I'm struggling with the best way to put this without it sounding presumptuous or insulting to anyone so please don't take offence! Could (should) the main reason someone wants to be an Officer in the Army be summed up as "I want to command soldiers"? Would it be more honest for the majority of applicants/serving officers to say "I want to be in the Army and I feel I am good enough to be an officer so therefore I'll be one"? Let's face it, how many people would choose to join as a soldier when they could be an officer? However, the roles and lifestyle are so different that surely it shouldn't come down to which one is "best". The reason I'm asking this is that I'm at a stage where I may be accepted for Sandhurst and although I've ignored the desire for a few years, it is something that I've wanted to do since I was about 12! However, I'm also very interested in a role in the RAF where you enter as an NCO. This has lead me to think about my motivation for joining either role. I've always felt that I could be "Officer calibre" and I know a number of serving officers (not all of which I have that much respect for) so I find it quite hard to accept the idea of "settling" for being an NCO. It's not that either role would be easier or any less important but it feels like the NCO role represents a limit of achievement. Does that make sense? Anyone got any thoughts on the issue (motivation in general not just my strange situation)?