Posted on Feb 13, 2017
COL Strategic Plans Chief
21.4K
152
84
27
27
0
Ec1bcbe8
I was promoted to Colonel and I question the necessity. I was not selected to command and neither were 60% or more of my peers. If a Colonel is not going to command, why not keep them a Lieutenant Colonel and save all those millions of dollars. Maybe pay Sergeants more. Are we so concerned over rank that we promote people because they work for a General? Is it time to take officers down a rank?
Posted in these groups: Rank RankEnlisted military slide 2015 Personnel70px us o6 insignia.svg COL
Avatar feed
Responses: 28
COL Strategic Plans Chief
14
14
0
A disclaimer...I am not complaining about the command selection system here. I know everyone who was selected to command and they are amazing officers. This is about a perception that the Army is so rank heavy that it must promote lieutenant colonels that it is not going to put into command positions (thus shutting them out of continued promotion chances). Either we are too rank heavy (from the 4 star level on down to about...major) and it has a trickle down effect or we are promoting officers for the sake of maintaining them (throwing them a bone to keep them in for as long as possible). It just seems to me that the military could use the money spent on Colonels who are not going to be competitive any longer towards a better purpose. Imagine the money which could be spent on pay raises for enlisted by taking all the non-competitive LTC's out of the promotion mix.
(14)
Comment
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
LTC Stephen C.
7 y
Congratulations, COL (Join to see)! I'm most happy for you! Everything you say makes perfect sense, and I don't take issue with any of it.
However, who knows, maybe you'll eventually get that O-6 command, and bingo, you're an O-7!
Regardless, I'd keep this argument on the down low at least until you retire! :)
(3)
Reply
(0)
COL Strategic Plans Chief
COL (Join to see)
7 y
LTC Stephen C., thanks. I've never kept anything on the DL. That's probably one reason I did not get picked up. I speak to power. It gets me in hot water some times.
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CAPT Kevin B.
6
6
0
"Too Many" would be quite a discussion in other services around the world. We are more top heavy than Commonwealth services but far less top heavy as say Cambodia where a two star has, wait for it, maybe 700 people. So if you get away from billets with say 4-5 Battalions of O-5's in charge that you run, there's not much out there other than specialty and staff stuff. So some of it is having a body count of O-6 slots that creates some promotion opportunity and enough of a pool to select a decent star from. I'm staff corps, so my commands were much smaller on body count but high end on contracting, environment, etc. The question then gets to how much, how complex, and AOR. Do you have enough horsepower to make it happen with the trigger puller side? Do you have the cajones to buck up against a stupid Flag that wants to give you mission without force protection? Some of it is having enough rank to protect your people from head case Alpha Hotels. So the current formula mix seems to work but there hasn't been much of a decent analysis to evaluate changing the structure. I will say, the Commonwealth services tend to have lower ranks with more responsibility, but then I've seen their relative compensation package compared with the other folk at home. Different culture, different story.

It did feel strange being in Australia and rating an aide/driver. They made me use them because that's how it's done there. Turned out the aide/driver took very good care of me and I was able to get vastly more done in a work day given the pace of the large scale multinational work being done.
(6)
Comment
(0)
COL Strategic Plans Chief
COL (Join to see)
7 y
CAPT Kevin B., interesting perspective. I do believe we have to have Colonels to get Generals...but I don't think we need half of what we have. If we cut the promotion rate to Colonel by 50%, we'd still have a 10% overage in "non-select" Colonels. Assuming that the 50% you select for promotion are the TOP half, you still have the same population we are selecting for GO...without the bloat of Colonels. If we had a military based on the Prussian General Staff ideals, then having this many Colonels might make sense. There, it's not Command that distinguishes the officer, but membership in the General Staff.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Unit Supply Specialist
6
6
0
Sir, I fully agree with you, specifically at a one star or two star command. Why do we need a Full Bird Colonel, for each one of General Staff Sections (G-Shops)? I have been a G4 and J4 NCOIC, and see no good reason for the requirement of an O-6 OIC. A Light Colonel or better yet, a Major would be more then sufficient.
(6)
Comment
(0)
COL Strategic Plans Chief
COL (Join to see)
7 y
LTC John Weisner - I agree that the Army is top heavy in those positions. The thing is...they are mostly staff positions and not command positions. Why not make those positions COL positions for those colonels who didn't make it to GO. Still post BDE CMD, but didn't make that 1% cut line. NDAA17 is going to take some of the 4 star generals off the plate. Hopefully that trickles down to the rest of the Army.
(2)
Reply
(0)
COL William Oseles
COL William Oseles
5 y
Since most enlisted will never be First Sergeants shall we keep them privates instead? Think of all the money that would be saved.
Go back to Propay since they do not need the rank.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Unit Supply Specialist
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Unit Supply Specialist
MSG (Join to see)
5 y
COL William Oseles you’re right, too many chiefs and not enough indians, getting promoted just for the sake of keeping the club going.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close