"Officer = prick" stereotype in various militaries

Question from a civilian:

  1. Is there a stereotype that “officers are pricks” in most militaries worldwide; especially commissioned officers (as opposed to NCOs?)

  2. Do most militaries ignore, or even, in fact, approve of prickish behavior by officers?

  1. NCO are not officers at all, they are enlisted.

Most officers are not pricks, but some are and for purpose of movies having some prick officers often helps the narrative. The Frank Burnses of the world are fairly rare but many freshly commissioned Ensigns & 2nd Louies do end up acting dickish until they learn how to really be officers.

  1. Not really a thing, so can’t answer this.

This.

I can recall a few cases when a 'butter bar Lt." or a “ninety day wonder” acted like a prick… then either figured it out on their own or were taught a lesson by their superiors. In one case I know of they were taught that lesson by a Staff Sgt.

I should add, I was never an officer and in fact only a third class petty officer.

I only had one dick of an ensign and oddly enough 1 Warrant Officer who was a complete jackass. Warrants usually have good reputations. Warrants are enlisted first and IIRC had to get up to at least E5 before getting into the Warrant Officer program.

Can’t recall any higher ranking officers that were actually pricks. Maybe 1 or 2 sticklers for rules that chewed me or friends out. I’m sure I was pissed at them at the time, but hell I was more wrong than they were dicks.

All of this is from the perspective of the US Navy in the 80s, but I know enough others vets where I feel this has been true in the US since at least WWII.

Also, the commissioned-officer-as-prick trope in many militaries comes from a history of class positions, by which for a long, long time in *many *nations the officer corps was assembled from those whose main qualification was being the sons of nobility or gentry, rather than any tactical or managerial merit; and later on in many armies commissions could essentially be bought (You have the money to equip and recruit a batallion of volunteers? Congratulations, you are a Colonel.) or closer to our time in some of the crappier militaries were (and often still are) promoted on political reliability or outright patronage/nepotism.

To this day that working class troops v. toff officers set-up is evoked in the proverbial protest of the Sergeants, *“Don’t call me ‘sir’, I work for a living.” * And some of the work the senior Sergeants/Chiefs have to do is helping newbie 2LT/ENS’s figure out what’s what.

Remember that for a time, the officer corps was the way the monied classes got rid of surplus male offspring.

In the US at least this is very outdated. Maybe it lasted longer in the UK?

I don’t think so. Perhaps in the home of haggis, but not for anyone else.

Why would any military want their subordinates to think they were fodder for enemy fire? They wouldn’t. Simple as.

Morale is a key issue in any army. Ancient or modern.

An officer in a western, volunteer military which uses mission-oriented orders and who’s a prick has serious issues. Some manage to still make good careerwise and move up. Been there. Seen that. It’s not a good model for success in combat, though. It doesn’t fit with how the US Army says it wants to operate. The mission oriented philosophy gets termed Mission Command in the US and is laid out in ADP 6-0.

The first of the six principles of Mission Command straight from the book:

Some of the follow-on fleshing out of that principle:

Sound like a job for a prick to you?

Note that in corporate settings, bosses are apt to acquire the same reputation. Students occasionally think of their teachers this way. Children, their parents. Citizens, the police.

It’s human nature to harbor a measure of resentment for those who have authority over you.

He didn’t mean as cannon fodder, just that they use to buy the commissions in many armies & navies. It got them out from underfoot and potentially prepped them for a career in politics. It was pretty common even in the US through the 1800s but then largely phased out. I think most commissions in the Civil War (in the North at least) were bought in fact. Probably explains a lot of our problems despite having the advantage.

Let me add that there’s an old saying in business: “People do business with people they like”.

You may live in a small town with only one baker, and you may despise that person, and have no choice but to deal with them. But, as soon as another choice arrives you’ll move your business.

The same applies to any military group. You’ll fight for someone you like/respect/trust. But if you fear them, you’ll only fight until there’s a better choice. See most middle east armies.

A good, if not historically accurate, example of this is the role played by David Schwimmer in ‘Band of Brothers’. Just prior to being deployed into combat most of the NCOs rebelled against him. While that was a serious offense, none were held accountable and his character was taken out of the loop!

No one is going to give their life for a ‘prick’.

Fair enough. But that, in and of itself, doesn’t mean that they were pricks. I’m sure some were, but I doubt it was a large number.

After all, most commissions that were bought were contingent on the person being able to raise and equip a squad/battalion/army with their own funds. The more men you could provide the higher rank you got.

Again, no is going to give their life for a prick. These men had a natural charm/charisma/leadership quality about them… and some money to boot.

I remember someone in another thread linked to this article once, in reference to leadership problems that the Arab armies suffered from during the war with Israel in 1967.

If that essay is to be believed, the rigid class hierarchy is alive and well in Arab armies. As of 1999, anyway - hopefully they’ve improved since then.

I have also heard, anecdotally, that out of the American military branches, the Navy has the most social-class-based officer/enlisted divide.

Why on earth would you hope “they’ve improved since then”? :confused:

That is the achilles heel of almost all middle east armies.

It won’t change until the entire culture changes and there’s no sign of that happening anytime soon.

Tofficers? :smiley:

Why? I think I prefer the Arab armies not being well organized.

Maybe, but it was not noticeable to me at all. I know the services have a fairly high incidence of being officers is the family business, but that is not class, unless the military is considered a class.

Navy is very technical and has been for quite some time, so most officers were smart college kids and my impression was that West Point was more important to the Army than Annapolis to the Navy which was more meritocracy in style for promotions. but that might just be Navy scuttlebutt.

Those Arab armies are supposed to be fighting ISIS, I’d rather they be competent.

“supposed” to be being the key word in that sentence.