Role of Officer vs job of NCM [Merged]

[AndrewWGrieve]

A brief note on the issue of the Platoon Commander, rather than the Platoon Warrant, commanding a Platoon.  A Pl WO, in, for example, the infantry, has been in the infantry for 20 years and has learned exactly how things should be done in a Platoon.  At times, this may lead to inflexibility in method.  The young 2Lt (myself) has never had a command before, and therefore is extremely flexible in his methods and thinking.  There are times when the old method is not necessarily the right method. 
There are times when I have disagreed with my senior NCO and been absolutely wrong to have done so.  I admitted I was wrong and moved on.  There are times when I have disagreed with my senior NCO and done what I felt was right and been extremely successful.  There have been times where if I had merely followed the advice of my senior NCO instead of thought through the situation for myself and made a decision, the Platoon would have collapsed, or people would have been charged unnecessarily.  Decision making is not always about experience, because every environment changes continuously and you must adapt to the situation. 
My own Commanding Officer has mentioned that the ideas of his junior officers are at times far more innovative than his method of solving a problem.  When he was a young junior officer, his innovative ideas often surprised his own commanders.
Being an officer is a combination of problem solving and leadership, and neither problem solving nor leadership rely completely on experience.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The WO does not command the troop or platoon, except in the absense of the officer.  He is there to guide, to provide advice, and perhaps most importandly, to be the buffer in between the men and the officer.  The WO certainly tries to mold the young gentleman, not because the officer cannot think for himself, but the new officer does not have the experience, either in warfighting, or in leadership.

When the platoon/troop officer and the WO "click", you end up with a good subunit.  The opposite of course, also happens.  Occasionally, along comes a sword winner, who honestly thinks he knows better than the Snr NCO's in his outfit.  And can't figure out why his outfit isn't doing as good as other ones.

A good WO can make his officer look good, or bad.  Fortunately, the "Rommels" are few, and are normally quickly brought back crashing to earth.

 

[pbi]

I agree fully with sentiments in these last three posts. While the officer, in the end, must make the decision and wear the results (no NCO likes an officer who can't or won't make a decision) in my opinion/experience the organization runs best when the officer and his WOs/Senior NCOs work on mutual respect and trust. If your crew knows why you did something, and what the underlying reasons are, they'll work alot better. If you treat them like mushrooms, you'll get mushrooms. Just ask yoursellf how you would want to be treated, and then do that. An officer (at any rank or appointment...) who refuses to seek the advice of his WOs/NCOs is not only risking failure, he is also making life hard for himself and undermining the entire way our system is designed to work. We have WOs/NCOs for a reason. However, the officer (especially the young 2Lt) cannot shirk his own responsibility onto his WOs/NCOs, no matter what advice they gave him. He is there to command. My advice to any new officer arriving in a unit is to make sure you establish a good (not buddy/buddy...just good) relationship with your CSM/BSM/SSM and your RSM. It will pay off, believe me. They have lots to teach you. When I first arrived at a battalion, in 1983, we were required to make an office call on the RSM. I didn't regret it.  Cheers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think the important point, made earlier, is that whether in the NCM stream or early in the commissioned-from-civilian stream, the prospective officer will have a chance to endure the sort of trivialities and stupidities and hardships that we would want to leave an impression.  The good leader will remember and make decisions which avoid those sorts of trickle-down effects and the poor leader will not.  All that matters is to spend some time bearing the brunt of apparently poor preparation, thoughtless busywork, etc.

The education policy makes sense.  We don't know which among each year's newly minted 2Lts has the potential to really grasp operations and strategy at the formation and combined/joint level so we should ensure all are equally prepared in the skill of learning.  The payoff is not slightly better regimental officers.  The payoff is officers who are better-prepared for a demanding staff/war college experience.

 

[Bartok5]

"The education policy makes sense.   We don't know which among each year's newly minted 2Lts has the potential to really grasp operations and strategy at the formation and combined/joint level so we should ensure all are equally prepared in the skill of learning.   The payoff is not slightly better regimental officers.   The payoff is officers who are better-prepared for a demanding staff/war college experience."

The above is all fine and well.... Until by virtue of a "goal-post" fixated entry-qualification regimen, you end up excluding potential officers who possess (or would have possessed) the requisite intellectual abilities to perform those "higher level" functions by singular virtue of their non-post-secondary "life experience" or long-term military service.

This is where the entire "post-secondary education" band-wagon really makes me shake my head.   There seems to be a blind expectation that any officer who can fumble through a university degree is somehow already better suited to real-world leadership, problem solving, innate (or studied) appreciation for the lessons of military history, due consideration for "higher concerns", application of tactical and leadership "common sense", analytical consideration of an immediate or long-term situation, etc, etc.   I for one, call utter bullcrap.

I have had the distinct misfortune of enduring far more university-degreed subordinates (eg. Platoon Commanders) who couldn't form simple sentences in the English language than was the reverse.   I have also noted that there is zero correlation between a university degree and the ability to LEAD soldiers during training and operations.   I have said it before, and I will say it again.   A university degree in no way indicates an officer's ability to inspire subordinates, much less apply common sense to typical tactical AND OPERATIONAL problems at ANY LEVEL.   All of which leads me to openly question the veracity of any argument purporting the desirability of academic performance vis-a-vis pure performance and assessed potential as a commissioned military leader.  

Sorry, but my admittedly brief 23.5 years of Infantry service STRONGLY suggests that there is ZERO correlation between post-secondary education and leadership potential/capability.   And I quite deliberately include wiithin the above, the ability to progress (and perform beyond "par") at the post-command levels.   I maintain that the PSE yard-stick for commissioned service is a "red herring".   Every bit as valid as the archaic European ideal that one need be "born into a position of nobility" in order to lead.   That is utter tripe, perpetuated by academics with limited military experience (eg.   Granatstein) who have little to zero understanding of what it means to truly understand, connect with, and lead soldiers on combat operations.

All things being equal, higher education (and the desire to pursue it) is a desirable trait. I will be the first to admit that, nothwithstanding my own experience suggesting that it is NOT an indicator nor enabler of potential aptitude and/or ability.   But when such a meaningless "measuring stick" becomes the institutional criteria by which prospective and serviing officers are judged for enrollment or future progression?   In deliberate contradiction to their performance evaluations which state that they are eminently suitable for unit command and higher?   Well, then we have a fundamental disconnect where "what we know" (eg. performance-based fact) contradicts "what we we would like to believe" (eg. academic supposition).   And therein lies the resigned acceptance of those who were marginalized half-way through their careers and have elected to become the CLS's worst nightmare by pulling the pin at 20 years.   So long, thanks for all the fish....

I am not bitter, but I am a realist.   I understand the terms of service that I joined under have changed in the interim, and I appreciate the fact that I could have bent over backwards and sacrificed my family to adapt to those changes.   From a personal perspective, I wasn't willing to make those sacrifices, and I have zero regrets after the fact.   I therefore have no qualms whatsoever about where I am in the Army, and what I intend to do when I reach the end of my current contract in 2006.   It has been a good run, and I am not the least bit bitter, despite what my concerns about "education as a prerequisite for commissioned leadership" might suggest.   I am admittedly disillusioined about the direction that the Canadian Army is headed in terms of combat capability, but is another story entirely.   I have no regrets career-wise, nor do I feel "hard done by".   The rules changed, and I refused to follow them.   My choice, my results.  

At the same time, anyone who tries to tell me that a university degree serves as a viable "threshhold" for commissioned service is (in my personal view) seriously misdirected.   By instituting such "academic benchmarks", we achieve nothing of qualitative substance.   Idiots with English degrees who can't form simple sentences in the English language become officers.   "Uneducated" citizens with 5 years of honest work and innate labour-related leadership are relegated to the ranks.   Who loses in the long haul?   The answer is, everyone.....

Just some random thoughts....   And no, I don't feel a bit "sorry" for myself.   I am quite happy where I am, thank-you very much.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

A very insightful post, Mark C. 

Our system contrasts sharply with several other nations policies, where the soldier has to prove himself before time, money and scarce resources are spent giving someone a degree.

There are far too many expensive failures in our Forces, with the result of the seemingly thousands of PAFFO's and Education Officers wandering around bases everywhere.  After so much money was spent educating them, and training them, only for them to fail training in their chosen trade.  Some have even admitted to failing on purpose, having discovered that being a soldier isn't "fun" after all.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

 

[pbi]

I am not so sure about Mark C's comments, although I certainly expressed all of them myself at the time that we initially adopted the concept of am all-degreed officer corps. I also (as did many of my non-degreed Cbt A peers at the time) expressed that it was unfair and unrealistic to attempt to draw a correlation between having PSE and being a better leader.

While, on refllection, I would have to agree today that such a correlation is probably false, I think the issue is much too narrowly drawn. While the basic quality and value of a Cbt A officer is his ability to lead, the Army (and indeed the joint service operations beyond the purely Army domain) demand that an officer be able to function in environments in which the style of leadership and thought processes of value in a rifle company have limited value. In particular, the success of any operation bigger than a battle group attack is the product of staff work at various headquarters. Behind that staff work is conceptual thinking, research and brainstorming that is best done by minds trained to thhink more broadly and more deeply, to consider all factors more objectively, and to analyze options more conscientiously than is usually the case at sub-unit level where raw "boots and bayonets" leadership is effective and vital.

While there are without doubt officers possessed of these mental capcacities without benefit of PSE, I believe most strongly that PSE (and indeed PME such as a good staff college) will greatly help to develop these traits. In my own view, an education  with emphasis on humanities, political studies, etc provides the best broad background for the officer who will progress beyond company level.

I do not mean to say that all good officers have degrees, nor that all degreed officers are good. These two positions are clearly wrong. However, I believe that without reservation the mental development required to complete PSE will strengthen an officers' thought processes and give them a broader and more flexible mind. For example, I look at the staff officers here in CJTF76: they are covering a huge waterfront from planning warfighting ops against the enemy along the Pakistan frontier to separating warring local warlords in the western provinces to doing nationbuilding all over the place. There is no place for the narrow, inflexible mind. What is needed here, and what I see at work, are officers whose minds are a joint product of experience (in a number of cases combat experience) and PSE. So far, it seems to work pretty well.

We older officers are still uncomfortable with this idea of a degreed corps, but I for one say we should accept it, a long as PSE forms a part of a balanced process of leadership development, PME, and experience. Cheers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If educational qualifications are merely being employed as gatekeepers, that's unfortunate.  My point is that an officer who has the potential to be a brilliant multinational formation commander in a complex "three block war", or CLS, or CDS, shouldn't top out as a brilliant battle group commander because he didn't have the same preparatory educational advantages as his peers at the start of a particular development period.  If you believe high school education (standardized) + military career path (which may vary considerably) is sufficient, fair enough.

Education should be preparation, not qualification, for subsequent achievement.  To keep the playing field level, everyone should be compelled (and provided opportunity) to obtain that education, so that ultimately everyone is able to achieve their highest potential.

 

[pbi]

Agreed. You said it better than I did. Cheers.

 

[George Wallace]

Very well put Brad.

Some of this country's (and other nations as well) greatest "Captains of Industry" et al did not have much in the way of education.  Some of our finest RSMs and Snr NCO's (quite a few years back, now) are reputed to have had Grade 3 or less.  Those days are gone, and with our current education system those examples would be very rare today, but having an education does not equate to having sound leadership skills or qualities. 

Education certification and Language ability are a couple of requirements that are disenfranchising a lot of talented people.  PC attitudes like these are actually slowing our advancement. 

GW

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Does anyone who is championing the degreed-officer idea really know what goes into a degree?

I have two BAs, and honestly, they could bring them up with the rations these days, at least the ones I got at the U of C were relatively valueless with the exception of that little piece of paper you get, which means UPS et al is more likely to hire you since it presumably means something.

But it doesn't.  I skated through 7 years of University barely having cracked a book - in many cases without even buying the text books.  I sucked at math and didn't like doing complex problems, so I took courses where I didn't have to think too much.  It was three years before I knew what a "thesis" was.  I studied for exams on the day of the exam, on the bus going to school.  I got As in some clases, rarely less than a C+ in the rest - I believe two classes in those seven years, both of them math classes which I didn't realize there was no requirement for me to take.

As a somewhat conservative, and at that time shy, person, I made no friends in University.  I went for a beer once with a classmate, mostly because he was ex PPCLI and a cute blonde I went to high school with had asked both of us to sit down with her.  The rest of the 14,000 people there I had little time or respect for as it struck me as a bastion of deeply liberal thought, and I didn't have the time or inclination to sort the wheat from the chaff.  I made my friends in the Militia, into which I enrolled the month after I started University.

I learned nothing about citizenship, much less how to lead soldiers.  Looking back at the notes and papers I kept, the only skill I truly developed was how to write a precis of six textbooks I signed out of the library for the means of doing a paper.  That's it.

University education is about paying lots of money to the universities, so the tenured professors can afford to do research.  The focus isn't on education, citizen-making, or really in any way dedicated to learning.  At least not in the social sciences - engineering, medical and law students are more connected to the "real world", but anyone with a degree in psychology or philosophy or English, or, like me, in history or communications studies, really hasn't been prepared for a damn thing - and will not have been prepared to be an "officer"  in any sense of the word.  Two years in the ranks of a militia unit would be far better preparation for a potential officer.

My experience may be atypical - maybe other universities or colleges do more to actually educate students, maybe I was just lackadaisacal and didn't demand better (if it was available to me).  But the point being there is no guarantee that a University education will do a single thing to prepare anyone to be an officer.

To me, the idea that PSE is in any way beneficial to a potential officer is ludicrous.

 

[Infanteer]

On an individual, case-by-case basis, a Post-Secondary Education may seem useless, but on the whole, I think it will do much to raise the level of professional thought within the Officer Corps, but only if the education is directed towards the Profession of Arms.  Having a fully degreed Officer Corps with English Literature degrees is, as Michael pointed out, frivolous and does nothing to further professional growth.  If the members of the Officer Corps are indeed members of a professional body as I understand it, then a professional education is required.

Using the University setting is convenient place to start, as it is the conventional structure of post-secondary learning, but we must ensure that what is taught and studied is pertinent to the growth of military professionalism.  From what I understand, RMC has failed to do this so far, only billing itself as a glorified cross between Cadet Camp and a normal University.  I am sure if you asked a group of Doctors or Lawyers what they felt an aspiring member of the profession should learn in their schooling, you'd get a good answer so why can't we do the same here.

If we are to require a professional (ie military) education by all officers of the military, what sort of curriculum should this education be built around in order to ensure maximum professional growth among members of the profession?

I have my own ideas, but I'm pressed for time right now.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm just going to swerve for a second as something I read the other day in a thread stuck in my mind.
I wish I could remember what thread it was but someone wrote the comment that are are lots of Ocdt's running around doing poop jobs while awaiting their training.IE CFRC, etc.
Why not, instead of this, put them in a unit as a private and let them spend that wasted time learning the NCM side?
Surely all that education won't dissapate by doing a layman's job for awhile and hopefully some insight will be gained.
Is there regulations against this kind of idea?

 

[Infanteer]

Bruce, that could work.   I think the real answer is a more effective way of organizing how officers are brought in; with a variety of different methods, a system of limited resources can only deal with a few pipelines (I think we have chosen to build around the RMC schedule).

As for the idea of a military education here are a few of my thoughts on what should be in the curriculum for Officer Candidates in the Army (The Navy and the Air Force will have different requirements due to the fundamental nature of what these officers do).

1. Leadership:   Courses in Leadership should go beyond the basic "Principles of Leadership" that are constantly expounded on (these core values are kind of no brainers anyways).   Courses in the leadership field should also be based on Psychological frameworks (The physiology and behaviour of soldiers in battle, the mental effects of military operations, the effects of battlefield stimuli upon a leaders troops; ie PTSD) Sociological frameworks (Small unit cohesion and bonding, vertical and horizontal relationships of soldiers within the group, the military culture in general) and Management frameworks (Adminstration of your units and soldiers, etc)

2. Introduction to Tactics and Operations:   This group of courses should serve as an introduction to the bread and butter of a Professional Officer's career, winning battles for victory in wars with the endstate of preparing an Cadet mentally to successfully approach his technical training on commanding the basic group of his chosen trade (Ie: Platoon commanders course, etc).   Rather then begin with bombarding Officer Cadets with a host of technical terms and formulaic schema (which I think are wrong anyways, but that's another topic for debate), students of all branches of the Army will be first taught the doctrine of our Land Forces and be given basic conceptual lessons on a "two level up" principle.   Students will start learning about battalion level operations and tactics at a conceptual level.   Once they begin to see the combined arms approach that battalion commanders must make, then more complicated methods can be taught as the lesson progresses down to the platoon and how it fights within the commanders intent.

3. Military History:   This is essential to know who we are; the profession of arms is built upon the edifice of all that has come before us.   However, it should be remembered that we are trying to produce Professional Military Officers here, not Military Historians.   Simply teaching Cadets who, whats, and wheres of major historical conflict is useless.   The effort should be made at teaching the Cadets to understand the thought processes that were involved in victory and defeat.  

The main form of teaching this will be through the use of historic case studies; during the course the Cadets will constantly be challenged to evaluate the situation faced by historic commanders and ask themselves "what options does he have", "what are the limitations and contigencies that this commander face", and "why did he make the decision he made".   I remember PBI explaining how he and his coursemates in Quantico were reading Thucydides; they were not reading it to learn that Athens declared war on Syracuse on Sicily or that Nicias was the commander of the Athenian contingent, but rather to understand, through a historical casestudy, the idea of a hegemonic power (Athens) launching a questionable offensive in another theater in order to gain a strategic advantage against its Spartan enemy.   Thucydides Peloponnesian War is chalk full of useful lessons like this, that is why we still read it after 2,500 years.   It is this kind of approach that allows to truly apply the empirical lessons of history and how to apply them to the military profession.

4. Military Law:   Our unique military society is in part defined by our unique codes of discipline and administration that we live under.   Professional Officers must understand these laws and regulations and how they serve both the Army and the society it protects.   Lessons should look at the history and evolution of military law and its effect on the military culture as a whole.

5. Government and Society:   Professional military officers must understand that their basic obligation as a professional is to master competence of the management of violence on behalf of the state.   With that in mind, the obligations of an Officer towards the state and the population he serves must be reinforced.   Topics such as civics, civil-military relations, The DND and NDHQ, and the role of the Military in Canada should be included to ensure that the Cadet has a clear picture of the profession he is undertaking.

6. Languages:   French is required of our Officers, so naturally it could be included here.   But this does not eliminate the opportunity for other Languages to be taught.   Learning a variety of different languages will allow the Officer Corps as a whole to get a clearer "window" into the workings of other cultures.   This is an essential ability when aimed towards a form of professional development, as a multi-fluent Officer Corps can understand the cultural, military, and contemporary texts that help to drive and define the actions taken by both our potential allies and our enemies.

7. Other Topics:   It is important to offer other topics, potentially the ability to minor in, for Cadets to study, as the interdisciplinary nature of the Military Science or Art draws from all aspects of human society.   As an example, Dr. Jonathan Shay has written two excellent books on the psychological effects of soldiers through a combination of his work with Vietnam Veterans suffering from PTSD and by using material from the Classical Greek epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey (They are Achilles in Vietnam and Odysseus in America; I highly recommend them both to any soldier).   Obviously, a Cadet can pursue interests in History, Literature, Economics, etc, etc to broaden his horizons.

All these fit well under the conventional undergraduate career, however, they are specially directed towards building a professional military officer.   Many of these topics will be covered under a PO check withing courses throughout the Phase Training of Military Officers, but I think it is vital to teach them in a rigerous academic setting in order to allow Cadets to contemplate on what they are learning and to provide research and written work to further develop their understanding of the issues.   We must teach our Officers on how to think about all the important issues that they will deal with, not simply provide them with a "Technical Course" approach of filling the toilet with a gamut of information, checking the box once they pass a simple test, and flushing it down the drain for the next load of information; how does this set up our officers to critically think and understand issues that are related to the military profession?

Many of these courses will involve work outside of the conventional classroom setting using TEWT's, officer "tours", and visiting other places relevent to the course of study.   Of course, these courses apply mainly to Officers who will be involved in the Combat Arms and the Combat Support Branches; those in more technical branches, after being given the basic fundamentals of what their Commission requires, can be transferred into a relevent specialist program (perhaps at a civilian university if required).   As well, there should be a structure in place to give those who come into the program with a undergraduate degree an accelerated start, so as utilize the education they already have worked towards.

Does anyone feel this is the wrong approach to training professionals or that I've missed something?   Interested on the replys.

Cheers,
Infanteer.

 

[pbi]

Infanteer: I am with you on your latest post. I particularly agree with your emphasis on developing mental capabilities and skill sets vice the good old Army practice of stuffing the brain like a Christmas turkey full of useless factoids that will  be forgotten five minutes after the exam is written. I don't think you have missed anything. Cheers.

 

[pbi]

Michael Dorosh's observation that university benefitted him little or nothing at all does not affect my position in any way. I already stated that it is quite clear that not all degreed officers are good. Likewise not all degreed lawyers, doctors, architects,philosophers priests or diplomats are good. Yet, no-one would seriously suggest that any of those professions would abandon post-secondary education requirements.   Nor, would any right-minded person expect to be able to demand admission to those professions without it.

As Michael points out, one can go through university (not once, apparently, but twice...) and not benefit in any significant manner. I suppose, then, that it is equally true that one could go through any number of potentially enriching life experiences and just miss the point of the whole thing. That certainly would be a waste of time and money, but I have to say that what matters is not really what university makes of you, but what you choose to make of university. University is a provider of tools and opportunities. Some will go through it and go on to do great things. Some will go through it and go on to work in the car wash. Depends on what you want to do with it.

I remain steadfast in my belief that education is always preferable to ignorance, and that while you will never learn in university how to launch a combat team attack, that is simply too narrow a criteria to use as a means to dismiss the university requirement as frivolous, unfair, or "PC". What we need is an approach that facilitates serving officers getting degrees, educating soldiers selected for commissioning, and encouraging the entry of degreed applicants. There is no inherent need in any of this to downplay the value of leadership nor of the human traits that make us good soldiers and good officers, any more than one could discount the traits that make people good surgeons, diplomats or religious leaders. All are parts of the whole. We have just gone on so long in our old comfortable rut that we think (like we always do) that that's the way it's supposed to be. It isn't. Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael Dorosh's observation that university benefitted him little or nothing at all does not affect my position in any way. I already stated that it is quite clear that not all degreed officers are good. Likewise not all degreed lawyers, doctors, architects,philosophers priests or diplomats are good. Yet, no-one would seriously suggest that any of those professions would abandon post-secondary education requirements.  Nor, would any right-minded person expect to be able to demand admission to those professions without it.

As Michael points out, one can go through university (not once, apparently, but twice...) and not benefit in any significant manner. I suppose, then, that it is equally true that one could go through any number of potentially enriching life experiences and just miss the point of the whole thing. That certainly would be a waste of time and money, but I have to say that what matters is not really what university makes of you, but what you choose to make of university. University is a provider of tools and opportunities. Some will go through it and go on to do great things. Some will go through it and go on to work in the car wash. Depends on what you want to do with it.

I remain steadfast in my belief that education is always preferable to ignorance, and that while you will never learn in university how to launch a combat team attack, that is simply too narrow a criteria to use as a means to dismiss the university requirement as frivolous, unfair, or "PC". What we need is an approach that facilitates serving officers getting degrees, educating soldiers selected for commissioning, and encouraging the entry of degreed applicants. There is no inherent need in any of this to downplay the value of leadership nor of the human traits that make us good soldiers and good officers, any more than one could discount the traits that make people good surgeons, diplomats or religious leaders. All are parts of the whole. We have just gone on so long in our old comfortable rut that we think (like we always do) that that's the way it's supposed to be. It isn't. Cheers.

University, by its nature, offers no benefits to the potential military officer that can't be found elsewhere.  Encourage post secondary education, sure.  Demand it?  You're just limiting yourself, since you also admit that university will mean different things to different people.  You also admit university will not teach anything about the nuts and bolts of the military profession to the potential officer.

Infanteer's proposal makes sense - requiring a performing arts degree in order to be a shop manager in a service battalion is pretty much out to lunch. 

You've done nothing but speak in vague generalities, perhaps if you gave an example of some of these "tools and opportunities" university is supposed to "provide" you might make a stronger case, but frankly, you speak as if you've never set foot in one but rather read about one on the internet at some point, or perhaps are on the board of governors of one in financial trouble.

I do like the old General Staff system, and perhaps we need to return to that.  Sort of a two-tiered officer structure?

The German officer candidate in the first part of the 20th Century (and maybe post WW II, I don't know) served in a field unit as an Officer Aspirrant, as a junior NCM, then as a junior NCO, a senior NCO and finally passed out as an officer.  In our system, they may or may not serve as NCMs without aspirant status, and once they signal their intention to become an officer, the Officer Cadet is plucked from the ranks and given over to the officers.  He has no commissioned status, but he has all the priveleges of the officers and does little or no work with the "men" nor does he have supervisory status from what I can tell.  I would suggest a change to the German system, where he works with the men for a year or two, gaining in supervisory experience and status along the way - make an officer cadet have three grades - equal to a private, to a Master Corporal, and to a Warrant Officer, so he can experience small party leadership in a "real" setting.

Then the second class - the General Staff class.  The professional officer, for whom a post-secondary education is required, preferably along the lines of Infanteer's model.  Stick with the current Officer Cadet status for him, have him concentrate on operations, planning, logistics, history, etc.  Mold him to be a high level commander, or senior staff officer.  He's the one who "needs" university, not a junior troop leader.

 

[pbi]

University, by its nature, offers no benefits to the potential military officer that can't be found elsewhere.   Encourage post secondary education, sure.   Demand it?   You're just limiting yourself, since you also admit that university will mean different things to different people.

I fail to understand how education could be limiting. This is a contradiction in terms, in my opinion. I do agree that some of the benefits of post secondary education can be gained elsewhere, but nowhere in so compact and focused a manner except possibly a very good staff college, which I could accept but for the fact that the education delivered at staff college tends to be somewhat narrow.

You also admit university will not teach anything about the nuts and bolts of the military profession to the potential officer.

Yes, I did: I've said that twice now. However I've also said that that is not the point of obtaining a degree, per se. The only cases in which the"nuts and bolts" are directly transferable from PSE are those of officers in technical specialties. In my opinion the combat arms officer (who forms the backbone of the command and staff structure of any Army) gains from the second order effects of PSE, which I have described previously.

Infanteer's proposal makes sense - requiring a performing arts degree in order to be a shop manager in a service battalion is pretty much out to lunch.

 

Yes, of course it is. That really isn't the point, either.

You've done nothing but speak in vague generalities, perhaps if you gave an example of some of these "tools and opportunities" university is supposed to "provide" you might make a stronger case, but frankly, you speak as if you've never set foot in one but rather read about one on the internet at some point, or perhaps are on the board of governors of one in financial trouble.

My goodness-that was rather stiff, wasn't it? I've already explained elsewhere what I believe the benefits are: they are preciesly those broad attributes that you dismiss as "vague generalities". In my mind, they are the most valuable (although not the only) things that PSE can bestow, and IMHO they are developed most effectively by an arts or humanities-centred education, although I certainly am not dismissing the hard sciences.   I hold a BA in Political Studies and Psychology, and I have completed the residency USMC Command and Staff College (97/98) which is certified as a post-graduate program in the US. I came to PSE quite late in life, getting my degree after 26 years of non- and -commissioned service.

I do like the old General Staff system, and perhaps we need to return to that.   Sort of a two-tiered officer structure?

We never had this system in our Army. We have considered it, but have never adopted it.

The German officer candidate in the first part of the 20th Century (and maybe post WW II, I don't know) served in a field unit as an Officer Aspirrant, as a junior NCM, then as a junior NCO, a senior NCO and finally passed out as an officer.

I wonder what reference you are basing this on. In fact, I think you will find that except in wartime, most early 20th century German officers were products of cadet academies like Lichterfelde.   I think you are referring to the Offiziere Anwarter system that brought officer candidates through the ranks.  Before WWI, only a limited number of officers came from the ranks. In WWI, the pressure of officer casualties and the huge size of the Army required the Germans to commission men that they ordinarily would not have. During the post 1919 Weimar Republic, I believe that the Reichsheer NCO development process would have taken too long to produce officers to permit them to be cycled through the NCO ranks as you have suggested. In WWII, the Offiziere Anwarter system was used, as was mass commissioning of NCOs.

In our system, they may or may not serve as NCMs without aspirant status, and once they signal their intention to become an officer, the Officer Cadet is plucked from the ranks and given over to the officers.

"Given over to the officers..." Blindfolded, kicking and screaming, no doubt.   A horrid fate! Actually, most of his initial training will be done by NCOs, who will continue to train him at least to company grade appointment.

He has no commissioned status, but he has all the priveleges of the officers

Hmmm-I don't recall too many "priveliges"   as an Officer Candiate. In fact, I seem to recall looking back with fond regret on my lost status as an NCO.

and does little or no work with the "men" nor does he have supervisory status from what I can tell.

Nor should he, in my opinion, at that level of experience. (Hence my original suggestion about requiring officers to do time in the ranks)

I would suggest a change to the German system, where he works with the men for a year or two, gaining in supervisory experience and status along the way - make an officer cadet have three grades - equal to a private, to a Master Corporal, and to a Warrant Officer, so he can experience small party leadership in a "real" setting.

As I said earlier, I don't think this is actually the "German system". I'll have to ask the German guys here.

Then the second class - the General Staff class.   The professional officer, for whom a post-secondary education is required, preferably along the lines of Infanteer's model.    Stick with the current Officer Cadet status for him, have him concentrate on operations, planning, logistics, history, etc.   Mold him to be a high level commander, or senior staff officer.   He's the one who "needs" university, not a junior troop leader.

I'm not sure what Army you believe you are modelling this on, but it certainly was not the German Army of either WW, or of today. Under the German system, officers moved between General Staff and troop command appointments for almost their entire careers. They still do it (I work with several German officers here in ISAF), and for the same reason we do: the professional health of the Army. Strictly dividing the command stream from the staff stream will result in troop leading being done by parochial ignoramuses, and staff work being done by cloistered, detached airheads who never had mud on their boots. Your closing comment reveals the narrow focus I spoke of: officers do not remain as "junior troop leaders": they move on to serve the Army in other, broader ways.If we offer PSE only to those groomed for higher office, we create two classes of officers again. The benefits of PSE apply to all officers, if only they will open their minds to accept that fact. Cheers.

 

[pbi]

OK: I was wrong on the officer system in the German Army today. Here is the answer my boss gave me:

"A german officer gos through the ranks. He starts as a Gefreiter, then as
something comparable to an Unteroffizier, but if you will get an officer
they call it "Fahnenjunker" and then Faehnrich. After 3 yeras he will become
a second lieutenant (first officer rank). In his time as Fahnenjunker and
Faehnrich he is part of the NCO community in the different Bn or coys or
regiments. This is the normal way."

My bad. Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I fail to understand how education could be limiting. This is a contradiction in terms, in my opinion. I do agree that some of the benefits of post secondary education can be gained elsewhere, but nowhere in so compact and focused a manner except possibly a very good staff college, which I could accept but for the fact that the education delivered at staff college tends to be somewhat narrow.

Which ones?  Again, you speak in nothing but generalities.

Yes, I did: I've said that twice now. However I've also said that that is not the point of obtaining a degree, per se. The only cases in which the"nuts and bolts" are directly transferable from PSE are those of officers in technical specialties. In my opinion the combat arms officer (who forms the backbone of the command and staff structure of any Army) gains from the second order effects of PSE, which I have described previously.

Can you repeat them here?  I don't recall seeing such a description.

My goodness-that was rather stiff, wasn't it? I've already explained elsewhere what I believe the benefits are: they are preciesly those broad attributes that you dismiss as "vague generalities". In my mind, they are the most valuable (although not the only) things that PSE can bestow, and IMHO they are developed most effectively by an arts or humanities-centred education, although I certainly am not dismissing the hard sciences.  I hold a BA in Political Studies and Psychology, and I have completed the residency USMC Command and Staff College (97/98) which is certified as a post-graduate program in the US. I came to PSE quite late in life, getting my degree after 26 years of non- and -commissioned service.

Didn't intend to be harsh, but you still haven't explained these "broad attributes".  Call them vague generalities, broad attributes, or universityish stuff, I care little what label you apply, just tell us what you mean.  You haven't given a single tangible benefit to support your contention that PSE is essential for an officer.

I wonder what reference you are basing this on. In fact, I think you will find that except in wartime, most early 20th century German officers were products of cadet academies like Lichterfelde.  I think you are referring to the Offiziere Anwarter system that brought officer candidates through the ranks. Before WWI, only a limited number of officers came from the ranks. In WWI, the pressure of officer casualties and the huge size of the Army required the Germans to commission men that they ordinarily would not have. During the post 1919 Weimar Republic, I believe that the Reichsheer NCO development process would have taken too long to produce officers to permit them to be cycled through the NCO ranks as you have suggested. In WWII, the Offiziere Anwarter system was used, as was mass commissioning of NCOs.

I see you've addressed this with your last post.  There is info on the German officer candidate system in WW II at my website at http://www.deutschesoldaten.com

"Given over to the officers..." Blindfolded, kicking and screaming, no doubt.  A horrid fate! Actually, most of his initial training will be done by NCOs, who will continue to train him at least to company grade appointment.

Formal training as in courses, but when he is with his unit, he is relegated to the bottom of the pile of the officers list and given menial taskings, no?

Hmmm-I don't recall too many "priveliges"  as an Officer Candiate. In fact, I seem to recall looking back with fond regret on my lost status as an NCO.

Well, I meant the little stuff like eating in the officers mess rather than with the junior ranks, attending mess functions - privileges not really the correct word. 

As I said earlier, I don't think this is actually the "German system". I'll have to ask the German guys here.

I see you've addressed this earlier.

I'm not sure what Army you believe you are modelling this on, but it certainly was not the German Army of either WW, or of today.

Wasn't modelling it on anything, just a proposal.

.If we offer PSE only to those groomed for higher office, we create two classes of officers again. The benefits of PSE apply to all officers, if only they will open their minds to accept that fact. Cheers.

You still haven't mentioned what a single one of those benefits might be, and proven that it comes solely from post secondary education.  I am sure that the entire officer corps could agree that wearing pink underwear is beneficial and essential too, if (in your words) "they will (only) open their minds to accept that fact."

So now that you've concentrated on picking the historical flyshit from the pepper in my post, how about addressing the question - what benefits does the officer get from PSE and why are they essential to him?