Quote:
Originally Posted by glyn
Whilst I can't deny that, it must also be observed that cream floats to the top of the pitcher as well!
The point I tried to make (and obviously failed to do so) is that we are persevering in using old methods for officer selection in the armed forces. What may have been appropriate hundreds of years ago may not be as suitable for today. Obviously qualified doctors, engineers, teachers and the like should be commisioned on joining, but those entering the 'sabre' arms could progress through all the ranks on merit. Technically thats the case now but I know, as I'm sure you do also, that a number of superb soldiers never get the chance even to be considered. To my mind this is a dreadful waste of talent. High qualifications are not the full story, gumption and grit are what's required. I had a driver for 2 years whose qualifications ( BA, BSc,MIT) were better than the 2 specialist engineering officers we had! He was a delightful chap to know but he refused every opportunity to go to RCB as he simply wasn't motivated to make the Army a career. Soldiering is unlike any other profession. We have to make sure the opportunities are there for the 'right stuff' to get on.
|
Glyn,
I'll have to disagree here, at least within the American military. My observation has been that while those who have served before as enlisted have made some of the best officers, those plucked from the ranks have alos made by far the worst officers (they were either stuck in their ways or else couldn't make the break from being enlisted and were too buddy buddy with the soldiers in their units, to the detriment of the unit). On the contrary, those from the non-OCS commissioning sources were on average pretty good to great, with only a few outliers.
Second, as an army with a tradition of being big on maneuver and firepower, we often promote folks beyond their strategic capabilities - you are advanced based on your tactical prowess in tactical units. However, at some point, you decisions are strategic, and not tactical. Yet, many don't have the necessary strategic foundation to make strategic decisions. Thus, you end up with a General Franks that wants to talk about taking out a bunker in Afghanistan instead of grand strategy when addressing an audience that is at the operational or strategic levels of their careers. By requiring prior service as an enlistee, you'll cut down on the advanced education opportunities for officers, as most will need to complete their undergraduate studies, and timelines won't allow for as many graduate school opportunities as exists now. If you look at the US Army, it's been those with advanced graduate experience that have excelled: Petraeus, Chiarelli, McMaster, etc.
So, from this side of the pond, I would heartily disagree with the prior service requirement (you can look at Israel as an example - officers with great tactical and operational experience, but not so keen on some strategic areas, resulting in some less than optimal performance during its occupational duties in the territories).