A
ArmyAl
Guest
Cut the officers..... :evil:
H
holywars33
Guest
What‘s with all the hate towards officers? Are they that bad? SInce it seems like there are many NCM‘s here, let‘s hear some stories...What‘s the stupidest thing an officer has done and why do you think they should be done away with?
Gunnar
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 1,030
From everything I‘ve heard, it‘s not that the officers are necessarily bad. It‘s just that there‘s so **** many of them. That really isn‘t a bad thing at the lower levels - you need a fair number of Lieutenants and Captains...but when you start having multiple Colonels and Generals, those salaries add up. And they have fewer troops to command.
The ideal ratio of command to troops is somewhere around 5%. Any more, and you have a bureaucracy. Now, keep in mind that the army‘s raison d‘etre is to be effective, not bureaucratic, and that our army is full of bureaucratic, salary-eating civil servants. Since they are civil servants and not soldiers, they can‘t wait to grab their ankles every time Ottawa asks...and Ottawa asks a lot. And the overblown salaries paid to these upper echelons eat up a lot of DND‘s budget.
There are good officers, there are bad officers. If bad officers make up 5% of the officer corps, and then you double the size of the officer corps, you are more likely to run into an idiot: 5% of double the amount of officers implies many more idiots. If you double the size of the officer corps by changing your standards, the amount of idiots will increase by more than 5%, and you more than double your chances of running into an idiot.
Part of the reason our forces are as competent in the field as they are is that it is very difficult to make an NCM swallow the kind of guff that gets today‘s officers promoted. They‘re still on the gold standard of ability, because they know that in a firefight, if they do a half-assed job, their own life could be on the line. And that would suck. Today‘s career-oriented officer class thinks "management", not soldiering...and therein lies the problem.
So, to recap:
1. Too many officers.
2. Too many upper echelon officers commanding large salaries. This fosters resentment by the troops, because all they ever hear from above is "cutbacks due to budget constraints".
3. At a consistent rate of recruitment, there is a consistent rate of idiots. Increase the rate of recruitment (keeping standards the same) and you get a number of idiots that is proportional, but greater overall. Increase recruitment by lowering standards, and the increase of idiots is more than proportional. Ergo, there are more idiots in the officer class than ever before.
4. You get to the upper echelon in today‘s army by being a bureaucrat, not a soldier. A bureacrat is a PONTI, and therefore not respected by the troops.
Now, to be fair, there are some excellent officers out there. I‘ve heard the "war" stories on how so and so was the best **** officer they ever had...but I‘ve heard far more stories which point to things that boneheaded officers have done.
The ideal ratio of command to troops is somewhere around 5%. Any more, and you have a bureaucracy. Now, keep in mind that the army‘s raison d‘etre is to be effective, not bureaucratic, and that our army is full of bureaucratic, salary-eating civil servants. Since they are civil servants and not soldiers, they can‘t wait to grab their ankles every time Ottawa asks...and Ottawa asks a lot. And the overblown salaries paid to these upper echelons eat up a lot of DND‘s budget.
There are good officers, there are bad officers. If bad officers make up 5% of the officer corps, and then you double the size of the officer corps, you are more likely to run into an idiot: 5% of double the amount of officers implies many more idiots. If you double the size of the officer corps by changing your standards, the amount of idiots will increase by more than 5%, and you more than double your chances of running into an idiot.
Part of the reason our forces are as competent in the field as they are is that it is very difficult to make an NCM swallow the kind of guff that gets today‘s officers promoted. They‘re still on the gold standard of ability, because they know that in a firefight, if they do a half-assed job, their own life could be on the line. And that would suck. Today‘s career-oriented officer class thinks "management", not soldiering...and therein lies the problem.
So, to recap:
1. Too many officers.
2. Too many upper echelon officers commanding large salaries. This fosters resentment by the troops, because all they ever hear from above is "cutbacks due to budget constraints".
3. At a consistent rate of recruitment, there is a consistent rate of idiots. Increase the rate of recruitment (keeping standards the same) and you get a number of idiots that is proportional, but greater overall. Increase recruitment by lowering standards, and the increase of idiots is more than proportional. Ergo, there are more idiots in the officer class than ever before.
4. You get to the upper echelon in today‘s army by being a bureaucrat, not a soldier. A bureacrat is a PONTI, and therefore not respected by the troops.
Now, to be fair, there are some excellent officers out there. I‘ve heard the "war" stories on how so and so was the best **** officer they ever had...but I‘ve heard far more stories which point to things that boneheaded officers have done.
H
holywars33
Guest
I am partway through Falkenberg’s Legion, and I must say that it is interesting so far, better than Prince of Mercenaries. I wish I could read it more often but my **** particle physics class takes up too much time…. :crybaby:
I am currently in my last year of University and am seriously thinking of joining the CF. I would love to join as an NCM, rather than an officer. Based on what a few close friends have told me (being NCM’s) and from the videos/descriptions shown of the two professions at the recruitment office. I however would like to make a career out of it and it is the higher pay of being an officer that attracts me. I don’t mean to sound too money oriented, however it is a consideration of mine. …Eventually I will meet some incredible lady and will need the funds for sweeping her off her feet…..family and all….
<quote>Today’s carrier-oriented officer class thinks “management†no soldiering…</quote>
Very good point and one that I would not like to become. The military lifestyle greatly appeals to me as I have been active my whole life, doing competitive swimming for 15 years and triathlons for 8. So I would prefer “soldiering†in the field as opposed to “management†The further I advance through my academic career, the more I realize that I do not want to have a desk or factory job where I do minimal physical labour, have an office or “station on the lineâ€â€¦.maybe it’s time something was shook up…
I can see why the Infantry sign an officer to such a long contract. You need to protect an investment by giving it more money (within reason). The nine-year contract avoids having a revolving door of leaders. I would rather have a well-established leader as opposed to someone who joins for a couple years. It means they are more dedicated and serious about the job. The university degree coupled with the 9 year commitment breed’s potential officers who are older and not a gung-ho 17 year old, who has not finished high school and joins the army because it would be cool and only a 3 year commitment.
I guess the solution to these problems would only be wishful thinking…such as to increase the NCM’s to give those colonels some **** work. Promoting more NCM’s to Sergeant. This would also help the CF in general giving it strength to take on more operations. But it all boils down to Federal funding…..or maybe a colonel should take a pay cut to $1 like the great Lee Iccoca (sp?) :blotto:
I am failing to understand why behind the promotion of officers not on a need basis like the NCM’s…If a job is open, let people (officers) fight for it, fostering competition which will let the cream rise to the top, rather than say “you have put in enough time, we will promote you†I imagine this is the system in the NCM’s.
I am currently in my last year of University and am seriously thinking of joining the CF. I would love to join as an NCM, rather than an officer. Based on what a few close friends have told me (being NCM’s) and from the videos/descriptions shown of the two professions at the recruitment office. I however would like to make a career out of it and it is the higher pay of being an officer that attracts me. I don’t mean to sound too money oriented, however it is a consideration of mine. …Eventually I will meet some incredible lady and will need the funds for sweeping her off her feet…..family and all….
<quote>Today’s carrier-oriented officer class thinks “management†no soldiering…</quote>
Very good point and one that I would not like to become. The military lifestyle greatly appeals to me as I have been active my whole life, doing competitive swimming for 15 years and triathlons for 8. So I would prefer “soldiering†in the field as opposed to “management†The further I advance through my academic career, the more I realize that I do not want to have a desk or factory job where I do minimal physical labour, have an office or “station on the lineâ€â€¦.maybe it’s time something was shook up…
I can see why the Infantry sign an officer to such a long contract. You need to protect an investment by giving it more money (within reason). The nine-year contract avoids having a revolving door of leaders. I would rather have a well-established leader as opposed to someone who joins for a couple years. It means they are more dedicated and serious about the job. The university degree coupled with the 9 year commitment breed’s potential officers who are older and not a gung-ho 17 year old, who has not finished high school and joins the army because it would be cool and only a 3 year commitment.
I guess the solution to these problems would only be wishful thinking…such as to increase the NCM’s to give those colonels some **** work. Promoting more NCM’s to Sergeant. This would also help the CF in general giving it strength to take on more operations. But it all boils down to Federal funding…..or maybe a colonel should take a pay cut to $1 like the great Lee Iccoca (sp?) :blotto:
I am failing to understand why behind the promotion of officers not on a need basis like the NCM’s…If a job is open, let people (officers) fight for it, fostering competition which will let the cream rise to the top, rather than say “you have put in enough time, we will promote you†I imagine this is the system in the NCM’s.
This topic always seems to come up, and it always leaves some interesting answers coupled with a few more interesting questions.
Then of course there is that handy lil saying that goes something like; "Those who can‘t do, lead those who can." - always found that amusing and to an extent, true.
Have fun
This has been changing in recent years, at least I‘ve heard from primary sources (friends who are officers in the military). They are getting more strict on the bilingual aspect of things (ie: Don‘t know french? fine, no promo for you.)
Then of course there is that handy lil saying that goes something like; "Those who can‘t do, lead those who can." - always found that amusing and to an extent, true.
Have fun
Similar threads
