Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

The US Army and most units in it are quite capable of doing a lot more than too many senior people will give them credit for. I've long had a suspicion that the fear of lacking General Officer personal involvement it will not be done correctly is a contributor to that. Bad attitude; there will never be enough Generals. Captains have to be trusted; the vast majority prove daily that they can be ...
Actually Ken, I think it is more correct to say there will always be too many generals because they are too interested in doing the work that should be left to their captains, lieutenants and senior NCOs.

When I was a new 2LT, a senior officer who was about to retire told me that the Army does things backwards. He thought the toughest job for an officer is to lead a platoon. He felt that leading a platooon ought to be the capstone of one's career, not its beginning. He went on to justify this claim by saying platoon leadership requires more specialized knowledge and skill than any newly-commissioned 20-something can possibly be expected to have. The most important part of that knowledge is not learned from books: it is knowing how to work with people, which can only be learned by working with people.

While I may not completely agree with all of this sentiment--I suspect company command may actually be the toughest job an officer every gets the privilege to hold--I do think it has a lot of truth to it. I guess that's why we are lucky enough to have those crusty E7 platoon sergeants around to make sure the LTs don't screw the pooch too badly. I know mine certainly saved the tails of me and the rest of my platoon more times than I care to recount.

I would gladly have fewer generals if it meant I could have more well-qualified E-6s,-7s, and -8s in the force.