Why is there such a pronounced difference in how the military treats officers vs enlisted people? This even extends to how they are treated when a POW, as seen in Bridge Over River Kwai.

Question

I *completely* understand that there needs to be a hierarchy, but there seems to be a big discontinuity between these different classifications. When I was in the Navy, I noticed this extended to eating accommodations, and even how ships were built (different hallways for enlisted and officers to walk down). This may have made sense “back in the day”, but why does this separation continue to exist today?

In: 222

Answer 1

Officers and enlisted personnel have fundamentally different roles. A warship is a great example.

A helmsman (an enlisted sailor) turns the wheel to move the rudder, but a bridge officer (Officer of the Watch/Officer of the Deck/Conning Officer) issues the order that determines which way the enlisted member will turn the helm.

Likewise, it is often an enlisted member that presses the button to activate a weapon system that fires a missile or gun, but the officer gives the order.

Why is this?

Imagine that the ship runs aground or its missile or shell hits a civilian airplane or ship? Who should stand trial and face repercussions for the error?

Well, the officer does. Because *responsibility* for the decisions that led to the incident falls on officers, not enlisted people.

If the person actually operating the ship’s helm or weapons is also responsible for the outcome of that action, they would be too distracted to *also* perform their task as efficiently as is possible.

While enlisted people carry out most of the tasks that a military performs, officers are responsible for the outcome of these tasks, even if they have no physical hand in them, and *even* if a poor outcome is due solely to an error or omission by a soldier/sailor under them.

This frees enlisted personnel of ethical and cognitive burdens related to decision-making so they can just focus on their tasks.

Decision-making responsibility gives officers their authority to command their teams. Thus enlisted members need not consider what action is needed, or whether they will face repercussions when someone makes the wrong decision. They can just do their job.

Unless an order is manifestly unlawful or an enlisted member’s conduct is grossly negligent, the enlisted member must always obey an order and the officer is always responsible for the order’s outcome.

To give officers the room to comfortably contemplate their decisions, their operational accommodations are usually less spartan than for enlisted personnel.