Posted on Jul 23, 2015
6
6
0
This comes from Task & Purpose, where a Marine Veteran talks about getting rid of the divide between Officers and Enlisted.
In the article he brings up some good points and makes a good argument for moving in the direction of getting rid of divide. Personally, I don't see it exactly as he does but that is the great thing about forums.
So I bring it here to RallyPoint, where we have gotten rid of the divide to a point to see what you all think. So should we get rid of the divide? Does it still serve a purpose to maintain it?
In the article he brings up some good points and makes a good argument for moving in the direction of getting rid of divide. Personally, I don't see it exactly as he does but that is the great thing about forums.
So I bring it here to RallyPoint, where we have gotten rid of the divide to a point to see what you all think. So should we get rid of the divide? Does it still serve a purpose to maintain it?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Leadership
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 19
7
7
0
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.
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.
(7)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
Well stated. I have been on both sides and it was an eye opener when I commissioned as its a very different level of responsibility and on-going military education. As you state, each component is needed for the cog to work.
While reading the article I couldn't help but notice i didn't see any real recommendations by the author and I also could not think of any country that has followed the proposed concept. I feel confident if it was workable, somewhere in Europe it would have been adopted by numerous military's.
While reading the article I couldn't help but notice i didn't see any real recommendations by the author and I also could not think of any country that has followed the proposed concept. I feel confident if it was workable, somewhere in Europe it would have been adopted by numerous military's.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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?
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google