Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
[rant] This is closely tied to the problems with staff work in the Army; staff officers are treated with contempt, staff assignments are considered ugly chores at best but more often looked at as punishment, most folks strive to minimize staff time, no job on staff is considered as hard or as important to professional development as command at an equal rank, but leaders whine that noone can do good staff work. Yeah, treat staff poorly, put your high-speed best people in command, then wonder why staff work isn't of the best quality; great plan...[/rant]
That is nothing like my impression of staff time. While nobody enjoys it, I don't know of anyone who viewed it as punishment or anyone who viewed staff officers with contempt just because they were staff officers. Staff was regarded as one of those unpleasant tasks that we all need to endure during our careers. When someone did the job well (meaning that they made life easier on the companies) then they were tremendously appreciated. If they had a lousy attitude about the job and half-assed it and contributed nothing, then they were viewed with contempt - but it was due to performance, not duty position. I also never observed a bias towards putting particular people in staff versus command. It was an objective command-queue. If anything, it was too objective in that people who were not fit (or certainly less fit) for command went on to take command because it was "their turn" while someone much better qualified had to wait it out on staff for another year (even if this meant sending a company of Soldiers into Iraq with a lackluster commander, so as to not deviate from the command queue).