Do you think we should get rid of the divide between Officers and Enlisted?

I generally agree with the statement that our current command structure is rooted in European (not exclusively British) aristocracy and reflects their associated biases between "nobility" and "the masses." I would also agree it's worth the time to think through whether that works in today's world - but I would stop short of assuming there must be a better alternative.

I think we would all agree somebody must be in command - but as a percentage of the total force, it is an extremely small number. Growing those commanders requires a certain pool of candidates who start young and theoretically grow into the position. Perhaps it makes sense to do that after an initial term of service, but once that distinction is made, the divide exists - for a reason, in my opinion.

There are specific roles and experiences that each provides to make missions happen. The basic break down is as follows,

1. Officers plan and Command
2. NCO's advise, train and uphold standards and puts the plans in motion
3. Lower Enlisted follows orders and executes the plans and accomplish the mission.

No don't get me wrong, NCO's plan too and work along side of their Soldiers. This is a basic outlook. Each component needs the other to work. If one cog of the machine is broke, your machine will eventually break down completely.

Let's use a little common sense here. Of course not. We need Officers and they need us, the enlisted. Who the hell dreams up this shit anyways? Remember, if it's not broken, why in hell fix it?

SGT Ben Keen Great controversial question in the morning. I read the article and I don't really see any real concrete recommendations on how we close this divide that the author is describing. I think there is a definite need for both the Officer and Enlisted Ranks. I've been on both sides, so I can look at it from both ends of the spectrum. There are many enlisted soldiers and NCOs that do not want to be officers for whatever reason. I've tried to recruit many officers from the enlisted and NCO side of the house they are very happy and content with their roles, responsibilities, and what they do. There are many officers like myself that have come from the enlisted side because we felt we could maker a bigger contribution and impact from a leadership standpoint. I was very content as an NCO (SSG/E-6) and my role in training and supervising enlisted soldiers. I think today's military services have evolved and even though there is a difference/distinction in pay, benefits, and rank I believe that we work together much better than we did in the mid-70's and early 80's (just my opinion). NCO's and enlisted soldiers make up the backbone of our current structure, and just like a businesses you need supervisors, trainers, workers, executives and management at different levels in order for it to function like a fined tuned engine. There was post back a several weeks ago that spoke about enlisted soldiers that were very happy doing the job they were trained to do and that forcing them into leadership or supervisor positions was an issue with our current grade/rank structure and the way we push personnel to into a non-comfort zone. I believe becoming an NCO, or staying enlisted, or becoming an officer is a choice. The opportunities are there for everyone (if they can meet the qualifications and have the desire to excel). There are very capable CEOs and Presidents in the NCO and enlisted ranks of today's National Guard and Reserves that remain because that it what they like and prefer. Likewise, I know many blue-collar workers that are great offices in the same situation. For me, it was easy to take management and leadership concepts from the civilian sector and incorporate them into the military command & staff structure and take military leadership concepts and incorporate them into the civilian structures. I truly believe that we will evolve even more as we continue to take things like the evaluation process, mentoring, coaching, and management principals of today's business world (success stories) and incorporate them into the military way of doing business and likewise as we take those skills and leaderships traits developed in the military and equate those to professional civilian skills that are desire by future employers. Keep the current system as is with tweaks along the way to make it better. There needs to be that want to be Officers, those that want to be NCOs, and those that are very happy being enlisted. That is why we have veterans that have served in the E-5 and below level. They served their country for whatever reason (couldn't find a job, they were patriotic (me) needed the discipline (me), were headed in the wrong direction (me), or they needed the educational benefits (me), and then they decided to take a new direction in their life and left the military (not me). I got brainwashed and stayed. That's my thought and small dissertation on this subject!

I don't agree with his premise and reasoning. 9 years as an NCO, and never felt like I was being babysat. One of the major advantages our military had over the Russian military, was our NCO corp. Russia had officers and non-leader enlisted personnel, and it handicapped them greatly, many reasons we'd wipe the map with them, but especially in regards to thinking and reacting on the fly, our NCO's ante the responsibilities they have are a great advantage. I think the Russian military has started to adopted more of our structure, but not sure. Just need to pay our NCOs better

WOW -
"You can think of it as officers are responsible for “leadership and administration” while enlisted do the grunt work. You can use a sports analogy, calling officers “coaches” and enlisted “players”. "
So that explains that the whole article is off base! (to use a sports pun) - We are a TEAM!!! Who the heck says the players and coaches are "divided"?
We are not divided at ALL - we are all on the same team with clear roles and responsibilities and - if you ask me - it's working pretty well and I see NO reason to change it - stupid article...

It is different by service branch. However, we have a job to do, and they have a job to do. we manage certain things, we manage others. After work, be friends, enjoy social activities, within regulations. work is work.

The Chinese Communists tried that for forty plus years. It was a miserable failure.

This was one of the reasons I retired. I had a conversation with Admiral Mike Mullins, Joint Chief of Staff, during a dinner in 2007 on one of his Iraq visits. We also talked about the differences in combat deployment length for each of the services. Of course I didn't get a straight answer, but I felt it was important to put it out there.
Think about it like this: There can only be so many CEOs, COOs, CIOs, ad nauseam in a corporation. Someone has to manage the day to day, and someone has to perform even the most menial of tasks that will ensure the success of that company. Everyone is not suited for leadership (initially), that's why there's a screening process in which certain criteria must be met in order to be on-boarded (ROTC, Green-to-Gold, Medical Recruiting, etc.). You can't expect to be hired for a job without meeting the criteria or having the qualifications necessary to perform the job outside of the military, so there is no difference there.

Where it gets sticky "For Me" is when you look at the disparity in Rank/Pay/Years in Service/Responsibilities.

Look at the Pay Chart: Why does a 2nd Lieutenant with (over) three years make MORE ($4434.30) than an E8 with (over) 14 years ($4416.60)? What does he/she know that the Senior NCO doesn't? Most will say, "Well, that 2nd Lieutenant has a four-year degree. I had a Masters Degree by that point, so should there be a system in place that compensates you according to rank and education? Too many variables right? Too hard right?

Finally, should comparable responsibility amount to equal pay? I wrote to the Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Army, Joint Chief of Staff, SGM of the Army, and Inspector General with that inquiry. We are talking about a select-few Senior NCOs that would be affected here. The same select-few officers that are in command should agree that their command-counterparts should be compensated accordingly.

We can start with a company level look-see, but the focus of this inquiry was at the Brigade level. The argument can be made that the command-level Senior NCOs do all of the "heavy lifting". So why is it that a 03 (Captain) with "over" six years makes $5469.60 versus that 1SG with "over" 18 years who makes $4815.30? They both do the briefings, meetings, deployments, management, etc., but that 1SG leads physical fitness, conducts boards, trains and mentors, and is up on weekends when those same Soldiers who can't seem to take it down a notch; that's a lot of overtime.

Some will say, "Well, if they don't want to do the job then they shouldn't take it." True! That's why I retired!

Maybe lessen it to some degree because in many cases the enlisted view the officers as not being part of "us". There needs to be some level of separation but I think looking to the civilian world may provide an answer here. I am on a first name basis with my boss and there is a clear cut sense of "us" in my office, however she is the boss so there is a line that cannot be crossed. I think this type of work environment would do wonders for the military.