sob wrote:
The orginal topic was the high number senior officers. Though it is high it not has high has some though.
sob, please qualify your statement. Which other armed forces employ so many high rankers, (Colonel and above)?
Or did you mean to say "Although high, not as high as some THOUGHT?"
If so, what in your opinion, is a high number of high rankers? in the SADF that I served in, and my father for 21 years, the battalion structure was set, so many troops per stick, so many per platoon, etc.
Given, this might have changed over time, but I strongly doubt that a war room full of over-weight, gun-shy generals will be able to win a war just because of their numbers. it is my opinion, and also my experience that ONE good leader leads a large contingent of men (or women) more effectively than a barrage of high rankers.
Too many chiefs allow for inconsistent management, mixed messages, incompetence, inefficient resource allocation and turf wars within the structure. Oh my, I actually just described the current Armed Forces. I freakin wonder how that is possible.
Still waiting for a response please.