zlacker

>>aspenm+(OP)
As former enlisted myself, I don't understand why they need to be in the military to serve as advisors. No one's going to treat them like real LTCs anyway (outwardly they will, of course, but not with the same respect).

>>djeast+Le1
That also strikes me as odd. When I was deployed, we had plenty of contractors/DOD civilians to handle various technical things, and to help maintain continuity while the rest of us rotated in and out of the theater. They didn't need to be commissioned.

If these execs were experienced engineers that needed to be embedded in a unit in the field, maybe, and definitely not at O-5. Usually these sorts of urgently-needed experts become instructors and teach troops the specific technical skills without the need for being enlisted/commissioned/warrant themselves.

Someone more familiar with the political games inside the Pentagon will better understand this decision.

>>snerbl+Gf1
It’s probably a fun ego boost for the execs involved. And it makes them subject to following orders, to military jail for not obeying, etc, which is presumably a nice thing to have in your back pocket when managing egostistic jerks.

>>lazyas+oD1
A Lieutenant Colonel in an advisory role would have to engage in an astoundingly epic screwup to court-martialed under the UCMJ. They'll be counseled behind closed doors long before getting formally charged with Article 90 or 92.

An Article 88 (or 133!) case involving these guys would be a really funny scandal, though.