Some jargon isn't translating well here, and designed is probably the wrong word to use. "Staff Duty" (a singular "duty" as opposed to the myriad of official st

Some jargon isn't translating well here, and designed is probably the wrong word to use. "Staff Duty" (a singular "duty" as opposed to the myriad of official staff officer positions) consists of sitting at a desk and monitoring the company or battalion area for 24 hours straight. You end up dealing with things like privates coming back to the barracks drunk and getting into fights, etc. There are other semi-permanent staff roles you can get on Battalion/Brigade staff, but a lot of times lieutenants who finish platoon leader time just end up waiting for the next training assignment and you get put in the duty roster rotation. This happened to about half of my PL cohort when we re-deployed from Afghanistan. Mind you everyone has to do staff duty, but younger officers will do it more often because, well, they're younger and there's more of them. >Or that having the qualities that make you a good officer in combat hinder you in the staff roles? Some people claim this and I've definitely seen it as a phenomenon, but I don't think it's necessarily a truism. Plenty of folks can do both. I think a lot of good officers just don't want to do staff officer time is all. It's not really sexy, it can be really boring, and you spend a lot of time getting exposed to the bureaucracy and politics of the military (yes the army still has politics). A lot of younger officers (so lieutenants and captains) see that for the first time and balk and get out (I was one of them). So the folks who end up staying are a) fully committed to the military as a career, b) don't think they have any better options so they just deal with it and stay in, or c) are the kind of officer who isn't smart enough to place themselves in category (a) or (b). You can imagine the filter effect this has, but it's not unique to the military imo.