00

I think that it is important to emphasize that the Army is a not for profit organization, and, as such, is not really concerned with being cost effective. As with any federal agency, the end game is more appropriations for a bigger budget. More money means you can create more recquisitions for huge staffs, especially when you are deployed (NTM-A, MNF-I, USFOR-A, etc). These HQ require large staffs, and large staffs equates to job security. Every job in the Army is geared toward the lowest common denominator, the Army Private. While we have not experienced this in our contemporary conflicts, in past conflicts, it was possible for a soldier to be a squad leader going into battle and a company commander after the battle. That is the reason we have a field manual for every position we have in the Army.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jan 8 at 2021 2:52 PM

2021-01-08T14:52:20-05:00

I say yes. While mostvof the responses are focusing on the staff primaries, where I see a culling is in the assistants. Yes that staff primary should absolutely be an Officer. But a Battalion S3 does not need a MAJ, 2 CPTs, and 3 LTs. One Major, a Lieutenant or two passing through (I.e. a month or two while waiting for their Platoon or waiting to PCS) should do it. The real WORK of the shop can be done by SNCOs.

Same in an S2. I was in a BN S2 that had 3 CPTs, an LT, and a CW2. Don't ask me what all that O firepower was for, because I have no idea. We had a SFC, SSG, 2 SGTs, 3 SPCs and a PVT. 5 Officers for 8 enlisted.