I agree with most all the comments. I knew a few officers who were pricks, all the way up to O-6 grade, but they generally learn early on how to get things done. I know that Ensigns, when they go to their leadership training, are thoroughly indoctrinated about relying on senior NCOs to guide them through their first couple of years. I had a fresh ensign to play with, who actually looked somewhat frightened when we first met.
Sure, it wouldn’t be wise for the enlisted to get that impression, but haven’t there been militaries past and present where the enlisted knew full well that they *were *indeed cannon fodder? (the modern-day North Koreans and WWII Japanese coming to mind)
I don’t know about the modern day NKs, but the analogy to WWII Japanese is reasonable.
That said, they did so willingly and with a conviction that it was the right thing to do.
Today, we can argue and discuss the fact that they did so, but we can’t really argue the ‘why’. And if we could, it wouldn’t be because their officers were pricks… imo. YMMV.
To be fair, the only higher ranking officer I dealt with more than once was probably our CHENG and he was pretty awesome actually (a Commander O-5). Everyone else were O-3 and below. I dealt mostly with those that ran the boat, Chiefs. I suspect Ensigns act differently around junior petty officers and firemen then around Chiefs and even then I only had the one jerk.
I just about got my ass chewed off by the Air Boss when I was new to the ship. But I was wearing a ball cap on the flight deck and honestly if I wasn’t a boot probably deserved far worse than a chewing out. So not a jerk. FOD does occasionally kill and I learned my lesson.
Gee and all these years I thought that the O in NCO was for Officer. :smack:
Old joke that is somewhat relevant: I couldn’t be a commissioned officer because my parents were married. IE: Not a bastard. 
Retired SMSgt here.
I was a prick when I was a 2nd LT. When you have a 21-year-old man who nominally outranks middle aged men who have decades of experience and knowledge, it’s a recipe for conflict. There was a lot of eye-poking between me and the NCO’s until we got used to each other, and I got some experience. I saw some officers who kept this behavior up to O-3 and even O-4, but those were mostly direct-commissions (the most epic prick I ever met was a recently commissioned dentist, O-3).
In hindsight, it seems nuts that this situation could even exist. I’m sure it gets people killed sometimes. But it’s been that way for a really long time. To the OP, I don’t know that every country is like that. All I can say is there are real reasons for the stereotype.
It was my experience that the O-2s (LTJG) were the cockiest, having passed trial by fire as an ENS. That’s not to say they were dickish, although some certainly were. But I knew far more enlisted assholes than I did officer grade assholes.
Besides all that has been said thus far in this thread, from my experience, it was always the officer from that other unit, that was dickish, never your officers.
In all seriousness, my observations of the officers that were appointed over me was that, within our unit, they were pretty good at mentoring each other in regards to not being a dick to us enlisted. Loyalty to and Trust in your officers as part of Morale was always a seriously considered issue in the units I served in, with many a gripe and bs session with our CO and us and nobody else, no NCOs or other officers so as to allow more frank discussion and to relax the formality a bit. Especially with us, the maintenance section, though I’m sure my commanders did the same with the other sections and the line platoons.
In my experience Without fail the nicest people in the military with regards to how they treated random subordinates were generals. I figure because when they need to stick a boot in someone’s ass it’s going to be a colonel. They have no need to act like an asshole to private snuffy.
SSG Barnes>LT Wolfe
This is 100% true. I remember when I was an E-2 in the Army stationed at Fliegerhorst Kaserne in Germany in 1989. My Dad was a Colonel in the Engineers at the time.
I’m working outside the barracks one day, policing up trash, etc when I hear the cry “Private X! Front and center!” I wander over towards the street and next to my platoon sergeant, standing at parade rest, was a brigadier general. His name was General Harrell, US Army Corps of Engineers, an African American.
I said (at attention) “Sir?”
He said “Private X, how is everything here for you? Your Dad asked me to check up on you, are you doing okay?”
By this time my company commander (Captain) had gotten wind of his presence and rushed out to the scene to assure the general that I was a fine soldier sir, we love Private X (I was none of these things, I kept getting popped for smoking hash).
General Harrell (real name) said “Carry on, Captain. Private, you sure everything’s okay?”
“Yes, sir”
He left, with the entourage he showed up with. My fellow E-4’s and below were gaping at me the whole time, then rushed me after he left.
“Who was that? Why is he asking after you?”
“I don’t know him. Some friend of my Dad’s, I guess”
Resumes raking, mowing, picking up trash, etc…
Europe, mainly. You had to buy your commission and the salary generally wasn’t enough and had to be made up by family. Possibly more common in Britain with the Empire, of course.
You mistake me. These were sons of the landed who would inherit nothing and were being given a chance to make something of themselves. The Church was another parking spot for these sons.
I did misunderstand, apologies.
Going to St Pauls Cathedral, you see many examples of memorials for British officers killed during the Napoleonic Wars, typically paid for by family, often noblity.
Although, from what I have read, the Army was not just for younger sons, like the popular view, eldest sons were apparently just as commonly represented.
One thing the British aristocrats were not, were cowards. They led their men from the front and died in droves.
Its actually quite strking the difference between the British and the American Armies in this respect. The British gave young officers lots of responsibility and encouraged iniative, the Americans seem to have trusted Subalterns about as far as they could throw them. This despite the fact that in both Armies, service meant being stationed at farway and desolate posts, where a Lt or a Captain might be the senior agent of the Government for hundreds of miles.
That’s a rather rosy view. Just because someone has the money and inclination to pay for an army doesn’t mean that they are charismatic natural leaders. And many of the soldiers and sailors fighting for these leaders didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, having been conscripted or impressed into service, or else forced out of economic necessity.
There are certainly exceptions, and I’m not trying to say that there aren’t any officer pricks. I just don’t believe it’s all that common based on personal experience and history.
How many times throughout history do we hear about an army losing it’s leader in battle and then falling apart? That isn’t because no one else is smart enough to lead.
No, it’s because the chain of command has collapsed and nobody’s sure who’s in charge - that’s why it rarely happens in disciplined modern militaries. In battle, it’s better to have an utter idiot in command than have no-one in command.
I used to love the 2 and 3 star Generals who somehow lost their aides and what-not and ended up lost in the Pentagon. All the lower ranking officers just steered clear, but as a MSgt, it was cool for me to just wander up to the general - “Hey Sir, you need help finding something?”
Always loved doing that 
The article says Arab Armies but it actually speaks of the Middle Eastern countries (and the author seems to have substantial experience there, but not outside of the Middle East) and is very concentrated on indeed those with a soviet history.
So I gather you’re using Subalterns for junior officers in this case.
If the US did entrust a Lt with a remote Fort back in the 1800s, it would have normally been a trusted officer and not some raw kid. I also think it was typical at least a Captain in rank, so not really a Jr Officer or Subaltern.
In the Philippines they had fair communications back to Gen. Arthur MacArthur* during the early military occupation. I’m trying to figure out where in US History they had raw Jr Officers technically in charge of remote posts. Not sure about Cuba, but no post in Cuba could be that remote in the end. The Island just isn’t big enough. 1906 had a small, well trained force of Marines led by a skilled Colonel followed by 18000 army troops.
US did not actually have many remote posts except in the West during the expanding frontier days. At the height of the Indian Wars there were many posts, maybe 100 but they had about 200 men each and were usually led by at least a Captain and as often a Major IIRC.
** Father of the more famous Douglas MacArthur*