Staffs and their usefulness

[picklesuit]

I think you all are discussing the internal politics of a given staff as opposed to the usefulness of a staff to a commanding officer. The modern staff system was a Prussian invention first officially employed in 1814 that proved quite useful. The first U.S.Army staff was the U.S.Army staff structure during the Civil War and proved a much better way to control an army in battle than Lee's disjointed command structure that relied on Lee's personal relationships with his corps commanders who had a bad habit of being KIA. Staffs are an integral part of giving a battlefield commander the C3I to best inform to make decisions when putting are young men and women in harms way.

Well look who stayed awake through Clausewitz...

 

[wink]

I think you all are discussing the internal politics of a given staff as opposed to the usefulness of a staff to a commanding officer. The modern staff system was a Prussian invention first officially employed in 1814 that proved quite useful. The first U.S.Army staff was the U.S.Army staff structure during the Civil War and proved a much better way to control an army in battle than Lee's disjointed command structure that relied on Lee's personal relationships with his corps commanders who had a bad habit of being KIA. Staffs are an integral part of giving a battlefield commander the C3I to best inform to make decisions when putting are young men and women in harms way.

I appreciate being talked back onto target. The history speaks for itself. With that in mind, a command structure that includes a supporting staff seems to be a necessity of a modern military command. So then what is the debate? That AIRPAC doesn't need a staff?