Why are armies divided into officers and enlisted men?
Of course, armies need command hierarchies.
But why has no army experimented with a single line, top to bottom, let's say Private, ...Corporal, Sergeant, ..., Lieut, Captain, Major, ...Col., General...?
It is said that officers decide and enlisted men execute, but this is an artificial distinction—each level decides for the level below, which executes by deciding for the level below that.
In the US armed forces, a few enlisted and NCO can go to Officer Candidate School, but this is definitely a transfer from one track to another, not a promotion in the simple sense. The great majority of officers and enlisted/NCO stay within their own track start to finish.
Even if some army makes the distinction for historical reasons, why doesn't any army try the one-track alternative?
Note: See a further discussion of the same question on LessWrong Why officers vs. enlisted?
What most don't seem to understand about the dual command structures (there are actually three if you remember the warrant officers) is that one is focused on a job (the enlisted) and the troops capabilities to do it, while the other is focused on command and deployment of those troops (officers). A Gunnery Sergeant may rate the same general respect as the Lieutenant, not the same official honors, mind you, but they are much more masters of how to get various missions done. They also ensure that all their troops below are capable of instituting those orders when they are given. The Lieutenant in the platoon is in charge of knowing when to use those capabilities and how to deploy them to maximize effect when considering all other units in the area of operations. These are two completely different knowledge sets. One is actually more of a teacher and the other is actually more of a strategist. One can't just flow into the other. They aren't just on different promotion tracks, they are different educational tracks.
Take it down even further. A Sergeant Major is almost always the oldest member of a unit. They usually have much more experience, in years, than the Lt. Colonel they may be attached to. The SgtMaj's job isn't as much to command as it is act as an expert adviser to the Lt Col. Why would a Lt. Colonel need an adviser? Because he has spent his career doing something completely different and doesn't know the same things the SgtMaj does. The two went to two separate sets of colleges within the military (Sgt's Course, Staff Sergeant's Course, the War College, there are more.) The two have completely different skillsets built by more than a few decades between them that absolutely cannot be learned by a single person. The Lt. Colonel's knowledge is usually more important since they are the ones who suffer the burden of command and have been trained to such a purpose. He does, however, benefit greatly by the experience that senior enlisted man has to offer.
There is also the career track in general. All officers are operating under the assumption that they are going to stay as long their service is beholden to the desires of the President. Enlisted sign up for a few years and then they leave, having fulfilled their civic obligations or receiving the compensation they signed for. Then, if they want to stay in the service, they Re-enlist, which means that they start over with another four years or so. One thing to consider is that there are many differences in mentalities between someone who, day one, is thinking about the career rather than deciding eight years into it they want to stick it out to retirement.
There is also the mentality of someone who wants to be a person who interacts with troops rather than command them. A General, for instance, will never see the troops who he commands, like ever. That battalion Sgt Major, though? You'll see him every day if you didn't do a good job of dodging him and the Gunnery Sgt basically runs your life. Some people just want that face-to-face contact and pinning on the brass would make them inferior officers.
The real historical model to look for is replicated pretty consistently across most of history and most cultures. In all of those societies, the Sovereign (be it King, Emperor, some Assembly or Senate, etc) cannot physically perform all of the duties he/they own. Chief among those duties is the provision of the security of the State/City/Government they lead against internal and external threats to their power. So, they routinely delegate those authorities to individuals who represent the Sovereign's authority (i.e. this is called a Commission). In history, those Commissions are either temporary, say for a campaign, or permanent, say a rank.
So in the military context the "officers" then become the people that hold the authority of the State to compel service, require standards, and employ military as they see fit for the duration of their Commission. This is the genetic origin of the Officer/Enlisted divide.
In the U.S. Article 2 of the Constitution allows the President to Commission military officers (among other civil officers). Thus, the President vests in the officers he commissions the powers he retains as the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy which is the power to recruit, train, and employ (command) members of the military.
So the true difference is: Officers are charged by the State to create and use the military. Enlisted members are recruited by those officers to perform tasks they deem necessary in order to meet the Commander in Chief's intent. To make a simplistic analogy: the power of violence belongs to the State. The State delegates that power to an officer of the State. The officer of the State then is responsible for when and how it is used. So an enlisted man pulls the trigger, but it is the officer that decides when and why.
Of course, in reality, all of this gets heavily bureaucretized to meet the demands of a large force, which has the effect of the smearing the distinction. But the fundamental distinction will remain....someone has to be the trusted and accountable agent of the Sovereign.
The historical and modern reasons for having officers are still the same. Nobility are just replaced with “educated.” Interestingly, there does seem to be a trend that members of richer families generally go to college before joining and poorer individuals join specifically so they can go to college, so it can sometimes be somewhat cliche.
There is the argument for “specialization” that comes up often in this type of discussion. While it may seem archaic in massive standing armies, it’s usefulness - the separation of officers and enlisted - becomes somewhat apparent in eras of mass recruitment or draft, such as WWII or the Vietnam war. It’s much easier to teach everyone one thing to do. It’s OK for the person in charge to not know what anything is, as long as they are surrounded by people who can break it down and steer them in the right direction. The problem though is, while the current system does seem to make sense in certain situations, specialization would have a place in an army with one line of advancement rather than 2 (Counting warrants is like counting a cyst as your third arm).
Warrants were created specifically to honor military enlisted members without breaking strict class systems and have continued in many forms as a tradition. They were basically a way of telling someone “you’d be an officer if you didn’t have dirt pleb blood.” We happily continue this in a less insulting way, but it doesn’t change the origin. No disrespect for Warrants though, they are probably the most important people in many areas of military - some things just wouldn’t get done if someone didn’t give some sort of a torch to the runners who actually knew where the track was.
There are only a few real reasons the current system will continue probably forever. The military, in most all cultures, is heavily based in tradition - especially standing armies. That, and due to the fact that military organization hasn’t caused any serious problems, leaves no reason for the current system to be altered - it would take an immense amounts of man-hours to restructure the military. Furthermore, there is the fact that officers, from the moment they are “broken” in training are built with the idea that they are better than enlisted - sometimes indirectly, but sometimes not so indirectly. There is a very real discrimination against enlisted by officers, whether they admit it or not, built into the 2 line system. These are the people that would have to decide to change the way things are.
P.S. I would personally just be happy if they desegregated officers and enlisted up to O-3. 20 year old kids shouldn’t be treated like royalty while salty E-6+ get slightly bigger bones.
Officers plan and take care of soldiers in the general sense. NCOs organize work and look out for individual soldiers. These jobs are sufficiently different that prior enlisted experience doesn't help officers that much. Yes, they have a greater familiarity with the life of the Army, but the job is different and I'm not sure the experience really carries over very well from one track to the other.
1. In the army you are going to ask people to risk their lives for goals that are beyond their understanding or necessity. If you ask them nicely("hey private, want to go face a hundred insurgents armed with ak47s, LMGs, MMGs, a couple of snipers and a few rocket launchers? Oh, you are not feeling well. Ok, I'll just ask the next guy".) a couple of them might volunteer, maybe even 10% might volunteer. Hence you need to have a culture of following orders unquestioningly. And for that you need a hierarchy.
2. Now, if you go in for a top to bottom, linear approach, who will be the initial officers, the first general, the first colonel, the first major and the rest of the hierarchy? Ok, for arguments sake let us consider that one of the armies in the world decide that they will gradually convert to a linear system.
It will take at least fifteen(I'm being generous here) years for a man to become a captain or a major. This guy is going to be 35 years old and his physical prowess will be on a decline. He will be physically unfit to lead men into battle. He effectively becomes a white elephant contributing nothing to the organisation.
3. Most of the armies, even today are officer-led. You need to have an officer(even if he may be a young and inexperienced lieutenant) to lead men into battle. He is a representative of the decision making group in the army and yet is risking his life in battle with his men. That will provide his men the required amount of inspiration and motivation to follow him. Nobody is willingly going to go out into battle if he is getting orders from behind a door, from an old man he has no connection to. The young captain on the battlefield with him solves this problem. There may be exceptions, but not too many.
4. How many really intelligent, educated, talented young men are going to enlist if they knows they will have to begin their career as a private and then work their way up?
Zilch.
Why would a guy who has spent a fortune on his college education and topped his school or college want to start at the base of a very large pyramid in the hope that twenty years down the line he might start getting some responsibility, respect and money?
The army, like any other organisation(in fact more than any other organisation) would want to attract the best talent and a linear approach is not the best way to do it.
This is a system that has been in place for a long time and has been fine tuned and perfected over centuries. It would take a really good idea to displace this system and bring about some real change.
