What if there was no rank in the military; just positions? Would this work?

Sounds like your advocating for the return of the Spec 5 and up ranks? Not everyone is cut out to be a leader and there are far too many that had leadership thrust upon them. They made good Soldiers but just aren't leadership material. But without a clearly defined leadership structure, this large of an organization would fail. Just look at the VA....

Just a thought from an old man who is retired from the military and also retired from civilian wprk.

If you think there is not rank within the civilian work place you are mistaken. The major difference is that in the military rank is worn and you know who has what.

Trust me, this is better.

Than what about dual rank folks- MSG vs 1SG, SGM vs CSM or staff folks vs. combat leaders?

No

I doubt this would work in a combat environment, for the reasons LTC Labrador mentioned. When someone in a leadership position goes down, who takes charge? There's certainly no time for a vote, and if there is disagreement, it puts everyone in jeopardy. The rank structure makes it very clear cut who's next in line in such situations. When you all have roughly the same training and skills - albeit at different levels - I think this approach is the most practical.

That being said, I think it can and does work in a non-combat environment, but it's not without its problems... When I was in Army Space Command, our operational assignments were based primarily on experience, not rank. It was a necessity for the environment. It took months, if not years, to learn and understand the systems. It would not be uncommon to have a SGT or even a SPC in charge of operations, with 5 to 7 other enlisted (up to SSG) working underneath them. The rank structure honestly complicated things, if a SGT or SSG tried to "pull rank" on the equal-rank or lower-rank individual in charge on an operational issue.

Luckily, our command strongly supported the "experience over rank" mentality when it came to operations. So that was never a major issue. However, it was still the Army. And when it came to counseling, NCOERs, task training, and the like, everything was still done according to rank structure. If there was a conflict during operations, I'm sure you can imagine some animosity might carry over in a counseling session or formal review.

So how do you determine who is in charge if said squad leader is killed or wounded if there is no rank structure in place? The advantage of the rank system is that everyone from top to bottom knows immediately who is next in line in case the person in charge is taken out.

I was thinking the same thing at one time. Why can't we run the Army like a business. You got worker then managers and so fourth and the pay just increases every year you stay in or something. And also if we could permitnaly stay at one duty station, if we chose to, would make a more cohesive company and work place. 

You will always need a rank structure and Chain of Command, however their is nothing wrong with putting a strong specialist or PFC in a team leader or squad leader position. I have even paired a moderate Sergeant with a strong Specialist to help the Sergeant out, but without taking away from the Sergeant.

Will not work - you need rank - chain of command etc...even in the business world titles are the rank structure.

No, this wouldn't work.  Leaders would encounter operational difficulties through mission command.

As the military evolved and wars expanded, the need for a larger rank structure followed.

As a caveat, reverting back to our Civil War days and lumping skill level ones together, would be the only way to make this proposal work.