>Man the frick up you sound like a Russian.
I hope so. Have you seen the Russian Army's training video? They made the US snowflake brigade look like homosexuals. >Hurr they are losing in Ukraine
Are they? The israelite'd states of fatland fights their wars with drones - The pussy way.
Ah so a super-duper glorified welfare bunny. That's all servicemen are...cannon fodder for the israelite and welfare quanzz
>Man the frick up you sound like a Russian.
I hope so. Have you seen the Russian Army's training video? They made the US snowflake brigade look like homosexuals. >Hurr they are losing in Ukraine
Are they? The israelite'd states of fatland fights their wars with drones - The pussy way.
The problem is that the officer corps is too distanced from enlisted personnel. Think that military service should be more like an internship. Everyone does four years as enlisted, and then you get the option to either go NCO or O, with O selection being reserved for those who were out performers.
Service for officership.
It would also weed out a lot of the israelites in officer service which would naturally lead to less politics and race/sex based diversity quota promotions.
Right now you either have to be a Black person, a israelite, or a female to consider joining.
I hate to break it to you, but officers do need to be distant from enlisted personnel. If they're too attached, they can't properly lead them. Officers aren't your boys, they're your leaders. They have to make tough decisions that will cost lives.
That doesn't mean they should be impersonal or buttholes tho
Every lieutenant I had couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag
Doing four years in college and then however long OCS is doesn't actually prepare you to be a "leader", you're just a signature while your platoon sergeants and squad leaders actually run the platoon
>Doing four years in college and then however long OCS is doesn't actually prepare you to be a "leader", you're just a signature while your platoon sergeants and squad leaders actually run the platoon
Yea no shit guy. That literally tell us this in OCS. It actually turns out that being a 2LT isn't the peak of an officer's career. From your perspective as a PFC the only officers you ever talk to are LTs, so you don't see the long term growth of that officer into CPT/MAJ/LTC.
An officer spends 3 to 4 years as a LT. Once you hit CPT people expect you to know what the frick is going on.
Funny that captains were even more useless than lieutenants, then. Giving a libo brief and going to meetings doesn't count as leadership either. Actually accomplishing a mission is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Everything you did in the military was because an officer told you to or let it happen. You don't have to see what Company Commander is doing, but he is most likely always doing something. Probably your NJP-ing your stupid ass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>thinking the Company Commander even writes his own NJPs
He's literally only there to read from a script and do what his 1stsgt says
You picked quite possibly the best example I can think of in regards to "officers are only there to fill a chair"
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know about the USMC but army officers definitely write their own NJP and UCMJ actions wtf. You sound like you're on the wrong side of dunning-kruger lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know how the army works but if any senior enlisted is letting his officer write NJPs they're wrong, straight up
That's like half of what the E-8 schoolhouse is about
2 years ago
Anonymous
whattt? The marines are wild. The commander is the only person in an army unit with punishment/administrative action authority. Even when he delegates that task to an officer junior to him or an NCO it falls on him to make sure it's done properly. I didn't know that about the marine corps (if its true).
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are correct that the final decision of the punishment falls to the company/battalion commander. But what I was saying is that the CO or the BC will NEVER write the NJP proper. Like I said in the post you replied to, the majority of the 1stsgt's course is basically learning how to do paperwork.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lol. Lmao even. You think 1SGs could write article 15s?
A colonel once told me officerhood is essentially apprenticeship. A LT is basically apprenticing to be a captain, a captain is learning to be a major, etc etc.
The most accurate descriptor I've ever heard for the officer corps was that they're glorified managers.
Some of them actually do have a vital function, but most of them are simply there to sponge up a paycheck while actual workers and supervisors accomplish what needs to be done
Which is why it's extremely funny when people like
I hate to break it to you, but officers do need to be distant from enlisted personnel. If they're too attached, they can't properly lead them. Officers aren't your boys, they're your leaders. They have to make tough decisions that will cost lives.
That doesn't mean they should be impersonal or buttholes tho
who don't know what they're talking about spout off about officers being "leaders"
2 years ago
Anonymous
Most of everyone in the military is there to soak up a paycheck with the exception of special operators and fighter pilots, officers arent unique in that regard
A company CO and XO have, realistically, the same leadership abilities as a squad leader. Think of how many people actually "answer" to them in a traditional sense- the platoon commanders and sergeants. Of those, the platoon sergeants almost certainly know more about what they're doing than the XO, since they have 8+ years of experience compared to maybe the XO's one or two actually in the military, so they're usually left to their own devices.
Which means the Company Commander is essentially only actually responsible for the various butterbars under his command. Not exactly impressive
The xo is there to make logistics work, nobody in their right mind would ask them to lead a platoon assault (though they should know how to do this). Its part of the apprenticeship - a huge portion of what officers do is logistics. Nobody ITT has mentioned the property book for example - this unique piece of hell sits squarely on the officers and is worse than being shot at.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>most of the military is there to soak up a paycheck
That's only true if you're looking at the past five years. Extend the timeline out even a little bit further and there were still units doing combat deployments. Just because 11th Marine Regiment hasn't gone anywhere recently doesn't mean they're useless.
And I'm aware of an officer's duty in regards to logistics. What I've been disputing in this thread is that officers are "leaders". Because they really aren't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is the President a leader?
2 years ago
Anonymous
To his political party? Yes.
To the military? Not really.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you seem to be confusing titles with competence
which appears to be a fricking epidemic among commissioned officers
2 years ago
Anonymous
Moving the goalposts. A leader in this case is a position. Whether or not they are a good or bad leader is irrelevant. They are still a leader and are tasked with that responsibility.
2 years ago
Anonymous
those weren't my goalposts, you've failed to meet either of them though (the other anon's goalposts were that officers were leaders, which you haven't established outside saying they have the responsibility of leadership - unless you want to posit that the military command apparatus meets all of its responsibilities)
2 years ago
Anonymous
I get it anon, you're super butthurt about officers. But do you think it's mere coincidence they are the ones in charge? They are tasked with leadership. Is a command sergeant major not a leader because he's so far up he doesn't directly work with PFCs?
2 years ago
Anonymous
i'm in agreement with
I think you don't understand what a "leader" is. The president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military and is in command of the joint chiefs of staff, but he's not a "leader" to them.
, here, you genuinely don't understand what leadership is
having the "leader" title and its responsibilities doesn't make you a competent leader, and lacking the title doesn't preclude competent leadership.
you've not really provided any evidence that officership even correlates with leadership competence, you just keep repeating their title's theoretical responsibilities
2 years ago
Anonymous
Some leaders are competent and some are not. Also this started with anon pointing out officers needed to be distant from enlisted in order to properly lead. That is correct. And in this context "lead" is a position. Has nothing to do with competence.
2 years ago
Anonymous
well if the best you can do is waffle, i suppose that's still an improvement over "the rank says they need leadership so they must have it"
"lead" is not a position in any context, it is an action. leadership is a quality of that action. a leader is, in this discussion (because this discussion is not a simple recitation of the responsibilities of a given rank), one in possession of quality leadership skills.
a disconnect from the targets of leadership implies the opposite of competent leadership, regardless of how much officers would like to convince themselves that their ignorance and intractability to their own charges is a necessary laziness to the function of their positions (that is not correct)
although i suppose it is entirely consistent with the quality of leadership offered by officers to believe their rank has nothing to do with competence
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a leader is, in this discussion (because this discussion is not a simple recitation of the responsibilities of a given rank), one in possession of quality leadership skills.
No, you made that up. The discussion is about officers needing to be distant from enlisted in order to lead properly. And they do. >a disconnect from the targets of leadership implies the opposite of competent leadership, regardless of how much officers would like to convince themselves that their ignorance and intractability to their own charges
No. In fact, it's actually illegal for officers to be buddy-buddy with enlisted. That's called fraternization. The military has made it like this for a purpose.
Also, I'm not an officer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you made the entire discussion up because i've clearly shat up the "read the dictionary" part of the discussion
you're definitely officer material
>actually illegal for officers to be buddy-buddy with enlisted >thinks the scale of relationship with subordinates is a binary between aloof disconnection and literally fricking them
your autism belongs here
2 years ago
Anonymous
>dictionary >Lead: be in charge or command of.
In the case of the commanding the officers need to do necessitates a distance between them and enlisted.
Lt. Col was canned and career ended because he was too friendly with the enlisted.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>thread complaining about officers >literally full of officers or officer wannabees complaining
discussions like these make me wonder why command schools even exist
is it too much to just do the fricking job? it's not like conscription's a real thing anymore, you've kinda got to choose to be there
also, you may want to uh... actually read that article lol. it's not exactly supportive of your point
2 years ago
Anonymous
>read that article
Did you? He was too friendly with his enlisted. He got his career ended. My point was that being too friendly with your enlisted is fraternization. That perfectly illustrates it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the whole article is complaining that "fraternization" doesn't have a useful meaning - hell, the recommendation made was for fricking counseling, not getting shitcanned: >The investigation suggested "counseling and remedial training" as punishment. And yet, instead of that relatively light consequence, Perry was instead booted from command, moved across base, ordered to have no interaction with the squadron, given a career ending evaluation and PCSed to another duty station.
makes me inclined to believe the implications the article makes are correct and "fraternization" was just the public line for the actual reason he got yeeted. kind of undermines using it as an example for the "perils of fraternization"
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's easy to talk shit when you've never been in that position. The people that gripe the most about incompetent leaders tend to incompetent leaders themselves when the chips are down.
You have literally offered nothing constructive to this discussion since you started posting. I bet you were just a typical shamming E4 when you were in too, mad that officers sat in BN HQ playing on their phones while you swept rocks. If it's so easy, get a degree, go tonOCS/ROTC and do it yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
it's ultimately a philosophical discussion about the nature of leadership and the problems caused by the cases where a position with leadership responsibilities is held by an individual lacking leadership competence
i've never been stupid enough to enlist. you sound weirdly defensive, why?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He's a neverserve
I'm leaving this thread. You aren't worth talking to. You're complaining about officers because of memes you've seen in movies. Frick outta here dude.
You watched Generation Kill for the first time and think you understand what the military is supposed to be like.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he's never been in
Wow frick off moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
High fricking lel. The "y-you haven't done it yourself" argument is easily the most pathetic one. I've been a fly on the wall in plenty of battalion staff meetings and they're 80% bullshit, 20% operation logistics, and 0% actual leadership.
I don't understand why officers get so incredibly buttmad when I point out that they're middle managers. You'd think the paycheck and people saluting would dull the blow, but I guess there's something about the chip on the shoulder over not enlisting that never goes away
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I've been a fly on the wall in plenty of battalion staff meetings
So you weren't contributing shit? >and they're 80% bullshit
Aka things you literally didn't understand
>0% actual leadership
Yea because staff officers lead their staff sections not the entire battalion
2 years ago
Anonymous
Depends on what you mean by contributing shit. My company guns was a drunk so I had to go to the battalion ops meetings for a couple weeks
And yoyre misunderstanding what i mean by bullshit. It was just petty sniping and posturing to try and look good in front of the XO.... like all middle mamagement sycophants do
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think you don't understand what a "leader" is. The president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military and is in command of the joint chiefs of staff, but he's not a "leader" to them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Nobody ITT has mentioned the property book for example - this unique piece of hell sits squarely on the officers and is worse than being shot at.
I could have mentioned it, but he wouldn't understand it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Soldiers always think officers don't do anything like they just show up to a range with portashitters, safeties, and rounds that just magically appeared lmao
>Every lieutenant I had couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag
No shit moron. They're learning how to lead. That's why they start as just a platoon leader with the commander and XO above them.
A company CO and XO have, realistically, the same leadership abilities as a squad leader. Think of how many people actually "answer" to them in a traditional sense- the platoon commanders and sergeants. Of those, the platoon sergeants almost certainly know more about what they're doing than the XO, since they have 8+ years of experience compared to maybe the XO's one or two actually in the military, so they're usually left to their own devices.
Which means the Company Commander is essentially only actually responsible for the various butterbars under his command. Not exactly impressive
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Think of how many people actually "answer" to them in a traditional sense- the platoon commanders and sergeants.
Yes, that's how chain of command works. Why should PVT Schmuckatelli be bothering the commander? >Which means the Company Commander is essentially only actually responsible
The company commander is responsible for the company and everything that happens within it. When battalion asks why is your company so fricked up and non-deployable the commander has to answer for that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes, that's how chain of command works. Why should PVT Schmuckatelli be bothering the commander?
I'm glad you agree that the CO has very little influence on the day-to-day operation of the company. You might even call him... a figurehead?
>The company commander is responsible for the company and everything that happens within it. When battalion asks why is your company so fricked up and non-deployable the commander has to answer for that.
You're right that the CO is ostensibly "responsible" for the company, but absolutely nobody in the company looks to him for leadership or guidance, because of that little thing called chain-of-command you mentioned before.
>hate to break it to you >spends the rest of the post fellating the necessity of the group whose incompetence literally creates the need for a functioning NCO corps
actual leaders don't give a shit about whether or not they have a commission, they just do the fricking job
No. Only 7% of enlisted have a degree. Obviously that's including lower enlisted but clearly NCOs aren't bringing the numbers up much.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NCOs are above E-3 in every branch, are they not? i believe that varies some, but i was under the impression the distribution of pay grades decreases as you go up - meaning NCOs aren't really a useful shorthand for "all enlisted"
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, air force is E-5. Army you can be an NCO at E-4 by becoming a corporal but those basically don't exist, it's effectively also E-5. Marines, Navy and coast guard is E-4 however.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so i was technically correct, those are all above E-3 😛
seems like there would be so many E-1 through E-4s that everything above it might literally be <10% of the total positions, hence
No. Only 7% of enlisted have a degree. Obviously that's including lower enlisted but clearly NCOs aren't bringing the numbers up much.
not being super useful in determining how many NCOs have degrees (but that's just me assuming about the grade distribution)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Army you can be an NCO at E-4 by becoming a corporal but those basically don't exist,
You definitely haven't served in the last five years homie. Every E-4 that completes BLC (used to be WLC) and passes the board is a CPL.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm in right now. Everyone just goes SPC to SGT.
2 years ago
Anonymous
MILPER came out like two years ago, you HAVE to pin CPL if you pass the board and BLC.
Enlisted people are actual morons. Officers are high IQ (relatively, and certainly if they’re academy). You want smart people leading your military not lower class meth babies. If you force officers to go enlisted first (and slum it with 90 IQ rednecks and paroles) then the smart set won’t join the military and it’s leadership will suffer.
This guy reminds me of why I got the duck out after four years. He probably has at least a couple failed marriages and kids that fricking hate his guys for not being around.
that’s a sergeant major tho
Ah so a super-duper glorified welfare bunny. That's all servicemen are...cannon fodder for the israelite and welfare quanzz
Aww poor widdle boot crying to his internet friends cause he got smoked today? Man the frick up you sound like a Russian.
>Man the frick up you sound like a Russian.
I hope so. Have you seen the Russian Army's training video? They made the US snowflake brigade look like homosexuals.
>Hurr they are losing in Ukraine
Are they? The israelite'd states of fatland fights their wars with drones - The pussy way.
Is this bait or just subhuman thought processes
Of course it's bait
both
This is funny bait but it feels like a guy from 2020 got transported 2 years into the future with no explanation
Try harder dude
wtf is that gif? Some jungle bunny nutting on the mayor of Chicago?
>I fricking hate officers
Without officers you can never be a real military that wins wars. Cope, sneed, and pick up my uniform from the cleaners.
The problem is that the officer corps is too distanced from enlisted personnel. Think that military service should be more like an internship. Everyone does four years as enlisted, and then you get the option to either go NCO or O, with O selection being reserved for those who were out performers.
Service for officership.
It would also weed out a lot of the israelites in officer service which would naturally lead to less politics and race/sex based diversity quota promotions.
Right now you either have to be a Black person, a israelite, or a female to consider joining.
I hate to break it to you, but officers do need to be distant from enlisted personnel. If they're too attached, they can't properly lead them. Officers aren't your boys, they're your leaders. They have to make tough decisions that will cost lives.
That doesn't mean they should be impersonal or buttholes tho
Every lieutenant I had couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag
Doing four years in college and then however long OCS is doesn't actually prepare you to be a "leader", you're just a signature while your platoon sergeants and squad leaders actually run the platoon
>Doing four years in college and then however long OCS is doesn't actually prepare you to be a "leader", you're just a signature while your platoon sergeants and squad leaders actually run the platoon
Yea no shit guy. That literally tell us this in OCS. It actually turns out that being a 2LT isn't the peak of an officer's career. From your perspective as a PFC the only officers you ever talk to are LTs, so you don't see the long term growth of that officer into CPT/MAJ/LTC.
An officer spends 3 to 4 years as a LT. Once you hit CPT people expect you to know what the frick is going on.
Funny that captains were even more useless than lieutenants, then. Giving a libo brief and going to meetings doesn't count as leadership either. Actually accomplishing a mission is.
Everything you did in the military was because an officer told you to or let it happen. You don't have to see what Company Commander is doing, but he is most likely always doing something. Probably your NJP-ing your stupid ass.
>thinking the Company Commander even writes his own NJPs
He's literally only there to read from a script and do what his 1stsgt says
You picked quite possibly the best example I can think of in regards to "officers are only there to fill a chair"
I don't know about the USMC but army officers definitely write their own NJP and UCMJ actions wtf. You sound like you're on the wrong side of dunning-kruger lol
I don't know how the army works but if any senior enlisted is letting his officer write NJPs they're wrong, straight up
That's like half of what the E-8 schoolhouse is about
whattt? The marines are wild. The commander is the only person in an army unit with punishment/administrative action authority. Even when he delegates that task to an officer junior to him or an NCO it falls on him to make sure it's done properly. I didn't know that about the marine corps (if its true).
You are correct that the final decision of the punishment falls to the company/battalion commander. But what I was saying is that the CO or the BC will NEVER write the NJP proper. Like I said in the post you replied to, the majority of the 1stsgt's course is basically learning how to do paperwork.
Lol. Lmao even. You think 1SGs could write article 15s?
A colonel once told me officerhood is essentially apprenticeship. A LT is basically apprenticing to be a captain, a captain is learning to be a major, etc etc.
The most accurate descriptor I've ever heard for the officer corps was that they're glorified managers.
Some of them actually do have a vital function, but most of them are simply there to sponge up a paycheck while actual workers and supervisors accomplish what needs to be done
Which is why it's extremely funny when people like
who don't know what they're talking about spout off about officers being "leaders"
Most of everyone in the military is there to soak up a paycheck with the exception of special operators and fighter pilots, officers arent unique in that regard
The xo is there to make logistics work, nobody in their right mind would ask them to lead a platoon assault (though they should know how to do this). Its part of the apprenticeship - a huge portion of what officers do is logistics. Nobody ITT has mentioned the property book for example - this unique piece of hell sits squarely on the officers and is worse than being shot at.
>most of the military is there to soak up a paycheck
That's only true if you're looking at the past five years. Extend the timeline out even a little bit further and there were still units doing combat deployments. Just because 11th Marine Regiment hasn't gone anywhere recently doesn't mean they're useless.
And I'm aware of an officer's duty in regards to logistics. What I've been disputing in this thread is that officers are "leaders". Because they really aren't.
Is the President a leader?
To his political party? Yes.
To the military? Not really.
you seem to be confusing titles with competence
which appears to be a fricking epidemic among commissioned officers
Moving the goalposts. A leader in this case is a position. Whether or not they are a good or bad leader is irrelevant. They are still a leader and are tasked with that responsibility.
those weren't my goalposts, you've failed to meet either of them though (the other anon's goalposts were that officers were leaders, which you haven't established outside saying they have the responsibility of leadership - unless you want to posit that the military command apparatus meets all of its responsibilities)
I get it anon, you're super butthurt about officers. But do you think it's mere coincidence they are the ones in charge? They are tasked with leadership. Is a command sergeant major not a leader because he's so far up he doesn't directly work with PFCs?
i'm in agreement with
, here, you genuinely don't understand what leadership is
having the "leader" title and its responsibilities doesn't make you a competent leader, and lacking the title doesn't preclude competent leadership.
you've not really provided any evidence that officership even correlates with leadership competence, you just keep repeating their title's theoretical responsibilities
Some leaders are competent and some are not. Also this started with anon pointing out officers needed to be distant from enlisted in order to properly lead. That is correct. And in this context "lead" is a position. Has nothing to do with competence.
well if the best you can do is waffle, i suppose that's still an improvement over "the rank says they need leadership so they must have it"
"lead" is not a position in any context, it is an action. leadership is a quality of that action. a leader is, in this discussion (because this discussion is not a simple recitation of the responsibilities of a given rank), one in possession of quality leadership skills.
a disconnect from the targets of leadership implies the opposite of competent leadership, regardless of how much officers would like to convince themselves that their ignorance and intractability to their own charges is a necessary laziness to the function of their positions (that is not correct)
although i suppose it is entirely consistent with the quality of leadership offered by officers to believe their rank has nothing to do with competence
>a leader is, in this discussion (because this discussion is not a simple recitation of the responsibilities of a given rank), one in possession of quality leadership skills.
No, you made that up. The discussion is about officers needing to be distant from enlisted in order to lead properly. And they do.
>a disconnect from the targets of leadership implies the opposite of competent leadership, regardless of how much officers would like to convince themselves that their ignorance and intractability to their own charges
No. In fact, it's actually illegal for officers to be buddy-buddy with enlisted. That's called fraternization. The military has made it like this for a purpose.
Also, I'm not an officer.
>you made the entire discussion up because i've clearly shat up the "read the dictionary" part of the discussion
you're definitely officer material
>actually illegal for officers to be buddy-buddy with enlisted
>thinks the scale of relationship with subordinates is a binary between aloof disconnection and literally fricking them
your autism belongs here
>dictionary
>Lead: be in charge or command of.
In the case of the commanding the officers need to do necessitates a distance between them and enlisted.
By the way,
https://www.military.com/spousebuzz/blog/2014/06/dont-hang-enlisted-fraternization-line.html
Lt. Col was canned and career ended because he was too friendly with the enlisted.
>thread complaining about officers
>literally full of officers or officer wannabees complaining
discussions like these make me wonder why command schools even exist
is it too much to just do the fricking job? it's not like conscription's a real thing anymore, you've kinda got to choose to be there
also, you may want to uh... actually read that article lol. it's not exactly supportive of your point
>read that article
Did you? He was too friendly with his enlisted. He got his career ended. My point was that being too friendly with your enlisted is fraternization. That perfectly illustrates it.
the whole article is complaining that "fraternization" doesn't have a useful meaning - hell, the recommendation made was for fricking counseling, not getting shitcanned:
>The investigation suggested "counseling and remedial training" as punishment. And yet, instead of that relatively light consequence, Perry was instead booted from command, moved across base, ordered to have no interaction with the squadron, given a career ending evaluation and PCSed to another duty station.
makes me inclined to believe the implications the article makes are correct and "fraternization" was just the public line for the actual reason he got yeeted. kind of undermines using it as an example for the "perils of fraternization"
It's easy to talk shit when you've never been in that position. The people that gripe the most about incompetent leaders tend to incompetent leaders themselves when the chips are down.
You have literally offered nothing constructive to this discussion since you started posting. I bet you were just a typical shamming E4 when you were in too, mad that officers sat in BN HQ playing on their phones while you swept rocks. If it's so easy, get a degree, go tonOCS/ROTC and do it yourself.
it's ultimately a philosophical discussion about the nature of leadership and the problems caused by the cases where a position with leadership responsibilities is held by an individual lacking leadership competence
i've never been stupid enough to enlist. you sound weirdly defensive, why?
>He's a neverserve
I'm leaving this thread. You aren't worth talking to. You're complaining about officers because of memes you've seen in movies. Frick outta here dude.
You watched Generation Kill for the first time and think you understand what the military is supposed to be like.
>he's never been in
Wow frick off moron.
High fricking lel. The "y-you haven't done it yourself" argument is easily the most pathetic one. I've been a fly on the wall in plenty of battalion staff meetings and they're 80% bullshit, 20% operation logistics, and 0% actual leadership.
I don't understand why officers get so incredibly buttmad when I point out that they're middle managers. You'd think the paycheck and people saluting would dull the blow, but I guess there's something about the chip on the shoulder over not enlisting that never goes away
>I've been a fly on the wall in plenty of battalion staff meetings
So you weren't contributing shit? >and they're 80% bullshit
Aka things you literally didn't understand
>0% actual leadership
Yea because staff officers lead their staff sections not the entire battalion
Depends on what you mean by contributing shit. My company guns was a drunk so I had to go to the battalion ops meetings for a couple weeks
And yoyre misunderstanding what i mean by bullshit. It was just petty sniping and posturing to try and look good in front of the XO.... like all middle mamagement sycophants do
I think you don't understand what a "leader" is. The president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military and is in command of the joint chiefs of staff, but he's not a "leader" to them.
>Nobody ITT has mentioned the property book for example - this unique piece of hell sits squarely on the officers and is worse than being shot at.
I could have mentioned it, but he wouldn't understand it.
Soldiers always think officers don't do anything like they just show up to a range with portashitters, safeties, and rounds that just magically appeared lmao
>Every lieutenant I had couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag
No shit moron. They're learning how to lead. That's why they start as just a platoon leader with the commander and XO above them.
A company CO and XO have, realistically, the same leadership abilities as a squad leader. Think of how many people actually "answer" to them in a traditional sense- the platoon commanders and sergeants. Of those, the platoon sergeants almost certainly know more about what they're doing than the XO, since they have 8+ years of experience compared to maybe the XO's one or two actually in the military, so they're usually left to their own devices.
Which means the Company Commander is essentially only actually responsible for the various butterbars under his command. Not exactly impressive
>Think of how many people actually "answer" to them in a traditional sense- the platoon commanders and sergeants.
Yes, that's how chain of command works. Why should PVT Schmuckatelli be bothering the commander?
>Which means the Company Commander is essentially only actually responsible
The company commander is responsible for the company and everything that happens within it. When battalion asks why is your company so fricked up and non-deployable the commander has to answer for that.
>Yes, that's how chain of command works. Why should PVT Schmuckatelli be bothering the commander?
I'm glad you agree that the CO has very little influence on the day-to-day operation of the company. You might even call him... a figurehead?
>The company commander is responsible for the company and everything that happens within it. When battalion asks why is your company so fricked up and non-deployable the commander has to answer for that.
You're right that the CO is ostensibly "responsible" for the company, but absolutely nobody in the company looks to him for leadership or guidance, because of that little thing called chain-of-command you mentioned before.
That's how it should be
>hate to break it to you
>spends the rest of the post fellating the necessity of the group whose incompetence literally creates the need for a functioning NCO corps
actual leaders don't give a shit about whether or not they have a commission, they just do the fricking job
hence nearly all of them being NCOs
NCOs are just guys who were too dumb/poor/lazy to get a degree and stayed in longer than 4 years.
don't many NCOs literally have degrees?
No. Only 7% of enlisted have a degree. Obviously that's including lower enlisted but clearly NCOs aren't bringing the numbers up much.
NCOs are above E-3 in every branch, are they not? i believe that varies some, but i was under the impression the distribution of pay grades decreases as you go up - meaning NCOs aren't really a useful shorthand for "all enlisted"
No, air force is E-5. Army you can be an NCO at E-4 by becoming a corporal but those basically don't exist, it's effectively also E-5. Marines, Navy and coast guard is E-4 however.
so i was technically correct, those are all above E-3 😛
seems like there would be so many E-1 through E-4s that everything above it might literally be <10% of the total positions, hence
not being super useful in determining how many NCOs have degrees (but that's just me assuming about the grade distribution)
>Army you can be an NCO at E-4 by becoming a corporal but those basically don't exist,
You definitely haven't served in the last five years homie. Every E-4 that completes BLC (used to be WLC) and passes the board is a CPL.
I'm in right now. Everyone just goes SPC to SGT.
MILPER came out like two years ago, you HAVE to pin CPL if you pass the board and BLC.
Enlisted people are actual morons. Officers are high IQ (relatively, and certainly if they’re academy). You want smart people leading your military not lower class meth babies. If you force officers to go enlisted first (and slum it with 90 IQ rednecks and paroles) then the smart set won’t join the military and it’s leadership will suffer.
guy looks almost moronic, but mostly psychotic
Post above is extremely low effort.
>I hate officers
>Posts a sergeant major
If you wanted to fit in with us you should have enlisted instead of beating off in your basement for the last 10 years
What about people who enlisted and beat off in the basement for years?
They're gtg
What if I'm beating off in your basement, right now?
did that man paint on a hairline?
This guy reminds me of why I got the duck out after four years. He probably has at least a couple failed marriages and kids that fricking hate his guys for not being around.
Fill me in on this guy. Ain’t never heard of him, looks like 2 reg.
That's not even an officer. Get better bait.