As the guy who started this thread, I am impressed with the responses. Many of these show deep understanding and experience with today's militiary.

Two comments, deliberately too simple for sake of clarity.

1. It's a terrible idea. The need for a "strategic corporal" stems from bad tacics.

In the 21st century we're fighting -- we might spend most of our time fighting -- insurgents. Experienced street warriors with modern weapons.

Their tactical doctrine is the simplest possible.

If our people have to perform complex mental calculas during a firefight, we best stock up on body bags and US flags.

A prerequisite for success in these wars might be simple mission orders. Complex directives equal hopeless, guaranteed to fail, wars.


2. The Special Forces have people capable of operating at this level.

We'll never have an army of SF. It's a contradiction in terms. A few lessons from the SF have broad applicability, but must be considered with care.


3. Relationship of officers and NCO's.

This is the fascinating hidden thread in these posts.

What fraction of people in a volunteer army are officer material -- officers not in a sense of having technical skills (e.g., doctors) but capable of leading soldiers.

The traditional answer is 5%. We have aprox 10% -- very rough, excluding the technical folks who are not leaders.

Imagine this: reduce the officer corps to 5%. What happens to the role of NCO? Note the reference to US Army history when we had fewer officers.

Do we need more experienced NCO's? Better educated (e.g. college, book learning)? Pick one, as I doubt we'll get both.