Military Officers should NOT lead from The Front

Command, staff, and decision making should be done far away from the battlefield in secured locations.I think this point will be pretty self explanatory due to the advent of modern weapons. But there is no tactical or logistical advantage to be had for officers -in a leadership position- to ever be placing themselves, their staff, or headquarters directly in the line of fire; and the planning and administrative upkeep needed to run a military campaign or a sizable ground force (platoon size on up) should always be done back from behind the lines and at a safe distance. I realize the parameters of this debate will extend to all officers (many of whom are not in command positions) and different types of AOs, but I'd like to make my position on the role of the battlefield commander perfectly clear; the officer in charge cannot afford to risk directly exposing himself on the battlefield due to the high probability of being killed, captured, surrounded, or separated from the whole of his forces. Killing or removing the commander from the command & control equation will almost certainly result in a form of strategic paralysis -at any level- and cause a seismic setback to any ongoing operation.The education, training, and background of officers is generally better suited for staff work than combat.Leading people (regardless of organization) requires interpersonal skills, but in combat, it also requires a heroic temperament, physical fitness, and a hint of coup d'œil (split-second intuition). The administrative skills and training of military officers in this case, are generally not superior to that of the enlisted & NCO corps who will have specialized in teamwork and handling weapons; where the most outstanding differential in the early background & training between an officer and an enlisted member of the military upon swearing in -for combat and leadership necessities only- is a rather bland college degree. Both officers and enlistees receive their share of combat proficiency beginning with weapons familzation and fitness training at basic and OCS, but at the following and more advanced stages of individual/specialist level training, combat proficiency begins to decline for the officer as they slowly begin to assume more career related training and duties which (more often that not) does not involve the officer fighting or leading soldiers on the front lines at all. Some advanced career training for an officer may include: pilot, logistics, intelligence, quartermaster, civil affairs, Chaplin, nurse, and JAG. These specializations of course, do not demand frontline combat or people skills and eventually lead to an administrative type career. In contrast, an enlisted NCO who has made the rank of sergeant (and is of the same age of a newly commissioned officer) will most likely have undergone any number of weapons & leadership courses (ranger, airborne, special forces, etc) and will have spent the majority of his "time in college" in the field, on deployment, and most importantly, leading people. Even with a specialization in Operations (infantry, artillery, armour) a junior officer has mostly been trained and charged to provide communications, organizational direction, and administrative support for up to 25 to 75 soldiers (platoon leader level). The actual maneuvering of fire teams and tactical placement of different units on the battlefield is mostly going to be handled through Team Leaders, Squad Leaders, and the Platoon's First Sergeant - each of whom are enlisted and are vastly more experienced in combat & arms and working with groups than a fresh out of college lieutenant. Upon promotion however, an Army captain may lead up to 500 people (company and small battalion size); which when given the large number of people begins to prove another point; a military officer is a systems leader (much like a CEO or a chief executive) who must operate through origination channels and written orders in order to reach that number of people - an officer is NOT the type of "interpersonal leader" who will build relationships and inspire others with his presence. Its mathematically impossible to do so, though the latter skills are much better suited for frontline combat. Warrant Officers should handle weapon systems and be the military's sole weapon specialists.Many military officers who don't lead or command but instead operate a type of weapons system (such as helicopter and fixed wing pilots) do find themselves fighting close to the frontlines. However I argue that this combat role could be better handled through warrant officers. Warrant officers are trained and enlisted combat tech specialists who will spend much of their whole career operating and perfecting their chosen weapon system. Requiring a college degree and officer training to fly a Blackhawk is inefficient and shown be done away with. Command & Control is effective without having officers on the frontlines to micromanage. Command & Control works by planning, preparing, and executing a mission where the directional flow of information between a commanding officer and subordinate units is usually handled -in broad terms- through the generals staff model. (1)(2) According to this model of organizational leadership, each area of importance to a mission (operations, logistics, intelligence, training etc) is assigned a corresponding staff member who will report directly to the officer in charge, but under each staff member is a growing sequence of mid level managers/officers who will oversee shrinking sizes of men and responsibilities - from corps all the way down to the company level. This chain of command works best when a commander at the top issues his intent and subordinates use their own initiative to accomplish mission objectives. Commanders and staff members are aided through this process of issuing orders and managing relevant information over a situation through digital interfaces and network systems. One of the most widely used systems in the US Army is the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) - which provides an automated view of all friendly force activity and the latest sitrep reports (3). Command & Control however does not work when officers and staff members attempt to micromanage activities on the frontlines, or neglect in their primary task of managing, relaying, and translating mostly digital information from the top down and vice versa. The fog of war does not allow the commander to leave his headquarters and systems hub. Military officers, given the size of their command and the technological aspects of command & control, are systems leaders and NOT people/combat leaders. They have an incredibly vital and specialized job to do which does not involve being present on the frontlines.1)http://www.globalsecurity.org...2)http://en.wikipedia.org...3)http://en.wikipedia.org...