Recently we got two new 2Lt's at my unit. They were getting thier initial kit issue and being taught how to tye up thier boots and stuff like that. Yet, since they have a degree, they are automatically 2Lt's. So I salute them but they don't even know how to salute back. These people arn't going to have to take thier phase courses, but instead will have trade courses. How can they command a troop without at least a rudimentary understanding on how the army works? Some of our officers are fairly clueless with regards to both the perspective of the ordinary soldier, and thier own basic soldier skills.

Yes, I know, it is not for me to reason why. And I still havn't quite figured out what officers do. But this system doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

First off - for the sake of "argument", let's pretend the Army is like a hockey team - everybody has a "position" to play, sort of like forwards, defence, and goalie. Now, on a hockey team, rarely is the goalie begrudged for not scoring goals - his/her job is to stop them. The goal-scorers are supposed to be the forwards, supported by the defence. Equally, even though the defence are supposed to stop the opposing forwards, everybody is expected to back-check.

Thus, the moral of the story is ... teamwork above all.

Accordingly, if you don't understand how officers are supposed to "play their position", maybe it would be helpful to learn (i.e. in combat the offr might be killed, and then an NCO would have to take over ...).

Similarly, it behooves everybody to learn how others are supposed to "play" - it helps us to be a better team. Keep in mind, however, that virtually every team has strong and weak players - some forwards, some defence, and sadly ... even goalies. Winning teams, however, compensate for the foibles of individuals through superb teamwork.

Want to be part of a winning team?

Finally, here are a few observations from authorities much more qualifed than yours truly:

"Waste no time arguing what a good person should be. Be one."
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

"The Army taught me some great lessons -- to be prepared for catastrophe -- to endure being bored -- and to know that however fine a fellow I thought myself in my usual routine there were other situations in which I was inferior to men that I might have looked down upon had not experience taught me to look up."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935)

"Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility."
February 1955 Combat Forces Journal

Officers without experience in war should be treated kindly. Their good actions should be praised. Small requests should be granted and they should not be treated in an overbearing manner, but severity is maintained about everything regarding duty.
(Frederick The Great: Instruction for His Generals, viii, 1747)

Chimo!

Saying I don't know what officers do might be a slight exagerration. I know they do work, but I'm not exactly sure what thier function within, say an enginner troop in combat.

Basically, the RESO phase training is intended for officers who are still in university and can afford to spend all summer on course (Phase One and Two the first summer, Phase Three the second, and sometimes Phase Four in the third, although it's not always possible to get Phase Four).

The other courses are intended for officers who have fulltime civilian jobs, and therefore must use their vacation to go on course (unless their employer grants them some additional time off for military training or service - something that is not automatic).

It may be suggested the philosophy behind these two training options is this: the university students are usually younger and, in addition to having more time on their hands for training, might also benefit from spending more time with troops. On the other hand, the traditional part-time officers should usually be slightly older, and theoretically might have already learned some life lessons on civvie street (i.e. the school of hard knocks). Also, from personal experience I've found that reserve officer spend most (too much) time fighting "paper wars" - dealing with administrative headaches - as opposed to getting out into the field and having fun. As such, it is useful to have some officers who are better trained and experienced at shovelling paper ... in order to ensure that training can actually take place.

Certainly, I would never disagree with the plain and simple truth - the more time somebody spends doing something, the more practice they get. However, especially with engineer officers, it is possible their civvie job also provides them with invaluable experience in engineering skills.

It's also useful to remember experiences from previous wars and conflicts - young officers in World War II were rushed through their training, and thrust into combat fairly quickly ... because they were needed as replacements for casualties. Another example comes to mind - I once read a very interesting article on the American experience during the Korean War: initially, officer casualties were quite high - however, as Reserve and National Guard officers entered the war, their maturity and experience paid off in spades ... (hmmm).

However, I'm not an impartial observer (especially since I spent time in the ranks, took part-time courses, spent many years on fulltime service, and have met both good and bad examples from EVERY entry program) - just as we recognise and accept the essential composition of the "combined arms team", I believe it is useful, even important to maintain a "mixed" officer corps - RESO, MITCP, DEO, ROTP - as long as we recognise the benefit of varied entry programs, inasmuch as they provide a more balanced officer team. If entry were restricted to only one path, the officer corps would become "The Borg" (i.e. just like a hockey team where everybody is a flashy goal-scorer, but nobody backchecks or goes into the corners ... or is capable of original thought ... ).

Food for thought, if I may.

Chimo!