Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Well what to do about it?

Is it current (US) thinking that an attack by a battalion/company/platoon/section can be managed or is officer and NCO leadership required?
In reverse order, no, we know better; leadership is required. We also know a bit of management is required to get that unit in shape and position for that attack. We used to combine those traits fairly well for about 80% of the leaders and commanders -- nobody ever gets to 100%. Nobody. Ever...

The answer to your question is to not re-elect a single incumbent to the US Congress until they get the message that they have been so wrong for so long and they still haven't got it right. I see no real chance for improvement until that happens -- or we get in a major, existential war, we tend to throw away the stupids when those occur; performance rules...

We weren't perfect but we were better with people 40 years ago -- then the US Congress decreed that all selection criteria must be 'fair' and 'objective.' This caused managerial (or even lesser) types who would not have been selected for senior officer or NCO positions prior to the mid-60s to be considered; the move to 'objective' criteria required the use of 'metrics' in selection so it could be proven that all pegs were round (one way or another...). Add the fact that democracies do not like their Armies to be too competent; makes the legislators and the social set nervous. All that results in a very egalitarian Army.

Regrettably, warfare is not egalitarian.