Posted on Nov 2, 2014
Should Command be "required" for promotion to MAJ / COL / BG??
12.5K
21
21
4
4
0
Should the Army continue to require command for promotion to MAJ / COL / BG? As it stands, in most basic branches, command is required for promotion. Successful Battery / Company / Troop command as a CPT is needed for promotion to MAJ. Successful BN command for COL. Successful BDE command for BG (although this is historically much more difficult).
What about the officer who excels at being a staff officer, but not necessarily command capable. There are numerous positions on the Army and Joint staff for senior leaders, however why not continue to promote exceptional officers simply becuase they are not suited to be commanders?
And really, looking at the general officer levels, how many are actually commanders versious staff officers? By nature of their of their ranks, they are "general" officers capapble of filling any capacity, so what makes command the key component of being a good officer?
What about the officer who excels at being a staff officer, but not necessarily command capable. There are numerous positions on the Army and Joint staff for senior leaders, however why not continue to promote exceptional officers simply becuase they are not suited to be commanders?
And really, looking at the general officer levels, how many are actually commanders versious staff officers? By nature of their of their ranks, they are "general" officers capapble of filling any capacity, so what makes command the key component of being a good officer?
Posted in these groups: 
Command
Promotions
Command Promotions
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
3
3
0
Depends on the AOC. For medical, O-3 is generally your first rank and you probably won't see a true command position until O-5 or even O-6. O-5's in my area are generally the deputies to commanding O-6's, O-3's are grunt/bench workers.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
No... As pointed out, there are staff positions at the various ranks, as well as command positions. I do think that an officer should be required to command at a lower level before allowed to command at the next level.
The current system actually works. I think it would be very rare (if at all) for an officer to be selected for battalion command if they had not commanded a company. Same, same for brigade command for people who had not commanded a battalion.
An officer should be well rounded in his/her career field and that means he/she should have both the requisite command and staff experience, as well any branch-specific experience, before advancing to the next grade or command opportunity.
The current system actually works. I think it would be very rare (if at all) for an officer to be selected for battalion command if they had not commanded a company. Same, same for brigade command for people who had not commanded a battalion.
An officer should be well rounded in his/her career field and that means he/she should have both the requisite command and staff experience, as well any branch-specific experience, before advancing to the next grade or command opportunity.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think this one is branch dependent. Form maneuver guys this is a no brainer. But for the supporting / enabling troops and staff guys this is virtually impossible since there are not many low density MOS whole units out there.
That said, I would say those branches should top off at COL. just because G level is for command period. COL can still be interpreted as a highly experienced expert.
That said, I would say those branches should top off at COL. just because G level is for command period. COL can still be interpreted as a highly experienced expert.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Disagree that supporting/enabling branches should top off at COL. While I can't find a list of GO/FO billets, it appear that few are actually commanders. What always confuses me is why there are maneuver officers who are in broadening GO positions (e.g., G8) when there are FA officers who already have this expertise. I assume it is a "wait and groom" location until a command billet opens up. However, this makes huge assumptions about individuals' abilities to expand their skill sets (Peter Principle) and also assumes that maneuver leadership is the same as technical management.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I didn't know Generals had broadening assignments, it probably is partly a situation of squat and hold until command positions open. Or it may be a way to keep GO's grounded and in tune with the technical side of the Army.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Yep, they definitely have broadening assignments. Sometimes they make a lot of sense ... for instance, an EN officer going to work with civilians at a US Corps of Engineers Field Office, or being the G-3/5/7 for the Army Reserve Command -- a one star billet for an AC officer. Gets them familiar with the capabilities and operational set of the primary enabling force in the Total Army. Others, Public Affairs Officer for a command -- why? Certainly there's expertise in operational activities, but not necessarily public speaking or public communications strategy.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google