Hubbry Logo
Commanding officerCommanding officerMain
Open search
Commanding officer
Community hub
Commanding officer
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Commanding officer
Commanding officer
Commanding officer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Douglas Haig and Ferdinand Foch inspecting the Gordon Highlanders, 1918

The commanding officer (CO) or commander, or sometimes, if the incumbent is a general officer, commanding general (CG), is the officer in command of a military unit. The commanding officer has ultimate authority over the unit, and is usually given wide latitude to run the unit as they see fit, within the bounds of military law. In this respect, commanding officers have significant responsibilities (for example, the use of force, finances, equipment, the Geneva Conventions), duties (to higher authority, mission effectiveness, duty of care to personnel), and powers (for example, discipline and punishment of personnel within certain limits of military law).

In some countries, commanding officers may be of any commissioned rank, although in others the term only refers to officers in command of units of specific sizes. Usually, there are more officers than command positions available, and time spent in command is generally a key aspect of promotion, so the role of commanding officer is highly valued. The commanding officer heads the command team within the modern military hierarchy.

There are two recurring debates related to military command: the collective command thesis and civil-military relations.

While the commander is an individual, the academic debate centres on whether command is an individual act or a form of a collective. British sociologist Anthony King argued for the emergence of a command collective in Western military forces in his 2019 book Command.[1] Others have argued against King's thesis, stating that it romanticises the collective,[2] that contemporary commanders themselves do not understand their function in this way,[3] or that it may be the case. Still, collective forms of command are less effective in actual combat.[4] U.S. Marine Corps General James Mattis also disagreed with King's thesis: "I disagree if you are trying to do decision-making in boards. The enemy will dance around you".[1]

The civil-military control debate centres on a paradox. The military, an institution designed to protect the polity, must also be strong enough to threaten the society it serves. A military takeover or coup is an example where this balance is used to change the government. Ultimately, the military must accept that it may have to implement a policy decision with which it disagrees.

Commonwealth

[edit]

Army and Royal Marines

[edit]

In the British Army, Royal Marines, and many other Commonwealth military and paramilitary organisations, the commanding officer of a unit is appointed. Thus the office of CO is an appointment. The appointment of commanding officer is exclusive to commanders of major units (regiments, battalions and similar sized units). It is customary for a commanding officer to hold the rank of lieutenant colonel, and they are usually referred to within the unit simply as "the colonel" or the CO. "The colonel" may also refer to the holder of an honorary appointment of a senior officer who oversees the non-operational affairs of a regiment. However, the rank of the appointment holder and the holder's appointment are separate. That is, not all lieutenant colonels are COs, and although most COs are lieutenant colonels, that is not a requirement of the appointment.

Sub-units and minor units (companies, squadrons and batteries) and formations (brigades, divisions, corps and armies) do not have a commanding officer. The officer in command of a minor unit holds the appointment of officer commanding (OC). Higher formations have a commander (e.g. brigade commander) or a general officer commanding (GOC). Area commands have a commander-in-chief (e.g. C-in-C Land Army, C-in-C British Army of the Rhine). The OC of a sub-unit or minor unit is today customarily a major (although formerly usually a captain in infantry companies and often also in cavalry squadrons), although again the rank of the appointment holder and the holder's appointment are separate and independent of each other.

In some cases, independent units smaller than a sub-unit (e.g. a military police platoon that reports directly to a formation such as a brigade) will also have an OC appointed. In these cases, the officer commanding can be a captain or even a lieutenant. The commanders of administrative organisations, such as schools or wings, may also be designated officers commanding or commanders.

Appointments such as CO and OC may have specific powers associated with them. For example, they may have statutory powers to promote soldiers or to deal with certain disciplinary offences and award certain punishments. The CO of a unit may have the power to sentence an offender to 28 days' detention, whereas the OC of a sub-unit may have the power to sentence an offender to three days' restriction of privileges.

Commanders of units smaller than sub-units (e.g. platoons, troops and sections) are not specific appointments and officers or NCOs who fill those positions are simply referred to as the commander or leader (e.g. platoon commander, troop leader, section commander/leader, etc.).

Air force

[edit]

In the Royal Air Force, the title of commanding officer is reserved for station commanders or commanders of independent units, including flying squadrons. As with the British Army, the post of a commander of a lesser unit such as an administrative wing, squadron or flight is referred to as the officer commanding (OC).

[edit]

In the Royal Navy and many others, commanding officer is the official title of the commander of any ship, unit or installation. However, they are referred to as "the captain" no matter what their actual rank, or informally as "skipper" or even "boss".

United States

[edit]
General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. speaks with American troops during the Gulf War.

In the United States, the status of commanding officer is duly applied to all commissioned officers who hold lawful command over a military unit, ship, or installation.

Army

[edit]

The commanding officer of a company, usually a captain, is referred to as the company commander (or the battery/troop commander for artillery/cavalry) units. The commanding officer of a battalion (or squadron of cavalry/armored cavalry) is usually a lieutenant colonel. The commanding officer of a brigade, a colonel, is the brigade commander. At the division level and higher, however, the commanding officer is referred to as the commanding general, as these officers hold general officer rank.

Warrant officers in the United States Armed Forces are single career-track officers that can, and occasionally do, hold command positions within certain specialty units, i.e. Special Forces and Army Aviation. However, warrant officers usually do not command if a commissioned officer is present; normally they serve as executive officer (2IC).

Marine Corps

[edit]
Dark Horse Battalion welcomes new commanding officer

The commanding officer of a company, usually a captain, is referred to as the company commander or the battery commander (for field artillery and low altitude air defense units). The commanding officer of a battalion or a squadron (Marine aviation), is usually a lieutenant colonel. The commanding officer of a regiment, aviation group, or Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is a colonel. At the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), Marine Logistics Group (MLG), Marine Division (MARDIV), Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), and Fleet Marine Force (FMF) levels; however, the commanding officer is referred to as the commanding general, as these officers hold general officer rank.

[edit]

In the United States Navy and United States Coast Guard, commanding officer is the official title of the commander of a ship, but they are usually referred to as "the Captain" regardless of their actual rank: "Any naval officer who commands a ship, submarine or other vessel is addressed by naval custom as 'captain' while aboard in command, regardless of their actual rank."[5] They may be informally referred to as "Skipper", though allowing or forbidding the use of this form of address is the commanding officer's prerogative.

A prospective commanding officer (PCO) is a U.S. Navy officer who has been selected for his/her own command. The term is used in correspondence or in reference to the officer before they assume command of the unit (ship, squadron, unit, etc.).

If the sailor in command of a unit is an enlisted member, rather than a commissioned or warrant officer, he or she is referred to as the "officer in charge" rather than "commanding officer". In the Coast Guard it is common for smaller cutters to be commanded by a chief petty officer.

Air Force

[edit]

In the United States Air Force, the commanding officer of a unit is similarly referred to as the unit commander, such as squadron commander, group commander, wing commander, and so forth. Squadron commanders (the base unit of the United States Air Force) are usually majors or lieutenant colonels. Group commanders (made up of two or more squadrons) are usually colonels, while wing commanders may be colonels (typical wings) or generals (larger wings).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Commanding officer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A commanding officer is a commissioned officer who exercises lawful command authority over a military unit or service members, serving as the primary leader responsible for directing operations, ensuring discipline, and achieving assigned missions. This authority, derived from rank, assignment, and military regulations, grants the commanding officer ultimate accountability for the unit's training, welfare, resource management, and combat effectiveness within the chain of command. Commanding officers must balance mission accomplishment with the maintenance of good order, often requiring decisive judgment under uncertainty, as emphasized in military doctrine that underscores command as a personal and non-delegable responsibility. The role has evolved from ancient hierarchical structures but remains foundational to modern armed forces, where failures in command can lead to operational setbacks or legal accountability under doctrines like command responsibility.

Definition and Responsibilities

General Definition

A commanding officer is the military officer who exercises lawful command authority over a designated unit, vessel, installation, or equivalent entity, typically by virtue of rank, seniority, or formal assignment. This authority encompasses directing personnel, allocating resources, and ensuring operational readiness, with the commanding officer bearing ultimate accountability for the command's performance and adherence to lawful orders. The position derives from the inherent need in armed forces for a singular point of decision-making to enable rapid, coherent responses in combat environments, where diffused authority could lead to paralysis or defeat. This structure prioritizes empirical effectiveness over egalitarian distribution of power, as evidenced by consistent implementation across professional militaries to maintain discipline and mission focus. In terminology, the role is denoted as "commanding officer" (abbreviated CO), distinguishing it from subordinate leaders such as executive officers or staff specialists who advise but do not hold final command prerogative. For higher-level commands, equivalents include "commanding general" or "officer commanding," reflecting the scalable nature of authority in military hierarchies without altering the core principle of vested legal responsibility.

Core Responsibilities

A commanding officer holds primary accountability for the operational readiness of their unit, encompassing the preparation of personnel and equipment for mission accomplishment through rigorous training programs and resource allocation. Under established military doctrine, commanders direct the organization and training of forces to maintain combat effectiveness, as delineated in Title 10 U.S. Code Section 164, which grants authority to equip, train, and sustain units for assigned tasks. This includes supervising drills, evaluations, and inspections to enforce standards, ensuring subordinates achieve proficiency in core skills while integrating logistics and sustainment to support sustained operations. Empirical assessments, such as unit readiness reports and operational evaluations, serve as metrics to gauge effectiveness, with commanders adjusting plans based on feedback to mitigate deficiencies in personnel or materiel. Discipline and personnel welfare form integral duties, where the commanding officer enforces standards of conduct to foster cohesion and prevent lapses that undermine performance. Commanders maintain good order by vigilantly inspecting activities, addressing ethical and behavioral shortfalls, and promoting morale through health, habitability, and professional development initiatives. Resource management involves safeguarding funds, property, and supplies against waste or loss, with direct oversight of supply discipline programs that link accountability to overall unit preparedness. In tactical decision-making, they exercise mission command by issuing intent-driven orders, delegating execution while retaining responsibility for outcomes, and adapting to dynamic conditions via continuous assessment of progress against objectives. Enforcement of military law underscores the commanding officer's role in upholding legal compliance, particularly through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for minor offenses, thereby preserving discipline without protracted proceedings. Commanders report unit status upward, highlighting deficiencies in safety, training, or efficiency to enable corrective action, while bearing ultimate accountability for mission results, including combat effectiveness measured by execution metrics like synchronized rehearsals and operational feedback. This causal linkage between leadership directives and unit performance demands disciplined initiative, where deviations from standards directly correlate with reduced readiness, as evidenced in doctrinal emphasis on commander-subordinate trust and ethical oversight.

Distinctions from Other Leadership Roles

The commanding officer (CO) holds ultimate authority and accountability for the unit's operations, training, and discipline, exercising direct command over personnel and resources, whereas the (XO), as second-in-command, primarily manages administrative functions, internal coordination, and routine execution of the CO's directives without independent . This distinction ensures the CO focuses on and decision-making, delegating tactical oversight to the XO to maintain efficiency in unit management. In contrast to the chief of staff (COS), who serves as the principal advisor coordinating staff sections for planning, logistics, and intelligence without wielding direct command over troops, the CO retains sole responsibility for operational orders and bears full liability for outcomes. The COS facilitates the CO's intent through staff integration but lacks the authority to issue binding directives to subordinate units, preserving the CO's apex role in command execution. Higher-level commanders, such as those of brigades or divisions, oversee multiple units by setting broad objectives and providing resources, but they delegate tactical autonomy to unit COs without micromanaging daily operations, adhering to principles of decentralized execution within the chain of command. This separation prevents overlap, allowing unit COs to adapt to immediate circumstances while aligning with superior guidance. Military doctrine emphasizes unity of command, mandating a single primary CO per unit to avoid divided authority and ensure cohesive direction, with deputies or XOs assuming temporary roles only during the CO's absence or incapacity. Dual-command arrangements are eschewed to maintain clear accountability and rapid decision-making under combat conditions.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Ancient and Pre-Modern Militaries

In ancient Greece, the strategos functioned as a primary military commander, overseeing army operations, troop mobilization, and tactical execution in phalanx formations during conflicts such as the Persian Wars (499–449 BCE). These leaders, often elected annually in city-states like Athens, held authority to enforce discipline and direct battles from the front ranks, blending operational command with civic responsibilities like equipping ships and conscripting citizens. Roman military structure formalized command through the legatus legionis, a senatorial appointee who directed a legion of roughly 5,000–6,000 soldiers from the late Republic onward, wielding imperium—the legal power to command obedience, adjudicate disputes, and impose penalties up to execution for mutiny or cowardice. This role, delegated by consuls or emperors, emphasized hierarchical delegation to subordinates like tribunes while centralizing life-or-death decisions in the legate's hands, as evidenced in campaigns like Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (58–50 BCE). During the medieval period in Europe, feudal lords exercised command over vassal levies, compelling knights and peasants to serve under oaths of homage in exchange for fiefs, typically for 40 days annually from the 9th century Carolingian era through the 15th century. Authority derived from personal loyalty rather than state bureaucracy, with lords like those in the Norman conquest of England (1066) directing ad hoc forces in battles such as Hastings, where tactical discretion and retinue cohesion determined outcomes over standardized doctrine. In Renaissance , condottieri emerged as independent captains leading condotte—contracted companies numbering hundreds to thousands—from the mid-14th to early 16th centuries, prioritizing financial incentives over feudal ties and retaining battlefield autonomy to fulfill hireling obligations, as in the Wars of Italy (1494–1559). These leaders, often nobles or adventurers, structured commands around professional lances and , innovating tactics like oblique orders while navigating alliances among city-states. The pre-modern transition crystallized in 17th-century Europe with the rise of standing armies, as monarchs like those in the Habsburg domains post-Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) shifted from seasonal feudal musters to permanent regiments under royal commissions, institutionalizing commanding officers as salaried professionals accountable to centralized authority rather than personal oaths. This evolution, driven by fiscal reforms enabling sustained pay and drilling, marked a causal break from episodic levies, with early examples in Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus (r. 1611–1632) formalizing regimental colonels as unit heads.

Development in the Modern Era

The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) accelerated the professionalization of commanding officers by emphasizing merit-based promotions over aristocratic birthrights, as Napoleon Bonaparte elevated capable leaders like marshals Michel Ney and Joachim Murat from non-noble origins based on demonstrated battlefield competence. This shift, influenced by revolutionary ideals and the demands of mass conscription armies, linked officer selection to performance metrics such as tactical success and unit cohesion, fostering standardized roles amid rising nationalism and early industrial warfare. In the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), commanding officers faced heightened accountability for operational outcomes; at the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1–3, 1863), Union Army commander George G. Meade's defensive victory was followed by scrutiny from President Abraham Lincoln for failing to aggressively pursue Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee, resulting in congressional inquiries that underscored expectations for proactive exploitation of tactical advantages. The World Wars further evolved commanding officer responsibilities through the integration of mechanized forces and joint operations. In World War I (1914–1918), commanders adapted to industrial-scale warfare involving artillery barrages, chemical agents, and nascent tanks, requiring oversight of larger, technology-dependent units beyond traditional infantry maneuvers. World War II (1939–1945) amplified these demands with rapid mechanization and combined arms tactics; commanding officers coordinated armor, aviation, and infantry in operations like the Normandy landings (June 6, 1944), where Allied forces under Dwight D. Eisenhower managed over 156,000 troops in the initial assault phase, emphasizing synchronized logistics and inter-service collaboration. These conflicts standardized doctrines for COs to prioritize operational depth and adaptability in fluid, multi-domain environments. Post-World War II developments shifted focus to nuclear deterrence and sustained logistics during the Cold War (1947–1991), with commanding officers in strategic commands responsible for maintaining readiness of missile and bomber forces to ensure credible second-strike capabilities. By the 1990s, asymmetric warfare in conflicts like the Gulf War (1990–1991) compelled COs to integrate advanced technologies such as GPS-guided munitions and real-time intelligence, enabling precision strikes against Iraqi forces while minimizing coalition casualties—over 100,000 Iraqi troops neutralized with fewer than 400 U.S. fatalities. Subsequent operations, including the 2003 Iraq invasion, reinforced this emphasis on fusing human intelligence with cyber and drone assets, though core doctrinal elements for commanding officers—such as chain-of-command authority and unit discipline—remained consistent through 2025 without fundamental overhauls.

Organizational Framework

Position Within the Chain of Command

The commanding officer (CO) occupies a central node in the military chain of command, functioning as the designated authority responsible for a specific unit or formation, positioned between higher-level strategic commanders who issue broad directives and subordinate tactical leaders who implement operations on the ground. This placement ensures a vertical flow of authority, where the CO receives orders from superiors—such as division or corps commanders—and disseminates them downward to company or platoon leaders, while simultaneously aggregating and relaying operational reports, status updates, and feedback upward without intermediary distortion. The structure enforces undisrupted transmission, minimizing delays and misinterpretations that could compromise unit cohesion, as articulated in U.S. Army doctrine emphasizing the chain's role in aligning efforts toward mission accomplishment. In multinational or joint command environments, such as those under NATO's Allied Command Operations, the CO maintains unit-level autonomy while subordinating to unified operational directives from a joint force commander. Subordinate commanders, including COs, operate within the superior's intent, retaining flexibility to adapt tactics to local conditions—such as terrain or enemy movements—provided they align with overarching objectives, as outlined in NATO's allied joint doctrine for operations. This preserves national caveats and unit-specific expertise, allowing COs to execute delegated tasks independently while contributing to collective outcomes, without ceding internal decision-making to external actors. A clear chain of command, with the CO as its operational fulcrum, empirically reduces decision latency in combat by streamlining information flow and authority delegation, enabling faster responses to dynamic threats. Historical analyses of World War II campaigns, such as the Normandy invasion, demonstrate that unified command structures under figures like General Dwight D. Eisenhower minimized coordination friction among Allied forces, contrasting with earlier fragmented efforts that prolonged engagements and increased casualties. Similarly, in Operation Desert Storm (1991), the centralized yet delegated chain allowed coalition COs to achieve rapid ground advances, with decision cycles compressed to hours rather than days due to unambiguous lines of authority. These outcomes underscore the causal link between hierarchical clarity and operational tempo, where dilution of the CO's intermediary role historically correlates with elevated risks of paralysis in fluid battles.

Composition of the Command Team

The command team supporting a commanding officer (CO) typically comprises key personnel who handle operational execution, enlisted perspectives, and specialized functions, ensuring the CO's directives are implemented efficiently while preserving centralized authority. The executive officer (XO), serving as second-in-command, oversees daily operations, administrative tasks, and staff coordination, allowing the CO to focus on strategic decisions. This role involves resource allocation, training oversight, and contingency planning, functioning akin to a chief of staff to mitigate administrative burdens on the CO. Complementing the XO is the command sergeant major (CSM), the senior enlisted advisor who provides critical input on troop morale, discipline, and welfare, drawing from non-commissioned officer (NCO) expertise to inform the CO's leadership. The CSM enforces standards, mentors subordinates, and assesses unit readiness from an enlisted viewpoint, helping counter potential officer biases through ground-level insights without usurping command prerogative. Staff officers further augment the team by managing domain-specific areas, such as (e.g., S4 officers ensuring sustainment) and (e.g., S2 officers analyzing threats and terrain). These roles deliver data-driven recommendations on resource distribution and adversary assessments, enabling informed while the CO retains ultimate in a hierarchical structure that prioritizes unity of effort over consensus. In post-2020 units, integration of cyber operations specialists and unmanned aerial system (drone) experts has become common to address digital vulnerabilities and needs, as seen in U.S. Cyber Mission Force teams established since 2021 and Army drone integration initiatives launched in 2025, without altering the CO's core decisional role.

Variations by Nation and Military Branch

Commonwealth Realms

In the armed forces of Commonwealth realms—nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that share the British monarch as head of state—the role of the commanding officer adheres closely to traditions established in the British military, emphasizing appointed leadership with statutory powers under frameworks like the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Act 2006 or equivalent legislation in other realms. The commanding officer bears ultimate responsibility for unit discipline, operational readiness, welfare, and adherence to law, often serving fixed terms of about two years to ensure fresh perspectives and prevent entrenchment. This system prioritizes merit-based appointment over tenure, with commanding officers deriving authority directly from higher command while maintaining broad discretion in routine matters.

Army and Royal Marines

In the armies of Commonwealth realms and the Royal Marines (an amphibious force integral to the Royal Navy but structured along army lines), the commanding officer of a battalion or equivalent unit—typically comprising 500 to 800 personnel—is a lieutenant colonel. This rank commands infantry battalions, armored regiments, or Royal Marine commandos, overseeing training, logistics, combat operations, and personnel management; for instance, the commanding officer of a British Army infantry battalion directs sub-units led by majors as officers commanding companies. Appointments last approximately two years, after which the officer rotates to allow for evaluation and career progression. Royal Marine commandos follow identical conventions, with lieutenant colonels leading units like 40 or 45 Commando in amphibious assaults and special operations, reflecting shared doctrine across realms such as the Australian Army's battalion commands or Canadian Army mechanized battalions.

Royal Air Force

The Royal Air Force and equivalent air forces in other Commonwealth realms designate squadron leaders as officers commanding flying squadrons, which consist of 100 to 150 personnel and 12 to 18 aircraft, focusing on mission execution, maintenance, and aircrew proficiency. Larger units, such as wings (multiple squadrons) or air stations, fall under wing commanders or group captains as commanding officers, who coordinate broader tactical operations and base administration. This structure ensures specialized aviation expertise at the squadron level, with commanding officers appointed based on operational experience rather than seniority alone; for example, a squadron leader commanding a Typhoon fighter squadron in the RAF manages high-tempo sorties and integrates with joint forces. Commonwealth air forces like the Royal Australian Air Force mirror this, with squadron leaders leading F-35 squadrons under similar authority.

Royal Navy

In the Royal Navy and naval forces of other Commonwealth realms, commanding officers of surface ships and submarines hold ranks scaled to vessel size and complexity: captains (the rank) command major warships like destroyers, frigates, or aircraft carriers (e.g., HMS Queen Elizabeth, with crews exceeding 700), while commanders oversee smaller frigates or attack submarines, and lieutenant commanders direct patrol vessels or minor auxiliaries. These officers exercise absolute authority at sea under naval discipline codes, responsible for navigation, combat readiness, crew welfare, and compliance with international law; a commander as commanding officer of a Type 45 destroyer, for instance, manages air defense operations involving advanced radar and missile systems. Submarine commanding officers, often commanders, undergo specialized nuclear propulsion training and command crews of 100-130 in stealth missions. This varies slightly by realm—e.g., Royal Canadian Navy Halifax-class frigates commanded by commanders—but maintains British-derived protocols for appointment and accountability.

Army and Royal Marines

In the British Army, the commanding officer (CO) of a battalion, artillery regiment, or cavalry regiment typically holds the rank of lieutenant colonel and bears responsibility for the unit's performance both in combat and garrison environments. This role encompasses ensuring military capability, personnel welfare, and disciplinary standards, with the CO exercising authority over training, operations, and administrative functions to maintain unit readiness. Under the Armed Forces Act 2006, the CO possesses summary disciplinary powers, including the ability to impose punishments such as detention up to 28 days, fines not exceeding 28 days' pay, reduction in rank, or service supervision and punishment orders for minor offences, thereby enabling swift resolution of service misconduct without escalation to courts-martial. The Royal Marines, as amphibious commandos within the Naval Service, employ a parallel structure where the CO of a commando unit—equivalent to an infantry battalion—is likewise a lieutenant colonel, responsible for leading specialized light infantry operations, including rapid deployment, reconnaissance, and assault missions. Examples include the CO of 42 Commando Royal Marines, who oversees a formation based at Bickleigh, Plymouth, integrating training in commando skills with operational deployments. Disciplinary authority mirrors that in the Army, governed by the same Armed Forces Act provisions, allowing the CO to address breaches of discipline efficiently while prioritizing unit cohesion and mission focus. Both services emphasize the CO's central role in fostering mutual trust and mission command principles, delegating tactical decisions to subordinates while retaining ultimate accountability for outcomes, as outlined in Army doctrine applicable across Commonwealth forces. This structure supports scalable command from sub-unit "officers commanding" (majors or captains) up to battalion-level COs, distinguishing the latter by their broader legal and operational remit.

Royal Air Force

In the Royal Air Force, commanding officers, often designated as Officers Commanding (OCs), bear primary responsibility for the operational readiness, discipline, and welfare of their assigned units or stations within the service's hierarchical structure. At the station level, which serves as the principal operational hub integrating multiple squadrons and support elements, the Station Commander—typically a group captain—manages daily administration, resource allocation, security, and coordination with higher Groups such as No. 1 Group for combat air or No. 2 Group for air combat service support. This role ensures seamless delivery of air power, including maintenance of aircraft fleets, personnel training, and compliance with defence directives, while stations fall under the oversight of an Air Officer Commanding the parent Group. For subordinate tactical units like squadrons, the OC is generally a squadron leader who directs specialized functions, such as flying operations, ground defence via the RAF Regiment, or logistics support. In flying squadrons, for instance, the OC oversees mission planning, aircrew proficiency, and aircraft servicing to sustain deployable capabilities, as exemplified by leaders of units like No. XXIV Squadron operating A400M transport aircraft. These officers exercise delegated authority under Queen's Regulations for the RAF, emphasizing risk management and ethical command amid the service's emphasis on rapid air mobility and precision strike. Unlike ground forces where command often aligns with larger battlegroup formations, RAF OCs at squadron level focus on dispersed, high-tempo aviation tasks, reflecting the branch's doctrinal priority on air domain dominance over territorial control. Promotion to these posts requires completion of command preparation courses, such as the Intermediate Officer Development Course, ensuring officers possess tactical acumen and leadership validated through prior flight or operational experience. Station OCs, by contrast, integrate joint service elements, including liaisons with Army or Navy units during exercises, underscoring the RAF's role in combined air operations.

Royal Navy

In the Royal Navy, the commanding officer (CO) of a commissioned warship bears ultimate responsibility for its operational effectiveness, crew welfare, discipline, and compliance with naval regulations. This role demands extensive sea experience, with command billets awarded based on proven leadership in prior postings. For smaller surface vessels, such as patrol ships or mine countermeasures ships, the CO is typically a commander; examples include Commander Brian Drewett as CO of HMS Severn, a River-class offshore patrol vessel, and Commander Ben Martin as CO of HMS Brocklesby, a Hunt-class minehunter. Larger warships, including frigates, destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers, are commanded by captains, reflecting the increased complexity and scale of operations. Career progression outlines specify that captains assume CO roles for major surface combatants or strategic assets, such as Type 45 destroyers or Vanguard-class submarines, where they oversee combat readiness, logistical sustainment, and integration with joint forces. Shore establishments and training commands, like Britannia Royal Naval College, are led by captains, as seen with Captain Andrew Bray's appointment in December 2023 as the 57th CO of this officer training hub. Reserve units, such as HMS President, may have commanders in charge, focusing on part-time mobilization and regional support. The CO operates within a structured command team, delegating administrative duties to the executive officer while retaining final authority for tactical decisions and accountability under the Armed Forces Act 2006. Appointments to command are competitive, often following tours as department heads or executive officers, ensuring officers demonstrate tactical acumen and personnel management under high-stakes conditions.

United States Armed Forces

In the United States Armed Forces, a commanding officer is a commissioned officer vested with lawful command authority over a military unit, ranging from small detachments to large formations. This authority derives from assignment, rank, and statutory provisions, enabling the officer to direct operations, enforce discipline, and ensure unit readiness. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted in 1950 and codified in Title 10 of the United States Code, defines "commanding officer" exclusively as commissioned officers, distinguishing it from "officer in charge" roles applicable to certain warrant or non-commissioned personnel in specific branches. Commanding officers bear comprehensive responsibility for their unit's performance, including mission accomplishment, personnel welfare, training standards, and compliance with laws and regulations. They exercise disciplinary powers, such as imposing non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for minor offenses, which may include reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay up to half for two months, confinement on bread and water (for enlisted at sea), restriction, extra duties, or reprimand. This authority extends to convening courts-martial for graver violations and maintaining good order, with commanding officers required to report significant issues like unsatisfactory conditions during command transitions. Across the branches—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force—the role emphasizes operational leadership and accountability to superior commanders in the chain of command. Commanding officers must ensure administrative functions, such as mail handling and fiscal management, align with federal directives, while prioritizing combat effectiveness and subordinate development. Appointments to command positions are based on proven competence, with eligibility often tied to branch-specific manuals that prioritize commissioned officers for formal command billets.

United States Army

In the United States Army, a commanding officer is defined as a commissioned officer who exercises authority and direction over a military unit, encompassing responsibilities for its mission accomplishment, discipline, training, and welfare of personnel. This role derives from statutory authority under Title 10 of the United States Code and Army regulations, where command is a privilege granted to eligible officers through assignment to command positions. Commanding officers operate within a strict chain of command, delegating tasks while retaining absolute accountability for all unit actions and omissions. Commanding officers implement mission command, blending directive authority with decentralized execution to achieve objectives amid uncertainty, as detailed in Army doctrine. Core responsibilities include articulating commander's intent, guiding the military decision-making process (MDMP), allocating resources, assessing risks, and ensuring operational readiness through planning, rehearsals, and continuous evaluation. They enforce discipline via nonjudicial punishment, UCMJ actions, and administrative measures, while fostering a climate free of harassment, extremism, and retaliation; for instance, commanding officers must report sexual assault allegations immediately to investigative authorities and conduct annual command climate assessments. Accountability extends to unit property, family support programs, and compliance with policies on domestic violence convictions, including firearm prohibitions. The rank of a commanding officer corresponds to unit echelon, ensuring appropriate experience and authority:
Unit EchelonTypical RankApproximate Size
PlatoonSecond Lieutenant or First Lieutenant (O-1/O-2)16-44 Soldiers
CompanyCaptain (O-3)62-190 Soldiers
BattalionLieutenant Colonel (O-5)300-1,000 Soldiers
BrigadeColonel (O-6)3,000-5,000 Soldiers
DivisionMajor General (O-8)10,000-15,000 Soldiers
During absences, temporary command devolves to the senior assigned member, with restricted authority to modify existing orders, and relief for cause requires general officer approval. Commanding officers at installation level, often general officers, oversee broader readiness, resource allocation, and inter-unit coordination.

United States Marine Corps

In the United States Marine Corps, commanding officers lead units from companies to Marine Expeditionary Forces, wielding authority over training, operations, discipline, and readiness derived from rank, assignment, and statutory law. This command encompasses tactical decision-making, personnel management, and resource allocation, with officers accountable via the chain of command and Uniform Code of Military Justice. Selection for command billets occurs through the Command Selection Board, which scrutinizes officers' records for leadership aptitude, ethical standards, and operational experience to ensure suitability for leading Marines in high-stakes environments. Officers must complete progressive professional military education, such as The Basic School for lieutenants and Expeditionary Warfare School for majors, prior to command eligibility. Typical ranks align with unit scale: captains (O-3) command companies of 150-250 Marines; lieutenant colonels (O-5) lead battalions of 300-1,200; colonels (O-6) direct regiments of 2,000-4,000; major generals (O-8) oversee divisions of 15,000-20,000; and lieutenant generals (O-9) helm Marine Expeditionary Forces capable of independent theater operations. Warrant officers and senior enlisted advisors, like sergeant majors, support but do not hold command authority. Distinct from other branches, Marine Corps commanding officers integrate naval expeditionary capabilities, coordinating amphibious assaults and sustained operations without fixed bases, while prohibited from commanding Navy vessels or shore stations. The Commandant, a four-star general appointed by the President for a four-year term, serves as the service's senior commanding officer, reporting to the Secretary of the Navy.

United States Navy and United States Coast Guard

In the United States Navy, the commanding officer (CO) is defined as the officer in command of a ship, mobile unit, non-mobile command ashore, or other prescribed limits, including aircraft commanders and officers in charge when so designated. This authority stems from assignment or rank and entails absolute responsibility for the command's performance, with the CO required to exercise leadership to accomplish assigned missions while maintaining maximum combat readiness. Specific duties include enforcing discipline, safeguarding public funds and property, conducting inspections, preventing unauthorized absences or drug use, and ensuring personnel welfare through proper training and medical care. The CO may delegate tasks but remains accountable for outcomes, must report any deviations from orders to superiors without delay, and holds powers such as administering non-judicial punishment and resisting unlawful foreign inspections of the vessel. United States Navy COs operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which grants them authority to convene summary courts-martial and exercise command over subordinates for mission execution. For major surface combatants like destroyers, the CO is typically a commander (O-5), selected based on proven performance and approved by the Chief of Naval Operations, emphasizing ethical leadership and warfighting proficiency. Historical examples include COs maintaining vessel security during wartime patrols, where failure to uphold readiness has led to relief from command, as seen in documented cases of operational lapses. The United States Coast Guard employs commanding officers for its cutters, air stations, sectors, and shore units, with responsibilities aligned to its multi-mission mandate under the Department of Homeland Security in peacetime, shifting to the Navy during war. COs bear ultimate accountability for unit operations, including maritime safety, search and rescue, law enforcement, and environmental protection, while ensuring compliance with federal statutes and maintaining operational readiness. Like Navy counterparts, Coast Guard COs enforce discipline, manage resources, and prioritize personnel welfare, but adapt to decentralized operations across vast coastal areas, often delegating to warrant officers in smaller units due to the service's scale. For instance, sector commanding officers oversee all missions within their area of responsibility, coordinating responses to hazards like oil spills or migrant interdictions. Coast Guard regulations, such as those in COMDTINST series, prescribe CO duties including program oversight for morale and unit-specific protocols, with authority under Title 14 U.S. Code to execute statutory missions. COs of major cutters, typically lieutenant commanders or higher, focus on at-sea endurance and multi-role flexibility, as evidenced by sustained operations during events like Hurricane Katrina response in 2005, where command decisions directly impacted mission success. Accountability mechanisms parallel those in the Navy, with relief possible for cause under UCMJ when integrated into naval operations.

United States Air Force and United States Space Force

In the United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Space Force (USSF), commanding officers exercise authority over units ranging from squadrons to wings and deltas, with primary responsibilities including mission execution, personnel management, discipline enforcement, and resource stewardship under Department of the Air Force (DAF) directives. Squadron commanders, often lieutenant colonels overseeing 100 to 300 personnel, focus on operational readiness, training, and combat effectiveness for airpower or support functions, such as flying operations or maintenance. Wing commanders, typically colonels or brigadier generals, integrate multiple squadrons into cohesive forces, directing base-level operations, logistics, and compliance with Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) proceedings. The USSF, established on December 20, 2019, as the sixth armed service, adapts USAF command structures to domain missions, employing terms like "deltas" for operational units equivalent to wings and squadrons for tactical elements focused on warning, electronic warfare, and satellite control. Commanding officers in USSF deltas, such as Space Delta 15, hold ranks and ensure combat-ready forces for operations under Space Operations Command (SpOC), emphasizing and domain awareness. Both services mandate commanders to prioritize Airmen and Guardian welfare, including evaluations and , while delegating no lower than group level for certain authorities like force presentation. Accountability mechanisms align with DAF policy, where commanders report to higher echelons like major commands, with relief for cause possible for failures in duty performance, as outlined in Air Force Instruction 36-2406 for evaluations tied to command billets. USSF commanders additionally navigate inter-service integration, sourcing forces to combatant commands for space operations, reflecting the service's focus on protecting U.S. interests in orbit.

Examples from Other Nations

In the French Army, colonels serving as commanding officers of regiments exercise authority within a framework that promotes decentralized command and control, particularly in joint operations where operational control is delegated to subordinate commanders to facilitate agile decision-making amid complex battlefields. This approach aligns with doctrinal adaptations emphasizing mission orders and subordinate initiative, contrasting with more rigid hierarchies by prioritizing flexibility over micromanagement. German Bundeswehr commanding officers operate under stringent parliamentary oversight, with the Bundestag's Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces conducting independent investigations into personnel rights and deployment compliance to enforce civilian supremacy. All armed deployments require explicit Bundestag approval, embedding CO decisions within a legal structure that limits unilateral military action and mandates accountability to elected representatives. In the Russian Ground Forces, a polkovnik (colonel) commands a motorized rifle regiment, typically comprising three motorized rifle battalions and one tank battalion designed for massed assaults and sustained firepower in conventional warfare scenarios. This structure prioritizes numerical superiority and combined-arms integration over individual tactical autonomy, reflecting a doctrine rooted in overwhelming force projection. Chinese People's Liberation Army regimental commanders function under a highly centralized system enforced by the Chinese Communist Party, featuring a dual-command arrangement where military leaders share authority with political commissars to maintain ideological loyalty and prevent deviations from party directives. The Central Military Commission, chaired by the CCP general secretary, exerts unified control over all operational levels, subordinating tactical decisions to strategic political imperatives.

Selection, Training, and Qualifications

Selection Processes

The selection of commanding officers in modern militaries prioritizes officers with demonstrated leadership performance, operational experience, and combat exposure, evaluated through structured boards that review fitness reports, command history, and peer assessments to ensure meritocratic outcomes. In the United States Armed Forces, officers typically volunteer for command consideration via processes like the Army's Centralized Selection List (CSL), where boards analyze evaluation reports from raters and senior reviewers to slate candidates for battalion, brigade, or higher commands based on quantifiable metrics such as unit performance, deployment success, and leadership efficacy. For flag officer commands (general or admiral ranks), the President nominates candidates, who must receive U.S. Senate confirmation under Article II of the Constitution, scrutinizing records for strategic competence and past operational achievements over administrative or demographic quotas. Empirical data underscores a preference for combat-tested leaders, as boards historically favor officers with multiple operational tours—evidenced by promotion rates correlating strongly with deployment evaluations in Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs)—to mitigate risks in high-stakes roles where causal links between experience and unit readiness are well-documented in after-action reviews. Deviations from strict performance standards, such as prior board emphases on peer diversity inputs or bias-mitigation assessments introduced in the 2020s, have faced critique for diluting focus on warfighting metrics, prompting the U.S. Army to eliminate such programs in 2025 to restore traditional merit-based slating. Recent trends reveal challenges to meritocratic pools: in fiscal year 2024, over 54% of eligible U.S. Army senior officers (lieutenant colonels and above) opted out of command consideration, citing excessive administrative burdens, family impacts, and perceived accountability risks over professional prestige, reducing the competitive field and potentially elevating less experienced candidates despite board safeguards. This opt-out rate, up from historical norms where 85% participated, highlights systemic disincentives that undermine selection rigor, as boards must then draw from narrower slates without compromising on experiential thresholds like prior key developmental assignments. Internationally, Commonwealth militaries such as the British Army and Royal Canadian Armed Forces employ promotion boards that similarly weight operational tours and command endorsements, with candidates for commanding officer roles required to demonstrate success in theater deployments or joint exercises, often via confidential appraisal systems favoring empirical outcomes over non-performance criteria. These processes reinforce causal realism by linking selection to verifiable leadership impacts, though analogous opt-out pressures from workload have emerged in allied forces amid post-Afghanistan drawdowns.

Required Training and Experience

Officers in the United States Army pursuing battalion-level command must demonstrate prior experience in and commands, typically accumulating 10-15 years of service, to build foundational seasoning that enhances under operational stress. This sequential command progression ensures officers gain practical exposure to , resource management, and tactical execution, prerequisites formalized through the Centralized Selection List process for competitive command slots. Completion of Intermediate Level Education, primarily via the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, is mandatory for promotion to lieutenant colonel and eligibility for battalion command, delivering a 10-month curriculum on operational art, joint doctrine, and leadership ethics through case studies of historical campaigns. The course emphasizes ethical decision-making in ambiguous scenarios, such as rules of engagement during counterinsurgency, to foster commanders capable of balancing mission accomplishment with legal and moral constraints. Prior to assuming command, selected officers attend the Battalion and Brigade Pre-Command Course (BBPCC), a multi-day program at Fort Leavenworth that integrates Army policies, strategic leadership expectations, operational planning, and ethics training tailored to brigade combat team environments. This course, updated as of 2023, includes modules on force management and interagency coordination, preparing commanders for hybrid threats involving conventional, irregular, and cyber elements amid great power competition. Joint assignments, such as staff tours at combatant commands or interservice exercises, serve as additional prerequisites for higher commands, providing exposure to multi-domain operations and interoperability that correlate with improved command efficacy in coalition settings. In the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, analogous requirements include the Command and Staff College for majors and pre-command indoctrination focusing on expeditionary ethics and fleet operations, ensuring branch-specific adaptations to universal command challenges.

Scope of Command Authority

The scope of command authority for a commanding officer encompasses the lawful exercise of power over subordinates within a designated unit, derived from rank or assignment pursuant to statutes such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and service regulations. This authority enables the issuance of orders that must be obeyed to ensure operational effectiveness, including directives on training, resource allocation, and tactical execution, while maintaining unit discipline through non-judicial punishment or referral to courts-martial for violations like failure to obey under Article 92, UCMJ. Within the unit's operational bounds, this power is extensive, allowing decisions on personnel assignments, equipment use, and mission prioritization to facilitate undisrupted execution of duties, but it remains subordinate to directives from higher echelons of command and constrained by federal law, including prohibitions on actions violating constitutional rights or the laws of armed conflict. Command authority extends beyond combat scenarios to administrative and welfare functions, such as enforcing safety protocols, promoting unit morale through recreational policies, and conducting investigations into incidents like accidents or misconduct to prevent recurrence and sustain readiness. For instance, commanding officers may impose restrictions on off-duty activities to mitigate risks, as seen in regulations requiring oversight of personal conduct that impacts unit cohesion. However, this scope excludes patently unlawful orders—those manifestly violating U.S. law, treaty obligations, or ethical standards discernible to a reasonable subordinate—relieving personnel of the duty to comply and exposing the issuer to potential liability under Articles 90 or 92, UCMJ, or superior orders defenses in post-facto reviews. In maritime contexts, particularly for U.S. Navy commanding officers at sea, authority achieves near-total isolation-driven autonomy, encompassing absolute responsibility for the vessel's navigation, crew welfare, disciplinary enforcement, and emergency decisions without immediate higher intervention, as codified in U.S. Navy Regulations. This includes unilateral powers over rations, medical care, and even summary executions in extremis under historical precedents adapted to modern law, though still delimited by UCMJ prohibitions on cruelty or illegality. Variations across services reflect operational environments: Army or Air Force commanders may emphasize land-based logistics and joint coordination, while Marine Corps units integrate expeditionary flexibility, but all adhere to the principle that command authority prioritizes mission accomplishment within legal guardrails to avoid cascading failures in chain-of-command efficacy.

Mechanisms of Accountability

Mechanisms of accountability for commanding officers encompass internal and external oversight tools designed to ensure alignment with operational missions and ethical standards. Internally, unit climate surveys provide anonymous feedback from subordinates on leadership effectiveness, morale, and potential issues like toxic behaviors, with commanding officers required to review and act on results to foster positive environments. These surveys, often conducted periodically under service-specific programs, serve as early indicators of command failures, prompting interventions such as counseling or leadership adjustments. Inspector General (IG) complaint systems offer an independent channel for service members to report wrongdoing, including command misconduct, bypassing the chain of command to maintain objectivity. IG investigations assess allegations of abuse of authority or failure to uphold standards, leading to substantiated findings that can influence command tenure or disciplinary actions, as outlined in Department of Defense directives. Externally, higher headquarters conduct periodic reviews, including staff inspections and command assessments, to evaluate unit performance against doctrinal benchmarks. In the U.S. context, congressional oversight reinforces accountability through mandatory testimony from commanding officers on readiness, resource use, and operational challenges during annual hearings. Committees such as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees scrutinize command decisions via budget authorizations and inquiries, ensuring alignment with national priorities. Metrics like unit readiness evaluations, tracked through systems such as the Defense Readiness Reporting System, gauge a commanding officer's ability to maintain mission-capable forces, with deficiencies signaling leadership shortfalls. Personnel retention rates similarly proxy effective leadership, as low figures correlate with poor command climate and can trigger higher-level scrutiny. Doctrinal publications emphasize that accountability mechanisms prevent command abuses while preserving initiative under mission command principles, requiring officers to answer to superiors for mission outcomes without eroding decentralized execution. This balance, rooted in field manuals like FM 6-0, holds commanders responsible for unit actions or inactions, fostering trust through transparent oversight rather than micromanagement.

Relief for Cause Procedures and Examples

Relief for Cause (RFC) refers to the administrative removal of a commanding officer from their position due to a superior's loss of confidence in their ability to lead effectively, typically grounded in substandard performance, misconduct, or ethical failures that undermine unit readiness or discipline. In the U.S. Navy, MILPERSMAN 1611-020 outlines procedures for Officer Detachment for Cause, mandating that removals be based on documented evidence from investigations, performance evaluations, or significant incidents, followed by formal notification to the officer and processing through the chain of command, often resulting in reassignment or separation proceedings. Similar frameworks apply across services; Army procedures under relevant command policies require senior commanders to initiate relief with prior counseling where feasible, though exigent circumstances like acute operational risks may expedite action without it, emphasizing evidentiary support to ensure due process. These mechanisms prioritize accountability over tenure, with investigations typically triggered by subordinate reports, inspector general inquiries, or internal audits revealing patterns of failure. Notifications include specific reasons for the relief, such as inability to maintain standards or personal conduct lapses, and may lead to adverse fitness reports or board reviews, though appeals processes exist to contest unsubstantiated claims. Notable examples illustrate application: In December 2020, the U.S. Army relieved or suspended 14 leaders at Fort Hood, Texas—including the III Corps Deputy Commanding General and battalion commanders—following an independent review that exposed systemic failures in addressing sexual harassment, soldier deaths, and accountability gaps, with removals aimed at restoring command integrity. In 2024, the Navy relieved at least 12 commanding officers in the first half of the year, including cases tied to operational lapses on surface ships like destroyers, where failures in navigation, maintenance, or crew management prompted higher command intervention. More recently, on January 21, 2025, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan was removed by Department of Homeland Security officials for leadership deficiencies, operational shortcomings in border security and disaster response, and perceived overemphasis on diversity initiatives at the expense of core missions. Data on frequency counters claims of entrenched impunity, as the Navy alone documented 16 commanding officer reliefs in 2023—predominantly for loss of confidence—and sustained a comparable rate into 2024, reflecting proactive use of RFC to enforce standards amid rising operational demands. Such actions demonstrably elevate performance by removing underperformers, though detractors, including some military analysts, contend that politicized applications in high-visibility cases can erode morale and deter qualified officers from seeking command, potentially exacerbating recruitment and retention strains evidenced by voluntary opt-outs from leadership billets.

References

  1. https://health.mil/Reference-Center/Glossary-Terms/2023/05/05/Commanding-Officer
  2. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Books/Armed-Forces-Officer/Article/1153517/chapter-6-the-officer-at-work-command/
  3. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2002-title32-vol5/html/CFR-2002-title32-vol5-part700-subpartH.htm
  4. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/fp/authorities_fp.pdf
  5. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-0_1/AFDP3-0.1CommandandControl.pdf
  6. https://sjms.nu/articles/10.31374/sjms.146
  7. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/US%20Navy%20Regulations/Chapter%208%20-%20The%20Commanding%20Officer.pdf
  8. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/October/Command-Authority/
  9. https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/2DDE6089-23E5-4345-8E9E-7BCD5BDF45C8-1399555122246/fm6_0.pdf
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/815
  11. https://www.todaysmilitary.com/life-in-the-military/customs-practices/chain-of-command
  12. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2021/July/Understanding-Levels-of-Command-Authority/
  13. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2020/Starr-Great-Leaders/
  14. https://arsof-history.org/articles/v7n2_general_staff_system_page_1.html
  15. https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/strategos/
  16. https://www.greekboston.com/culture/modern-history/strategos/
  17. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-army/roman-command/
  18. https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/military/the-structure-and-soldiers-of-the-roman-army/structure-and-ranks-of-a-legion/
  19. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/feudalism/
  20. https://www.medievalchronicles.com/medieval-kings-2/the-power-and-administration-of-medieval-kings/
  21. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=student_scholarship
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/thirty-years-war-the-general-crisis-and-the-origins-of-a-standing-professional-army-in-the-habsburg-monarchy/92806EE5C858FD8E95CFE744E29BE37E
  23. https://theforge.defence.gov.au/article/changes-warfare-16th-and-17th-centuries-military-revolution
  24. https://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_genius.html
  25. https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/the-napoleonic-myth-of-la-meritocratie/
  26. https://www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/evaluating-george-gordon-meades-leadership-in-the-aftermath-of-the-battle-of-gettysburg-as-much-or-more-than-could-be-expected/
  27. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military-developments-of-world-war-i/
  28. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/Monographs/JMO.pdf
  29. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-05-22/us-nuclear-weapons-posture-during-cold-war-compilation-core-primary-sources
  30. https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/briefing/pdf/2018/briefing_e201808.pdf
  31. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA442427.pdf
  32. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/399376.pdf
  33. https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/01_AJP/AJP-3_EDC_V1_E_2490.pdf
  34. https://sjms.nu/articles/10.31374/sjms.329
  35. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/unity-of-command-or-unity-of-effort-rethinking-a-fundamental-principle-of-war/
  36. https://ohiomilitaryreserve.com/2024/07/13/the-relevance-and-importance-of-a-military-chain-of-command/
  37. https://www.jbcharleston.jb.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/238522/unity-of-command-still-important-principle/
  38. https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/what-does-an-xo-in-the-military-mean/
  39. https://www.armywriter.com/NCOER/XO.htm
  40. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2023/At-the-Point-of-Friction/
  41. https://www.armywriter.com/NCOER/command-sergeant-major-duty-description.htm
  42. https://ohiomilitaryreserve.com/2024/07/02/understanding-military-staff-roles-classifications-and-importance/
  43. https://defensescoop.com/2025/05/12/new-cyber-mission-force-teams-12-of-14-now-established/
  44. https://thedefensepost.com/2025/08/11/us-army-competitive-drone-team/
  45. https://daysackmedia.co.uk/rank/british-army/lt-colonel/
  46. https://www.forcesnews.com/news/royal-marine-ranks-how-do-they-work
  47. https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/raf-ranks/
  48. https://www.defenseadvancement.com/resources/the-royal-navy-command-structure/
  49. https://securityjournaluk.com/royal-navy-ranks/
  50. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/british-army-ranks
  51. https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/ranks/
  52. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c39d9e5274a25a91414fe/CO_Punishments_under_AFA06.pdf
  53. https://cd.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/rnweb/organisation/units-and-squadrons/biographies/lewis-lt-col-j.pdf
  54. https://www.army.mod.uk/media/25267/cal-mission-command-and-leadership-on-operations-2024-final-v2.pdf
  55. https://www.army.mod.uk/support-and-training/our-schools-and-colleges/centre-for-army-leadership/leadership-resources/leadership-insights/leadership-insight-no15/
  56. https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/overview/
  57. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/senior-appointments/
  58. https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/groups/no-1-group/
  59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SF4lO8hwFA
  60. https://www.da.mod.uk/courses/intermediate-officer-development-course-a/
  61. https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-coningsby/news/new-station-commander-at-royal-air-force-coningsby/
  62. https://cd.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/rnweb/organisation/units-and-squadrons/biographies/drewett-brian-2023.pdf?rev=e12731c37168447bb6a5117c1eba92aa&hash=866FA950FC09C2AEE6A80D0269CC02B3
  63. https://cd.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/rnweb/organisation/units-and-squadrons/biographies/martin-b-cdr.pdf?rev=bbc04701140344ac83ba3798770186af&hash=7BADFE7BDF42067A26EDF700A639
  64. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/life-in-the-navy/shaping-your-career
  65. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2023/december/19/20231219-new-face-at-the-helm-of-the-home-of-the-royal-navy-officer-corps
  66. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/organisation/units-and-squadrons/royal-naval-reserve/president
  67. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/801
  68. https://www.ncolcoe.army.mil/Portals/71/administration/eeo/ref/AR-600-20.pdf
  69. https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/sitefiles/fm6_0.pdf
  70. https://www.army.mil/ranks/
  71. https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Command-Authority-1.pdf
  72. https://www.marines.mil/Ranks/
  73. https://securityjournalamericas.com/us-marine-corps-ranks/
  74. https://www.military.com/marine-corps/ranks
  75. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8043
  76. https://media.defense.gov/2014/Feb/21/2002655434/-1/-1/1/140221-N-ZZ182-5353.pdf
  77. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/10/2003373783/-1/-1/0/CI_5400_7G.PDF
  78. https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Human-Resources-CG-1/Health-Safety-and-Work-Life-CG-11/Office-of-Work-Life-CG-111/Ombudsman-Program/Command-Cadre-Toolkit/Commanding-Officer-Responsibilities/
  79. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/3.01-1
  80. https://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Area-Cutters/CGCESCANABA/Commanding-Officer/Command-Philosophy/
  81. https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/Publications/MCL2025r.pdf?ver=cTJO8yumrXDnvBAP4OMiQA%253D%253D
  82. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0009_TIMMONS_COMMANDING_SQUADRON.pdf
  83. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/afi10-201/afi10-201.pdf
  84. https://www.spoc.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/About-Space-Operations-Command
  85. https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/ig/ig-reference-guide-for-commanders.pdf
  86. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2406/afi36-2406.pdf
  87. https://www.spoc.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4274140/resolute-space-25-space-operations-command-presents-forces-tests-operational-ca
  88. https://www.frstrategie.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/recherches-et-documents/2020/202016.pdf
  89. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1020320.pdf
  90. https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/about-bundeswehr/identity-of-the-bundeswehr/leadership-development-and-civic-education/parliamentary-commissioner
  91. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2015/bvg15-071.html
  92. https://understandingwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/October20122C20202320Russian20Orbat_Final.pdf
  93. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how-china-commands-its-peoples-army/
  94. https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Roderick_Lee_Testimony.pdf
  95. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jul/21/2003758221/-1/-1/1/EVALUATING-MILITARY-OFFICER-PROMOTION-AND-SELECTION-PROCEDURES.PDF
  96. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/noms_confn.htm
  97. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389
  98. https://themilitaryleader.com/battalion-command-selection/
  99. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/good-riddance-hegseth-praises-army-dumping-command-promotion-boards-aimed-eliminating-bias
  100. https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2025-09-03/army-cuts-command-selection-program-18965092.html
  101. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/12/13/more-half-of-senior-army-officers-are-turning-down-command-consideration.html
  102. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/12/17/fewer-officers-willing-to-lead-the-changing-face-of-u-s-army-command/
  103. https://www.quora.com/How-are-generals-in-the-U-S-military-selected-and-promoted
  104. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-requirements-to-become-an-infantry-battalion-commander-O-5-in-the-United-States-Army
  105. https://armyuniversity.edu/cgsc/files/CGSC_Circular_350-1-AY_2025_3.pdf
  106. https://armyuniversity.edu/cgsc/cgss/academicprograms
  107. https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/12817
  108. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/job-training/leadership-schools
  109. https://armyuniversity.edu/schoolfiles/caso/ArmyLeaderDevStrategy.pdf
  110. https://www.usmcu.edu/Colleges-and-Schools/Command-and-Staff-College/
  111. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1153517/chapter-6-the-officer-at-work-command/
  112. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/nco-journal/archives/2021/july/understanding-levels-of-command-authority/
  113. https://www.ucmjlaw.com/courts-martial/military-crimes/failure-to-obey-order-or-regulation/
  114. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA243615.pdf
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265413726_Toxic_Leadership_Unit_Climate_and_Organizational_Effectiveness
  116. https://www.jcs.mil/about/joint-staff-inspector-general/
  117. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA417613.pdf
  118. https://tnsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TNSR-Vol-8-Iss-2_BLANKSHAIN.pdf
  119. https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Commanders_Readiness_Handbook_2020-09-16.pdf
  120. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/october/retention-leadership-problem
  121. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/chap2.htm
  122. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120229_art009.pdf
  123. https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Reference/MILPERSMAN/1000/1600Performance/1611-020.pdf?ver=9hWwoAj6QNOyUiHPSkYj8Q%253D%253D
  124. https://home.army.mil/carson/6116/5089/9699/relief-for-cause.pdf
  125. https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Personnel-Conduct-Sep/Officer-Performance-Separation/
  126. https://www.army.mil/article/241491/secretary_mccarthy_holds_fort_hood_leaders_accountable_announces_new_investigations
  127. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/11/navy-relieved-12-commanders-6-months-including-3-firings-were-never-publicly-announced.html
  128. https://news.usni.org/2025/01/21/adm-linda-fagan-removed-as-coast-guard-commandant
  129. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-commanders-relieved-2023/
  130. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/september/learn-losses-confidence
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.