Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
...the staff is entirely submissive to the commander.
I lack current experience but for the period 1949-1995 that was far from a universal truth; I've seen many a Staff type bulldoze or cover for a weak Commander and even more go around an overly authoritarian type.
...I'm curious if it would be desirable for someone (the "chief") on the staff to have someone from the next higher unit (CO/XO) as his rater.
Lot of practical problems with implementing that, not least distance and separation in many cases; i.e. it will work in garrison, in peacetime and in some low intensity combat situations but not in all and will not work at all in mid or high intensity combat. The latter may be the exception rather than the rule with regard to time but the latter are the ultimate reason for existence of any staff and thus their requirements have to be the arbiter.
...What partly I'm interested in is whether or not an adversarial staff can develop better intents, COAs, and so on based on the higher unit's tasking. I think this would also lessen the impact of a commander's personality on MDMP. Thoughts?
The intent is or should be the commanders, it is NOT up to the staff to develop that and no good Commander will allow that other than as a training measure; in the actual plan or order, it must be his.

The adversarial approach is much used in many communities, in a military setting it is seldom helpful and is vastly over rated as a method.

The commander's personality is not the only impactor on the MDMP (which is BTW entirely too slow to be used in mid or higher level conflict below Corps level and IMO should be scrapped...), staff personalities and squabbles can also affect it. So, even more so can higher hq -- and subordinate units...