It used to be that the enlisted ranks weren't very educated. Officers supposedly had all the smarts and had to keep things organized and on track.
Well, a lot has changed.
Today's military is an all-volunteer force with enlisted personnel who bring education, technical knowledge, professional experience, and years of military training to their jobs.
So why do we continue to maintain such a rigid separation between officers and enlisted personnel?
Tradition.
Stupid military tradition is one of the biggest hang-ups the armed services have.
The Enlisted–Officer Divide
I'm not suggesting that the military doesn't need leadership, discipline, or a chain of command. Of course it does.
I'm questioning whether the current division of authority makes the best use of the people already serving.
Why can't we come up with a solution that maintains an effective management structure but utilizes our assets more efficiently?
The answer, of course, is that it can't happen. It's the military.
Here's the idea.
Give Senior Enlisted Leaders More Authority
Give more responsibility to the enlisted ranks for management, discipline, day-to-day operations, and training.
This would also include a pay raise across the board.
Senior noncommissioned officers already carry enormous responsibility for leading troops, maintaining standards, developing junior personnel, and making units function.
I'm suggesting a much bigger change: give experienced enlisted leaders additional formal authority to go along with those responsibilities.
We should be asking who is qualified to lead and accomplish the mission, not simply protecting the way things have always been done.
Why Couldn't an E-8 Command a Company?
Why can't an E-8 be a company commander in the Army?
Think about the years of military experience a senior enlisted leader may have compared with a relatively junior commissioned officer.
Some senior enlisted personnel also hold college degrees, professional certifications, and extensive technical qualifications. A degree isn't universally required for promotion to E-8, but education is hardly exclusive to commissioned officers.
Does a commission automatically make someone the better leader?
I'm not saying that every E-8 is qualified to command a company or that every captain is incompetent. I'm saying we should be willing to consider experienced enlisted leaders for responsibilities traditionally reserved for commissioned officers.
Sorry, Captain. Your services may no longer be needed here.
What Would Officers Do?
Under my proposed structure, officers would concentrate more heavily on administrative work, equipment procurement, organizing large operations, coordination between services, public and governmental relationships, and the broader organizational responsibilities that still have to be handled.
Let the people with extensive hands-on experience spend more time leading troops and running daily operations.
This is sort of how some responsibilities are already divided, but I'm suggesting a much larger restructuring.
Officer ranks could be reduced, the commissioning system reconsidered, and the remaining roles defined around the work that actually requires them.
I've also argued for changes to the commissioning system in my earlier article, Get Rid of the Academies.
Would Restructuring Save Money?
How much money could taxpayers save if the officer structure were reduced, even after giving enlisted personnel a substantial pay raise?
In my original proposal, I suggested a 15% enlisted pay increase.
The actual savings would depend on staffing levels, pay structures, training costs, and which responsibilities were reassigned. It would take a serious financial analysis to know whether the proposal would save money.
But that's a reason to examine the idea, not dismiss it because the present system is familiar.
And we shouldn't assume that maintaining the current structure automatically makes the force stronger.
Experience Matters More Than Appearances
When I've presented this idea over the years, some responses have been complete disbelief. People couldn't even comprehend how something like this could be considered.
"A world without officers in total control of my life? You should be shot for thinking like that."
Speaking from experience, a job is a job. You either know your place or you are gone.
I once worked in a unit where we didn't wear uniforms, had longer hair, and used first names.
That included the O-5, who did wear a uniform most of the time.
We still did our jobs. And bosses were still bosses.
The authority structure worked because people knew their responsibilities and performed them. Uniforms, titles, and formality weren't what made the organization function.
Rethinking Military Leadership
Keeping commissioned officers and enlisted personnel separated by such a rigid traditional structure is, in my opinion, wasteful.
The idea isn't to eliminate leadership. It's to bring the ranks into a more cohesive organization that understands itself from top to bottom.
Would a restructuring this large create challenges? Absolutely. Authority, legal responsibilities, education, career progression, and command accountability would all have to be addressed.
But refusing to examine an idea because it challenges tradition is exactly the kind of thinking that prevents organizations from improving.
Restructuring the military might hurt some egos initially.
I believe the end result could be a more powerful, efficient force that makes better use of the people serving in it.
Opinion and commentary. Originally published October 2013. Updated October 2026.