The Strategic Corporal

[Xenophon]

"Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets."- General George S. Patton

[SSG Rock]

I must admit, unfortunately, that within the Army NCO Corps, too much emphasis was placed on civilian education, holding the right duty positions, getting a perfect NCOER etc, for too long. I fell for it, and I ended up becoming a very small member of the NCO Corps with an MA, I completed my masters program as an E6. I languished at E6 for a long time, and was picked up for E7 after I had made the decision to retire. This is a topic for another thread, but IMHO, Brigade level commanders should be given the authority to promote staff sergeants to sergeant first class had that been a reality when I became eligible for E7, my brigade commander would have promoted me immediately, the centralized promotion system is broken and we are not promoting the best candidates. During my last six or seven years on AD, I definately saw a decrease in the quality of the NCO Corps, not that they weren't capable, but emphasis for promotion was misguided. Promotion to SFC should be based almost solely on core competence and MOS skills, less so on job positions and NCOERs, there are not enough duty positions for all NCOs to get a fair shot, I'm sure the officer corps suffers from the same problem to a somewhat smaller scale. NCO quality decline is not the fault of junior and mid level NCOs, (they hunger for more responsibility) but due to their leaders. For some reason, at least here at Fort Leavenworth, the Sergeants Majors that I had contact with acted more like officers then NCOs and they expected everything except traditional NCO behavior from the NCOs under their charge and when I was on AD, my fellow NCOs sincerely felt there was nobody in their corner and that the senior NCOs on post were derilect in this duty. It was maddening for me to watch NCOs get called on the carpet time after time to explain themselves in simple leadership matters such as conducting a barracks party because his Soldiers living quarters were below standard or writing a negative counseling statement for missing a formation etc. Another, more serious problem is, senior officers have also lost touch with the duties and responsibilities of the NCO. The zero tolerance atmosphere impeded the NCO in carrying out his duties, phasing out the SQT, especially the hands on portion, and a generally risk averse officer corps have all had a detrimental impact on the NCO Corps. It has been a while since I have been in a combat unit, and I assume these problems exist in those units as well although to a lesser degree perhaps, but that it is still a detriment to TO&E units as well. If the Army wants its NCOs to be NCOs then they have to give them the authority we had in the 1980s. I think the Army would be served well in putting more faith in the NCO Corps as well as the autonomy to run their little corner of the Army.

[Steve Blair]

It's interesting to watch the army rehash this, especially when one looks back to the Army after the Civil War. At that time, the NCOs had heavy company-level responsibilities, and were looked upon in many cases as the backbone of their units. These NCOs were not, generally speaking, formally educated, but they were repositories of military information and skill that many officers relied on. They often took out patrols on their own, and in the case of first sergeants at times commanded the company when all their assigned officers were absent.

[Jugurtha]

I don't want to hijack this thread even further than it already is but working with the British and Australian armies and their enlisted rank structure made me think about ours. Their corporals were much more mature and able than most of the Marine corporals that I have worked with; about on par with a Marine sergeant. Having a private-corporal-whatever structure makes more sense to me when E1-E3 in any service do the same job. Keep 'em at private until they earn corporal; 4 years of staring at the same rank may be an incentive...

On that note, 2nd LT and 1st LT are redundant as well.

[SSG Rock]

It's interesting to watch the army rehash this, especially when one looks back to the Army after the Civil War. At that time, the NCOs had heavy company-level responsibilities, and were looked upon in many cases as the backbone of their units. These NCOs were not, generally speaking, formally educated, but they were repositories of military information and skill that many officers relied on. They often took out patrols on their own, and in the case of first sergeants at times commanded the company when all their assigned officers were absent.

Precisely! What is the benefit of a staff sergeant with a masters degree? If I had not been counseld by my mentors that getting a civilian education would increase my promotion potential, I probably would have waited untill later to do it. The NCO Corps does not necessarily need a college education, we don't need an NCO Corps whose formal education mirrors the Officer Corps. There should be a very clear divide in the roles of the officer and NCO, thats what makes the Army work. The Officers need to get an education so they can discuss doctrine, theory, write campaign plans and etc. The NCO needs to spend his time becoming an expert at every task he must supervise his Soldiers perform and taking care of the health, welfare and training of those Soldiers, period.

[nichols]

IMHO...

The Strategic Corporal is not about education level, ability to call a 9 line, or level of responsibility. It's about making dynamic decisions NOW in context of the Commander's Intent without having to wait for authorization.

[Steve Blair]

At the risk of flogging the proverbial dead horse here, I think one of the main tenants of the strategic corporal idea that tends to get lost is its external impact. By this I mean that, given the immediacy of media, what used to be a routine decision (or non-decision) by a corporal can have an immediate and at times strategic impact. It's not so much a matter of formal education as it is making people aware that in today's environment their decisions (or, again, non-decisions) can have an impact that is much wider than they might assume.

[fas_et_gloria]

Gents, first post here, so I hope I'm not going to step on too many toes.

It occurs to me that from my reading of the thread thus far, that there is a distinction between the strategic corporal being discussed and that envisaged by Krulac. His point, surely, is not that we need to train our soldiers and junior commanders to act in a strategicly positive way as an end in itself: rather he is proposing that the globalisation of information exchange means that the actions of any soldier are going to have strategic consequences no matter whether the Chain of Command actively prepares and trains our junior leaders for the role. Especially in the current assymetric environment, the actions of the section commander/squad leader (depending on which side of the pond you start...) are inevitably going to have strategic consequences.

The televisation of the death of Mohammed al-Durah by IDF fire at the begining of the Al-Aqsa intifada is a case in point. Arguably, the current events in the ME would not be taking place had the junior leader at the time had other options for dealing with stone-throwing youths than .762 calibre ones.