Question about strategic-level positions within the military...?

The strategic level of war is at the national level and is done by very senior Officers and staffs...such as the Joint Chiefs and COCOMs. Those are the guys that formulate strategic doctrine and plans and advise the POTUS and SECDEF.

While there are a few enlisted personnel on those staffs they are all very senior enlisted personnel and will be doing more of the scut work like making copies, putting together briefings and reports, and running down information, etc.

How do you get there? Get commissioned and put in about 30 years of outstanding service and be one of the less than 1/2 of 1% of Officers who manages to pin on a star.

JBryan gave yo a just right reply and kmed gave you the right answer, however did not get the whole purpose correct. Contractors are cheaper for the reason that they are handiest used for the mission they are shriveled for and when it's over, they're released. Contractors are already knowledgeable for the job and did not must go to AIT/tech institution, etc. Utilising navy could be way more high priced for the reason that they don't seem to be handiest going to have to go to common, AIT and different colleges, the navy would also have got to pay for their households, scientific, housing, and so forth, for YEARS after the mission they had been used for. You cannot simply instruct humans for a warfare and then send them residence afterwards. That gets VERY high priced. Moreover, the number of troops allowed is Congressionally mandated and adding more troops expenses a lot ore cash than hiring contractors for the brief time period. Seem at it this fashion. Wouldn't it be more cost effective so that you can go to institution to be taught how to design and build houses (about 5 years of institution) or is it more cost effective to pay someone a few thousand dollars, who has already gotten the expertise to do it for you? Now multiply that by means of a thousand and which you could surely see how much cheaper utilizing a contractor is. BTW, as Bryan instructed you, the army has been making use of contractors less and less over the last 10 years; no longer growing as you've got assumed. One thing more, any contractors (protection) who killed any individual had been gotten smaller by way of the State department; not the army...And was once no longer indiscriminant as you call it. You were not there and are simplest repeating media sensationalism. If you are just right enough to inform who's who in a fire fight in an urban environment, then you definitely have got to be ready to learn minds in a cut up second.

Now, as far as your enlistment goes, I think it's good life choice, although for a thinker I'd recommend a position as an officer. Enlisted life is tough and unforgiving in many aspects, and it is doubly so on those that don't know how to keep their mouths shut (do not ever think it's clever to discuss politics or religion in the military).

Almost any officer position requires tactical level thinking. As a GENERAL statement, every officer from 0-1 to 0-3 deals almost exclusively with tactical level planning. 0-3 to 0-6 generally deals with operational level planning, and 0-5 to 0-10 deals with strategic level planning. There are a couple positions in the Army that deal exclusively with tactical, operational, and strategic level planning. Almost everything related to TRADOC and fucntional area 59.