"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.

Why?

Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
Top.

Why?

Similar levels of training, duties, and experience.
Since the upper-level NCO is likely older and more
experienced, he probably has better judgement, too.
(NOT that I'm advocating this; who in their right
mind would trade in a bunch of stripes for a funky
lieutenant's bars?)

NCO's have their jobs, and very important ones at that--there is a reason
they have oft been referred to as the "backbone" of whatever service is the
subject of the discussion. Commissioned officers have their jobs as well,
and NCO's traditionally don't really care to assume those duties (even the
platoon sergeant forced to serve as platoon leader due to a shortage of LT's
usually, in my experience, looks forward to getting a new LT if for no other
reason than to reduce the amount of time he has to dedicate to apaerwork and
meetings that he otherwise would not have to manage). The policy of
commissioning CWO's to allow them more freedom of action, and to better
utilize the total available officer manpower pool, in no way implies or
justifies commissioning "non-commissioned" officers.


I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.

Where did you get *that* from?

The proper form of address for Warrant Officers is
"Mister". For NCOs it is "Sergeant", "Petty Officer",
(or, in some services, "Chief", if applicable).

Uhmmm--the poster was claiming that First Sergeants were the ones supposedly
being called "sir", not warrants. And in the Army, the common form of
address for CWO's is "chief", though you can also call them "Mister" the
same as you do a "Wobbly One".

Brooks