Leaderboard

This is an epically great discussion. Liquid, on a slightly different topic -- why don't more flag-level leaders get down in the trenches and talk with the troops like this? I feel that this is a bit like when -- albeit 15 years ago -- the Wing CC used to actually come to my sq Roll Call (which was sometimes even a weekly event, so not exactly rare), drink with the boys and submit to the Mayor's wrath and hijinx, and talk on a bro level with guys about anything and everything. It wasn't some scheduled event that was obviously forced as part of some plan to intentionally go have a talk in the trenches; the Exec or protocol officer didn't show up beforehand and make sure the bar was stocked with his favorite drink or to ensure that the squadron was cleaned up before he arrived...he just wandered in to the bar 5 minutes before roll call and started interacting like a normal warrior. Plenty of discussions like in this thread took place, and their replies were similar in nature to what you are giving here: slamming down a half-full beer mug and telling us to fuck off right back at us because our limited CGO view of whatever the topic was, was way off base, and then taking the next 10 minutes to explain the view from the front office and in the offices above him. Sometimes we left the discussions in agreement, and sometimes we made fun of him behind his back after he left the bar, but the interactions were key in having most of us feel like he actually wanted to lead us rather than simply be a military dictator to us. There are two or three one-stars that I can think of who were perfectly comfortable "solving the world's problems from a barstool", and such interactions with them, for me as a young Captain, just gave me tremendous respect for them. It was fantastic. I'd still go follow those guys anywhere to this day. In the last 6 years, though, the only time I've seen the WG/CC come to the bar was to give us a pep talk for the latest MAJCOM-level inspection, and he was out the door within seconds of his transmit-only, no-receive message. I'm sure there's an AWC or SAASS-taught, "you lose respect for your office and position if you casually go socialize with the boys" mantra that is behind it, but as someone who was a junior officer when it took place it NEVER eroded my respect for their position and leadership, even when I did not agree with their viewpoint or decision. In fact, it had quite the opposite effect. That's the same way I see this discussion. I'm not in AFSOC, and I have no idea who the flag officers in AFSOC are, and thus aren't trying to figure out who Liquid is...but I sure as hell love that he's here duking it out with the boys, taking his lumps, and pushing back trying to actually have a discussion. Not just sitting in his office and writing memos about how he wants shit to be under his command and in Big Blue. I don't buy all of it, but fuckin-A it is great to see you here trying. I wish others would do the same. I think all parties involved would find it very enlightening and valuable.

Liquid, a lot of shit you say here makes me roll my eyes and say "gimme a fucking break" to myself, but I have to give you massive credit for even coming here and engaging in the discussion. I don't know who you are, but even though I think your perspective is wildly out to lunch on many topics, I have massive respect for the fact that you are even interested enough to engage in this discussion. That part is a legit aspect of a real warrior leader. I sure wish there were other O-6s and above from across the USAF who would be like Liquid; actually listen to and interact with CGOs on a no-stigs basis and talk honestly about stuff that bothers them, rather than the typical business where they pretend to listen to issues from their subordinates, and then respond by dishing out the same ridiculous talking points issued to them by their leadership. I appreciate that Liquid's actually trying to articulate the message that leadership is putting out. The fact that he's having a difficult time doing it -- even in a forum like this -- should be an indicator to senior leadership that there might be some room for improvement of the message itself. Liquid, for all the hair-pulling you are probably doing wondering why these childish, idiotic officers don't get it, you must realize that from their perspective, you come off as an out-of-touch Blue Kool Aid drinker whose eye is so far off the mission that you don't even know what the mission looks like anymore. The fact that there is a significantly different perspective on these issues -- again, even when discussed like this -- means that something of significance must be done if senior leadership really wants a buy-in on these issues. It is going to take a legitimate buy in at all levels to actually fix the problem...although in the USAF we never seem to be interested in actually fixing problems, but rather ensuring that there is a perception that the problem is fixed via scapegoating and message-managing the propaganda. I'm all about it when military leadership says to us, "This is my decision on this issue, now quit your fucking whining and get in line" when it is on a topic that I can readily identify matters to our core mission of combat airpower. It is obvious that it is the latter part that, the lower half of the force doesn't seem to get. Now whose problem is it to fix?

First, I certainly don't condone and won't advocate for any sort of sexual assault, discrimination, harassment (legitimate) or sexism. Second, I'm not a fighter pilot, so I have no personal attachment to their specific cultural values. However, I do vehemently oppose this current trend of neutering our fighting force through the eradication of the warrior ethos in the name of "political correctness." We are fighting the replacement of a true warrior ethos with a weak and fabricated "everybody is a warrior" mentality. We are witnessing the pussification of the world's greatest air power, and the topic of this thread is yet another symptomatic manifestation. Congratulations on your shoe PhD. You have just quoted a rule that is so broad that it can easily be interpreted in the manner that most easily benefits the easily offended. "Sexual harassment is...verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature." Really? So, if I hear a sexually explicit song played on someone else's IPod at work, I (and presumably anyone else within earshot) is being sexually harassed? If a doc asks about my sexual contact to facilitate a diagnosis, am I being sexually harassed? Ridiculous you say? Well, it falls into the law that you so readily quoted as clear and definitive. This is what the shoes do every day in order to justify their queep and rid the AF of black boots, black T-shirts, morale patches, friday shirts, and impose reflective belt and sock check policies. And what about your definition of a reasonable person? You first define sexual harassment in the broadest terms possible, then continue to assert that anybody who is exposed to anything that fits this very broad definition as being subjected to a hostile work environment. I'd argue that it is weak (and therefore unreasonable by military standards) for any person to be so offended by a non-threatening sexual reference made in the military workplace that they consider the workplace to be hostile solely as a result of their feelings regarding said non-threatening sexual reference. Does it then stand that a reasonable person is one who joins the military (a killing, fighting force) and then expects to operate in a sterile environment, devoid of any and all sexual reference? "we" as in you and your GO cronies at the Pentagon? Because the "we" of the "boots on the ground", "flying, fighting, winning", "mission hacking", "getting the J-O-B fucking done" AF will certainly miss it. Of all of the things you have claimed on this board, this may be one of the most revolting assertions you have made to date. Given your AFSOC background and reference to the "joint force," I'm assuming you are referencing the SF world as a whole when you say "my community." As a person who spent the better part of a year in the JFSOCC-I J3, working side-by-side with FGO, CGO, and SNCO Green Berets, I'd beg to differ. Well, I guess they wouldn't consider their traditions "bullshit" any more than the operators of the AF would, but make no mistake, those folks aren't PC, nor are they the "professional" you would wish to impose upon them were they in the AF. Yes, trust and competence are of the utmost importance, but BS AADs, self serving careerist attitudes, and queep regulations are not. These guys are some of the crudest professionals I've ever had the pleasure of serving beside, and since we were deployed, you can bet your ass it was all done in the "workplace." And yes, traditions are certainly important, and I'd wager a beer you'd call those traditions either bullshit or sexist, if not both. True and untrue. I just heard A-SecAF Fanning tell a crowded auditorium that the topic of Sexual Assault was on his radar because it was on Congress's radar. He said something to the effect of "trust me, it will be better for us as a service to lead-turn this one then to be perceived as doing nothing and then to have Congress dictate to us how we should solve this 'epidemic'." Truth be told, it wasn't "DoD's failure" to do anything, it was, once again, the media's lopsided influence on the public and subsequently on the members of Congress that created this "epidemic." It was the media who hyped selected stories and created a disproportionate response to a statistically small issue. It was the members of Congress who jumped on the bandwagon as a means to gain popularity amongst their constituency. It was the AF Senior Leadership who pandered and cow-towed in the name of staying in good graces. If the AF's true track record of sexual assault (vice the media-hyped sensationalized version of sexual assault amongst the ranks) were at play, then any reasonable mom or dad would be far more concerned about sending their daughters to college than to the AF. I am not privy to AF sexual assault stats outside of my Wing, but I feel pretty safe in making an anecdotal assumption that a far higher percentage of females are sexually assaulted on a college campus than on an AF installation. And certainly that a typical frats traditions are far more toxic than those of a typical fighter squadron. Did you not read several of the previous posts outlining the reality of today's AF for a CGO/Jr FGO? Standing up to this queep will get you squashed just as certainly as standing up against your idea of sexual harassment will. Remember, General, that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone equally as powerful as you. Your hot button appears to be this idea of the demon of sexual harassment in the workplace, and I can bet you intend to squash anybody who doesn't fall in line. Well, you may be out of touch enough to not realize, because as a GO you are apparently above it, but for some other O-6s out there, their hot button is strict compliance with any written regulation, regardless of the validity or importance. (sound familiar, like a "shoe PhD maybe?) "Aggressively challenging" them would get me no further than aggressively challenging your weak, overly-pc assertions of what actually constitutes a hostile MILITARY work environment. And while I'll sit on BODN and call BS all day, you can bet your ass I'll be saying the same things in very hushed tones around the office from here on out (well, at least for the couple of years the AF still owns me. "Out."

I don't think anyone minds a good conversation (or argument) on these forums. You're welcome to keep coming back for a discussion, but throwing a temper tantrum like that won't get you very far. It's evident to me that you've already made up your mind about fighter pilots and no amount of talking will change that. None of us is in favor of sexual harassment. None of us actually thinks saying STS and 69 are required in order to get the job done. The problem is that you think stopping those silly games is going to stop sexual assault in the Air Force. Clearly, eliminating songs and STS isn't the answer since sexual assault rates aren't dropping. Like I said before, why don't senior leaders stop collectively pointing a finger at fighter squadrons and actually make an effort to root out the true problems. If the OG consistently has the lowest amount of SAPR reports in the wing, why are leaders continuing to crush us? You say we're stuck on the little things, but it's exactly the opposite that's true. We don't care about that stuff. You do. Senior leaders do. There's only so many times you can call someone a sexist rapist before they start ignoring you and walk off. I've got better things to do than listen to so called leaders accuse me of being a sexist rapist. Then... THEN... you tell us we should grow some balls and stand up against the injustices of gym bags and reflective belts. You're exactly right that those issues are minuscule. They're minuscule, but they're manifestations of the larger problem. The problem (wait for it) is that senior leaders focus on the tiny, useless crap. It's the same mentality that thinks outlawing STS will stop sexual assault. If you want to stop sexual assault, stop blaming pilot culture and instill some sense of responsibility among your airmen. IMO, sexual assault and rape stem from a culture of entitlement. Young airmen are told they're warriors. They are the key to all things military and without them the castle would crumble. Give every kid a trophy. Stroke every ego. Well, now you've got a force full of people who think they're next in line for CSAF. If they choose to slap some chick on the ass or take some drunk girl home after a party, well that's their right as an award winning warrior goddammit. Stop telling everyone how supremely special they are and try focusing them on the mission for a change. Of course, this is just my opinion. But what do I know... Welcome to the forums.

Impossible when your leaders are raised in Washington, D.C., instead of Sparta.

If I need an MFR explaining it, then apparently leadership thinks that I do. The real problem with the current leadership focus is that by queeping out on things like "69" and "STS", you cheapen the entire discussion. I think everyone is on-board with the idea that we should prevent sexual assaults and sexual harassment, that everyone, male or female, should be able to come to work without fear of being harassed or assaulted, that everyone should be respected...I get it, I think 99.9% of the AF gets it as well. But now, instead of thinking I'll learn something new in SARC/SAPR training that will help me prevent the next sexual assault, I'm told that I'm the same as a rapist for making a dick joke. In my last SAPR training, we were told that having sex with a woman at any level of intoxication was technically rape since she didn't have the ability to consent. So I'm not allowed to go out with the wife, have 2-3 drinks, and get romantic afterwards...no consent. When leadership goes way overboard in such a manner, it makes it much more difficult to sift through what is an actual problem, and what is queep. Further, when you preach it so loud, for so long, people just stop listening entirely. Then when you have a real point to make, you have no one in the audience that hears it.

So...whose side is Limnadia on?

I totally disagree that the use of 69 is sexist. The entire concept of 69 is mutual love and satisfaction. I'd argue in fact it's the most "equal" and respectful toward women of all the sexual references I can think of. There have been a lot of examples given of actual, no shit sexual harassment and improper work environments (making inappropriate passes at the unfairly hot female Airmen, viewing porn on GOV property, etc.) or just plain being an asshole (i.e. "who did you have to blow to get that patch?"), I think we all get it that that stuff is wrong. But what the witch hunt is really against IMHO is the sexualized nature of typical interactions between groups of predominantly young males. Good luck winning that fight! Agreed on all except honestly the bad economy of the last 5 years has probably helped retention rather than hurt it. I know my morale is higher knowing I got a raise every year I've been in the service while my buddies in the civilian job market have been getting slammed. This kinda makes me wanna puke honestly. Isn't this the same bullshit the WWII "greatest generation" gave to the Vietnam vets who were their children? It's a blame-the-accuser mentality that proposes that maybe I'm complaining about getting f*cked in the ass because I don't value service enough, and on top of that Uncle Sam really does needs some asses to f*ck so BOHICA! Excuse my french. The AF absolutely, 100% has demonstrated that I am nothing more than a number on a spread sheet and because they can only think in numbers, I'm gonna start thinking in numbers too...i.e. taking care of #1. For me that's my family and our future, and as much as I'd honestly like the Air Force to be a part of that I chose to pursue other opportunities. Does that devalue my service in some way as you seem to suggest? Do I not "value service" enough after 7 years and numerous deployments? Keeping the faith is a two way street and I feel like it took me an above-average length of time to get bitter and jaded...the AF and our leadership did not exactly meet me half way IMHO. I made all that kinda personal, but I'm betting there are plenty of other dudes who feel the same way who would be willing to speak up as well.

Gentlemen, you have been chosen for the unique abilities you have acquired thus far in your careers and will bring to this platform and to air dominance in the 21st century. Our tactics are still evolving as we find out every day what the envelope of this jet truly is. There is combat experience in this room, test pilots, Weapons School graduates and thousands of hours of experience in the Eagle, Mud Hen and Fighting Falcon, and we are going to rely on you to translate that experience and know this jet inside and out. We need you to work to expand our knowledge of what it is capable of in combat. Everything you have heard about Raptor is true. It is the baddest mother effer on this planet, and by moving it across the ocean we move US policy with it. Our mere presence will deter wars, because there is not an enemy pilot on this earth who remotely stands a chance against us in the air. Our own fighters don’t stand a chance against Raptor. You have seen recent reports of 100 to 0 kill to loss ratios in exercises. That is simply because we don’t have any more red air to put against it. If we could put up more jets, we would shoot them down too. Those of you who have fought it, hate it. We kill indiscriminately and at will, often times without anyone knowing we were even there. If you find yourself with an enemy fighter at your 6 o’clock and a mile – he only thinks he has the offensive advantage. You will water his eyes with the bat turn this jet can make, and then you will kill him between his tears. Stealth is real, and over the next several months we will teach you how to use it, how to lurk in the shadows and strike on our schedule. You will do things you never thought possible in a fighter aircraft and make other nations loathe our great American engineering prowess. This is not a gentleman’s course. We expect you to work long days and show up prepared. It is extremely expensive to operate this jet and we do not have the sorties or tax payer dollars to waste if you put in any less than 100%. Your work will be rewarded with sorties that you could have never imagined against numbers only dreamed about. Take what you know already, and file it away. Don’t bury it, but understand we do things differently in Raptor. Your tactics would still work in this jet but they do nothing to take advantage of our speed, supercruise and our stealth. Embrace what we are teaching here, give it an honest shot and you will come to love how we employ this aircraft. Make no mistake, Raptor is a high visibility program. Do not Eff off in my jets, period dot. These birds are still rolling off the line, you will pick them up off the factory floor brand new. There are a handful of pilots in the Airforce today that have flown a brand new jet, our average fighter age is in the 30’s. You are very fortunate to be here. Do not ever forget this. Raptor makes you look good, not the other way around. A little humility will go a long way. They are single seat but imagine me in your cockpit every sortie, and if you even think of shining your ass, think seriously first if you ever want to fly again. There is no room for mistakes, showboating or shenanigans. If there is any doubt as to what you are about to do is a good idea – don’t do it. You are already flying the most expensive jet on the planet, it doesn’t get any cooler by holding it in ground effect during takeoff or doing an impromptu airshow for your buddy on the lake. We taxi on the centerline at 300’ spacing. This is the closest you should get to another jet all day long unless you are down to the gun. And we will train you to use the gun. This is the only warning. Gentlemen, if we go to war tomorrow – make no mistake – you will be the ones knocking the door down. Raptor was not built for Iraq, it was built for the next shooting war with no kidding threats that can do damage to our legacy fighters. You will employ against, and inside these SAM rings, paving the way for the bomb trucks on Day 2. Of the people going through the course right now, someone will have an aerial victory in this jet. A good day may yield you 6. Pay attention and we’ll show you how. Welcome to Raptor.

Would love to hear Liquid or Chang answer this question which has been asked several times... who is the AF REALLY trying to keep with the ACP? I'm guessing the stats from AFPC are not final yet, but just the takers by base can lead to some obvious conclusions. When you look at the number of takers from places like Maxwell, Newport, Pentagon, District of Washington, Leavenworth, Monterey... being too lazy to do the math it looks like about 90 takers with one or two non-takers (unless I'm reading it wrong). I'm guessing 99% of those guys are at School or a fast burner Staff position (Pentagon). That doesn't include the high numbers from Scott, Langley, Wright-Patt, Hickam, Randolph who may be on either MAJCOM Staff or flying that took the ACP. Did the AF manage to give a bunch of money to a ton of guys who already had absolutely every intention of staying anyway? That doesn't even include the random places on that list! You never know, but I'm guessing they don't give the job in Beijing or Istriana to the guy without ACSC in correspondence done! If the goal was to keep guys who were planning on staying anyway then they hit a grand slam.

Use some google-fu and you can answer this one for yourself. Bingo...talk to the 16th and 4th SOS about how the Cannon churn is affecting their long-term manning. I'd love to hear senior leadership from any MAJCOM address their numbers directly, or better yet just release numbers by airframe, base and delineate how many takers were already school selects and we could draw some informed conclusions on our own.

Ha! My UPT studs actually referred to said memo this week and asked if it applied to them as well. I told them the memo was not part of our base and that if they use the # 69 and "so to speak" appropriately there would be no issues. Furthermore, I told them if someone gave them crap while these terms were used in proper context, they needed to let me know ASAP and refer said person to me. I understand the improper use of sexual references does not belong in the work place. To outright ban certain phrases is overkill, even if that CC is trying to make a point. In fact, the bros will just find another phrase or term to express themselves. The wild goose chase will continue. Banning "so to speak"...give me a break! I have reached the point where I could give the square root of f#&k all about the AF's attempt to castrate the officer corps that kills or supports the killing of enemy soldiers/MiGs for a living. We have been at war for decades, yet it's as if our leadership forgets we are trained to kill MiGs/soldiers in the Air Force. That is what we do! For those who don't kill people/MiGs in their MWS, they certainly support the killing of people and MiGs. A good old-fashioned, ass kicking, warrior attitude that focuses on the mission and scoffs paperwork would do the trick. Instead everyone is looking behind their back to make sure no one is reporting them or has their feelings hurt; everyone is worried about a strat or the next job; everyone is worried about how they can make themselves look good; everyone is worried about making sure there is no empty space on the right side of their OPR. What the hell is our leadership doing?! The CSAF needs to have another meeting (this time a closed door meeting) with his Wing/CCs and start ripping craniums apart until they get the message that PC, leadership by email, DE through correspondence to go in-residence, masters degrees, and banning words/phrases are not the anwer. My goodness, what is becoming of our leadership?! PC can be left to politicians. It doesn't belong in the military. PC kills good guys. PC has taken something that is valid (e.g. SAPR, MEO) and made it a joke that people roll their eyes at. Rant switch - OFF

Gearpig, thanks for your astute observation and cogent response. Google the quote for some context. If it makes you happy, the squadron commander is ######ing retarded for putting out this memo. I've been watching the discussion on whether or not people should be able to say 69 or STS. Makes me laugh and in some cases, glad I am retired. Saying these things does not preserve fighter heritage. Having lived with fellow pilots who every other word out of their mouths was STS was annoying as hell at times. However, the USAF has gone overboard. Having a picture of your spouse in her bikini should be ok. Hanging centerfolds in the vault is not ok. Singing the S&M man is not ok. Singing the Balls of O'leary and Sweet Chariot should be ok. The guy asking a highly qualified fighter pilot who she had to blow to get her WIC patch should have gotten a swift kick in the junk (several times - and I would have been glad to help with the kicking.) My friend who kept introducing his female wingman as his "breasted wingman" should have been pulled off to the side and told to stop it (and I did.) We need to protect ourselves and be good wingman so the SARP idiot does not assault some woman in the parking lot after getting liquored up. Sometimes you gotta grab people by the neck and keep them from doing the "Hold my beer and watch this" routine. Keeps you off tv and off the CSAFs radar scope. Watch the video of the CSAF at the AFA convention. Where do you think he wants his attention to be focused? I am pretty sure it is not the 5am phone call to hear "Boss, you are not going to believe this...." That is enough rambling. Sorry to gearpig for appearing to be late to the fight. Well not really.

Oh I don't doubt it but there's sure as hell lots of blame to go around for the Taliban cashing in on our stupidity. Wasting force cap to have MPs write speeding tickets instead of do their job as combat security. Driving around in vehicles who no crew serve weapons and minimal equipment. Perimeter fences with urban areas built up next to them (the whole river side of bastion) providing enemy with free movement. After Frontnac's success it was only a matter of time till word got out and they tried something bold. Sacking these two generals was just the latest in our "look we did something about it" knee jerk leadership model.

So using STS and 69 are male only things and comparable to lynching as heritage? C'mon dude, I know female pilots who talk dirtier than the dudes. Also, yeah, people need to conform to traditions and have some thick skin. how can I have an honest debrief if I'm woried the guy/gal is going to cry when I tell them their flight sucked. "Sucked" how dare I use that. This ultra-sensitive PC shit is overboard. Catering to the weak is a losing investment. We are shedding talent to keep in the easily offended vocal whiners. Killing people and flying fast jets in REAL combat is not a puss game.

That checks, I was amazed at the behavior of many of the chiefs on my last deployment (except our squadron chief, who would tell other chiefs to shove it if they were messing with our guys). Luckily we had some awesome leadership that shielded us from most of the bullshit. The OG straight up told us on his commander's welcome brief... "I don't give a shit if you're wearing your reflective belt and I don't give a shit about your mustache, I'm not going to be walking around measuring it, I just expect you to work your ass off and get the mission done because a lot of people outside the wire depend on you" Probably the wisest thing I've ever heard from an O-6 or above.

BG Olds would have been out of today's USAF with a dismissal and jail time. Reading his autobiography was amazing, and I truly loved who this man was. A few examples: 1. Low fly-by in Europe so he could not be promoted to flag rank and get to go to Vietnam. 2. Wearing an out of regs mustache for morale. 3. Having an affair with his secretary after his change of command ceremony in Vietnam. 4. Putting the tanker pilot in for a silver star when it's pilot violated rules of engagement so the pilot would not be taken to a GCM. 5. Still flying after being promoted to BG overseas during war time. 6. Temporarily grounding (for a month) a pilot who overflew USAFA, when Olds was the COC, and broke every window in the teratzo while breaking the sound barrier. These are the ones I remember, and there are many more. I hate how we revere these leaders today, but would rake someone over the coals for doing these things in this day and age. I'm surprised the USAF hasn't been made a part of the Quaker religion with how we are expected to act now. That being said, I do think that overtly sexual conduct or speech does not have a place in the work environment of any organization. I've seen numerous people police this, and I don't fault them for feeling comfortable enough to tell someone to shut up. It doesn't have to go further than that, and people learn from their mistakes instead of being squashed for them. Disagree 100%. I believe in "service, not servitude" and many in our leadership echelon think we need to exhibit servitude. I won't do it and applaud others who won't as well. Don't piss on my head and tell me that it's raining or that I should like it.

Funny part is, that the person asking to see your socks is most likely some idiot E-9 or diamond wearer who is following the directive of an equally idiotic wing/group CC to be checking socks. So telling them to piss off, as you recommend, may win one the battle, but they'll ultimately lose the war for "doing the right thing". Today's AF for you.

If we need a calculator to choose who has the ability to perform in the next higher rank, we might be doing it wrong.

Pilsung.

The Diner wins it.

Screw with people for no reason, you will go far in the USAF...I bet you are really good at measuring sock height. I guess we see life and service differently, everyone is working hard these days and I think if you woke up 600 CGOs at 0400 on a Saturday night to search their room, we might hear some bitching.