Is today's Army an officer's Army?

When I assumed command of an Artillery Battalion, the comments across the board from our evaluators the summer camp before pointed out that the Officers were not using the NCO's well. My first task was to find a new SGM and ensure that he and I knew that we all had to pull our weight. He and I would meet to discuss where we were and go our separate ways. I am very proud that He and I as a team took our Battalion through a successful ARTEP and it seemed to be easy once everyone worked on their tasks. Every officer should have a SGM that knows what to do and get it done.

I heard so many times that NCO's have had a lot of authority taken from them. To me when it is said like that, the words power and authority are interchangeable. Honestly speaking, if I were an NCO, I refuse to get into a power struggle with anyone. If the commander/platoon leader wants it a certain way, so be it. There's a caveat though, it won't be at the expense of losing a soldier's life over it.

Could have fooled me.

Absolutely, there is no up in the chain of command, only down. There are enough Officers involved in every decision to guarantee he will be wrong. I could never have tolerated the nit picking in todays Army

It requires all of the Officers, NCO and soldiers to accomplish the mission which we all know comes from CIC down to the generals to formulate overall plan which rolls down hill. Thanks for all those on active duty for my freedom and working together for the USA.

There is a role for everyone. Find your happy place and get there. Dividing the ranks by status is counter-productive to the mission. One team, one fight.

I have some issues with this one. The Army is a soldier's army, and the jobs of NCOs and Officers are different. Good officers let good NCOs take care of everything they can, because the officers have an exceptionally large amount of bullshit to pay attention to. But, a potentially great officer can be ruined by a weak or cowardly or stupid Sergeant faster than by a speeding bullet. And what is left is an officer who knows only one thing about NCOs..."they're sly and lazy and bear considerable watching." This argument surfaces every few years, usually when the Army is going through some uncomfortable transition that has nothing to do with the Army and more to do with national politics.

Aren't many of the posts simply pointing out that no one works in a vacuum?
If you are leading a charge and no one follows you, then it's you...
When we put too much emphasis on one end of the equation, things don't go so well.
Physics tells us there is no movement without support. What is supporting cannot move and what is moving cannot provide support. It's a relationship where one depends on the other.

Great Officers are those who seek opinions and advise of their Senior Enlisted counterparts. Don't have to always agree but, to have that open communication between the two, will make a difference between a successful or unsuccessful career for an Officer. College and military schooling, no matter how much they tell you different, will never be better then the experience of an NCO. Like I said, Officers don't have to agree with the advise, but better to approach a decision a little more calculatedly, though SNCO advise, then making decisions on their own. In the end, they are the Officer and have final say. Just know, that your textbook decisions affect the lives of all the troops and their families under you.

Hate to break it to you, but the Defense of the Nation, which means the entirety of the Military, has always been led by Civillians. POTUS (CinC) is a civillian, SECDEF and all of the Branch Chiefs=Civilians. Of course, the next step in the chain are Officers, followed by the NCO. Officers have always been admin types, NCO's are the action fellows. Take any Lieutenant, and $3.00, and you can buy a cup of coffee almost anywhere