Officers From the Ranks or College Grads?

[minmax]

I in my experience met a number of officers who came up from the ranks or were college grads who went ROTC.

My question to this esteemed group is should the US military continue to commission college grads that finish ROTC, OCS, TBS? Or should we promote from the ranks likely candidates and send them to OCS, TBS?

I will hold off on my opinion until others have had an opportunity to sound off.

------------------

"It ain't over till a grunt puts a flat on it!"

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[This message has been edited by minmax (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Guest MajorH]

In my opinion ...

We should continue to do both.

Drawing only from the enlisted ranks would excessively weaken the NCO corps.

By the way, I started in the Marine Corps as a private and advanced to sergeant (E5). It didn't look like I could get promoted to Staff Sergeant so I applied for OCS .

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Mike Robel]

I have found that an officer from each source of commissioning brings a vital skill set to the table.

A ROTC officer has a little more of the real world about him. He has probably dealt with drug addicts, punkers, preps, intellectuals, average guys, hari krishna, and a host of other types. His ability to get along with these is important in an LT. As is his/her supply of idealism.

A service acadamy officer has less of the real world about him, coming from a much more structured envirnoment. His actual knowledge of how to run his platoon is not much better than an ROTC officers. However, his PME to date is a little better, so he is able to provide a unique viewpoint to the group.

THe OCS officer brings the story of life in the ranks to the unit. However, he is sometimes prejudiced in his world view and sometimes "errs" as to what is important. An easy example of this is "take care of the troops" versus "accomplish the mission." THe OCS officer _may_ orient on take care of troops to the expense of mission. (I know, taking care of the troops may also help accomplish the mission.)

I never had an officer who was a direct commision - most of them being warrent officers, but I am sure that they too would bring a unique perspective to life at the company level.

As a Company Commander, I liked to have a platoon leader from each source of commission. It provided three unique viewpoints that they could talk things over with, instruct each other as to technique, and provide me a freshness as a company commander that I may have overlooked.

After two years as a platoon leader, source of commisison does not matter, and they all are pretty much equal, except for the guy who everyone can tell is going to be a general from the day he gets commissioned.

Having said that, the only officer I ever had to relieve was an OCS graduate, who never quite got over being enlisted and was never entirely sure as to why he went to ROTC after getting out of the Army. At least part of the fault for that relief was mine, part the platoon sergeants, and mostly his.

I think going to a single source of commission would subtract a lot of background from the officer corps.

[Spiny Mouse]

I have to agree with Mike Robel.

I spent the last four years as an instructor and company commander for a national guard OCS company. In fact, this is a drill weekend and this evening from 1900 to 2130 I was teaching a class on "Principles of War".

My own source of commission is from ROTC. I've worked with officers from USMA and my first company commander in Germany when I was a platoon leader was a direct commission officer.

All sources of commission bring valuable benefits to the officer corps. I see my OCS students graduating with strengths that I did not have when I got my gold bar. On the other hand, I see some weaknesses in how well the OCS program prepares them.

If for no other reason, we need a variety of sources because no single source can provide the number of junior officers that we need.

[minmax]

I see that three officers have offered opinions that I kind of expected.

My question is what do the enlisted think?

Well all have had good and bad experiences with young 2nd Lieutenants. What made a difference between a good one and a bad one?

I think and expect that many will disagree that time in the Fleet is the real factor. I don't think anyone should become a fully commisioned officer until they have spent at least one year in the Grunts being a follower and a learner. I don't think OCS or TBS is enough to weed out non-hackers. Heck, I have heard many young officers admit that they got through it b/c the 3 months was long but not un-survivable. I don't know that ROTC summer camps are enough to provide the experience that being a Private or a junior Lance Corporal can. That level of the infantry for lack of a better way to say it really sucks. It tests your medal and helps weed out those who are going through the motions to get the cookie at the end.

Again, I might be wrong but that is what I think.

------------------

"It ain't over till a grunt puts a flag on it!"

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Mike Robel]

I feel obligated to point out that the good Major is an OCS grad, so he does bring an enlisted viewpoint.

Of course, I forgot to disclose that I am an ROTC graduate.

[Chimera]

I guess, MinMax, to answer, I would have to say that the best officers I had ever worked with were -intelligent- primarily. Now, I can't fully lean either way with the roots (since there are always good exceptions to any rule), but I do know that it didn't matter as long as the -person- was intelligent and had some good, well-grounded common sense.

The stupidest, most hated officers are those that cannot disengage their brain from the book, and end up not thinking through the situation before slapping a solution to it. NCOs, in my experience, are taught common sense via hands-on application. They are 'grown'. Officers, on the other hand, are sometimes just dumped into a unit and expected to hit the ground running, with no prior hands-on experience. They are 'built'.

Officers that do well in the later case are ones that have good common sense (and/or life experience) to begin with. You cannot reliably take a spoon-fed rich boy of some political wannabe with absolutely no 'real world street smarts' and slap a commission on them, and make a good officer. But, you can take almost any 'street smart' soldier and make a reliable officer.

Therefore, having no experience or knowledge of the officer training programs, I would have to say that those prestigious institutions can only do so much with what they have to start with in the person. NCOs have proven themselves in the military, and that makes -me- trust their leadership ability a bit more.

The best officers I worked with were NCOs first or had roots in the enlisted corps, but this was from an enlisted junior NCO and frequent skills trainer point of view.

Chimera