Leaderboard

Great point. Discipline is not doing everything exactly as prescribed regardless of effectiveness. Discipline is having the training and self control to do what is required, within the environmental constraints. During our misguided quest to instill discipline, we have neutered critical thinking, innovation and aggressive leadership. CJCS is really pushing the concept of Mission Command to force mission type orders, with commander intent and decentralized execution. Hard to believe the AF doesn't have this at the core of our beliefs. You should read his White Paper and senior leaders should hold commanders accountable for the command climate they create.

If AMC is having so many problems with crews doing stupid things, the command should take a look at itself. I think there are some deep seeded problems there. There are issues with initial qualification and upgrade training. People are being upgraded to AC and IP before they are ready and for the wrong reasons. There is a lot of emphasis on non-flying related things as we all know. When I was in the command, it was not unheard of for a crewmember to open up his PME books (yes, we had books once) while in an orbit in the AOR. Leadership went through the roof when they heard about it, but couldn't seem to make the connection that their subordinates were reacting to the priorities that leadership had clearly set. AMC is reaping what it has sown WRT to emphasis on what we call queep. It continues to react with leadership by FCIF. Emphasis on REACT. The command has got to become more proactive. Instead of focusing on punishing people for their poor decision making skills, it needs to understand that it has lost focus on providing people with the tools needed to make GOOD decisions.

Liquid, thanks for the response; that's the kind of outlook I think we're all interested to see, especially since it isn't one that any of us have. I hope you choose to keep participating here, despite all of the points you mention as why someone in your position wouldn't want to. Just something for you to take away, though; two statements you made really stuck out for me: The first point, regarding risk, is IMHO part of the core cancer infecting USAF leadership. The perception of me and my fellow line personnel is that leaders are more concerned with avoiding risk than they are with really leading. That they are more concerned with protecting their careers than they are with actually accomplishing the mission, and thus their leadership and decisionmaking strategy is based on ensuring they don't do something that pisses their bosses off (but unfortunately doesn't appear have a primary basis in our real core duty of advancing combat airpower). I found it telling that it was the very first reason you mentioned for senior level leadership not wanting to informally interact with the ranks. Naturally, this term "careerist" is thrown around as a pejorative toward those folks who value risk avoidance and career protection more than they do actual warrior leadership, and I find it interesting that you would caveat the term with your second statement, as if your (their) GO-level career deserved more protection from risk than anyone else's, and such decisionmaking patterns were valid because they were being a "realist" instead of a "careerist". So, why is it that our GO-level leaders aren't the FIRST ones in line to play that "moral courage" card, and make the right decisions for the mission and their people and throw their career cautions to the winds? IMHO these are the people who need to be using that logic process more than ANYONE else in the chain of command...and yet by most appearances, they are the ones who use it least. I primarily see Captains and Majors and Lt Cols making morally courageous decisions that are "right" for mission and people -- and they are the ones who I primarily see have their careers/futures in the military destroyed, or take their talents elsewhere when they have the opportunity to leave because their ideas/decisions/leadership do not translate into career advancement in the current USAF. How is it that the service that was born on the backs of rogues who vehemently supported airpower to the spite of Army leadership has turned into the one where anyone who even thinks outside the container -- much less acts outside it -- is marginalized, ostracized, or even outright punished for not following the career-progression-formula of risk aversion and compliance-is-more-important-than-achievement? Again, I don't know you, have never worked for you, and have no idea about your leadership style or decisionmaking history. As I've said, I don't agree with all of your points (and some I significantly disagree with, reference my "gimme a fucking break" comment in my earlier post). I will say, however, that you talk a pretty damn good game here with some of the things that you've posted with respect to your outlook and motivations as a senior leader.

Yet the Alamo remains open!

It'll probably start with a call to ban hi-cap gas tanks. No one needs twenty gallons of gas, tanks should be no more than five gallons!

This right here is exactly the problem. Fear gets in the way of common sense among far too many of our senior leaders. Unfortunately, that's a weakness that's rewarded at every level of our organization these days. I don't agree with many of your points, but good on ya for taking the spears here anyway.

Yeah that way I can peg the speedometer 30 not 31 because I'm precise like that and have what it takes to fly the F-22.

Somehow the squadron commander manages this risk while still showing up to these events. It doesn't even have to be a roll call, just have an all officer's call at the club on base, and hang around for an hour or two after giving the pre-written speech to talk to people face-to-face. Gen Welsh stresses over and over again to know your people...you can't do that via email and PPT slides, you have to actually talk to them once in a while, even if it means taking a risk. ORM is about accepting risks necessary to complete the mission. If a senior officer feels it's too much of a risk to be seen in a bar with CGOs, he's probably no longer accomplishing the mission. ORM isn't about avoiding all risks, it's about mitigating the ones you can and accepting the ones you must in order to complete the task. If aircrew viewed risk the way you are telling us our senior leaders do, we'd never fly an airplane.

I don't think the expectation is that GOs become drinking buddies with Capts, but when I first joined the Air Force there was this thing called mentorship (supposedly from GOs)...and well, we just don't have that anymore. Young Capts (future leaders) can certainly be shaped by GOs willing to have that occasional drink at the club. It used to work. That was my impression of the main jobs and lives of senior leaders (WG/CC and above). What I actually see are these senior leaders more involved than I would expect in relatively minor issues like (hate to bring it up) sock checks and mustaches. If you're ordering your GP/CCs to patrol the base DFACs looking for these violations, you're not focusing on the bigger institutional issues. MICROMANAGEMENT is what we like to call it. Quite honestly, SQ leadership should be fixing those "problems" if we have them, and the WG/CCs should trust that the issues are being squashed at the SQ level. Agree. Understandable. So let your junior leaders lead since they are in a better position to understand that Capt perspective...that is if they aren't too focused on their own progression. It appears to me (in my little corner of the AF) that commanders aren't being empowered to lead anymore. Gen Welsh brought it up at his All Call at Spang. The "mother may I mentality" I watched two of my last three SQ/CCs struggle through indecision because they weren't sure how the OG/CC or WG/CC would react to new ideas. It was more like "how can I keep my boss from firing me" rather than "how can I make my organization better." At least that was my impression. I've never seen more paperwork (LOAs, LOCs, LORs, etc) thrown at people for the smallest things, all to appease their boss. Yes, these had to deal with reflective belts and Friday retreats. LOCs and LOAs? Really? Yes men don't make good leaders. When you don't empower your people to make their own decisions and take their own actions, they'll wait for you to make it for them...and well, from what I see, they wait, and there is indecision because of it. Probably can be attributed to the risk aversion or "mother may I" mentality. Believe me, despite some of the name calling and accusations, your perspective is valued here. Hacker makes some excellent points, and I think he's spot on. I too hope you continue to engage on this forum and accept that risk. I think the payoff by understanding the young Capt's perspective will help you and other senior leaders realize the impact of some of these cancerous decisions (policies) being forced upon a "new generation" of leaders growing up in today's Air Force who are, as you mentioned from your response above, different than past warriors from the Gulf War I/ Cold War / Vietnam era.

I remember as a young SSgt back in the 89th he came out to look at my C-137B with the Wing CC to ask questions about the jet for research for his next book 'Cardinal of the Kremlin". My mx crew and Tom had long visit, with Tom doing most of the questioning just sucking up everything we told him. I claim that as one of the highlights of my career, most of the info we told him made it into the book, in the book he embellished though by saying the Crew Chief "me" was a SMSGT that could teach manners to a linebacker. I liked the way he wrote that though.

Here's what I think is lacking, and I accept the possible spears. We all agree with what he's saying. We all agree that the problem is somewhere between the CSAF and us. The "leadership" in the middle, somewhere along the line, is just silently ignoring what he says and going on their merry way with compliance-at-all-costs culture. What is the CSAF doing to force THOSE leaders from squashing the initiative he seeks to foster? I think it's time for a reign of terror, in a perversely awesome sense. I know he's busy. But random visits, unannounced, everywhere, all the time is the answer. Down in the trenches, talking to maintainers at DM at 0300, or pilots getting back from TDY at HRT, or that FS at Mountain Home whose CC has apparently lost its mind . . . or hell, ANYONE at Cannon. Solicit honest feedback, with no entourage in tow, and no warning to the chain of command. Then follow up. When a stupid policy letter like banning #69 is issued, or Jim Slife opens his mouth about Art 15s for rolling your flightsuit sleeves, or an AMC senior leader pulls one of their famous political crucifixions of an aircraft commander . . . call THEM on the carpet at 0700 in service dress. Put the fear of God into the O-5s and O-6s. Start specifying that some regs CANNOT be made further restrictive, and that to do so is to risk being fired by the CSAF himself. I'm hopeful. But what I think is necessary is to make the careerists in the middle be scared to death for their careers if they do not push decision-making back to the appropriate level and stop thinking all rules are created equal and unbreakable. Curtis LeMay meets the Common Sense fairy.

Damn, they lifted the shelter-in-place...what a great opportunity to lock all of congress in a room until they produce a budget.

It's telling that 10 months after we were "promised" a "vector", we haven't seen one. Cue the "he's had his hands full! The budget! Sexual assault! Syria! He gave a great speech at the academy this one time! He got rid of Blues on Monday... sorta! Give him time!" responses. Great speeches only go so far.

If the mentality and leadership of General Welsh actually trickled down, the Air Force would be an incredibly improved place. I'm still hopeful it will. If a man of that caliber can't do it, I'm not sure who can. I wish I had the ability to speak that eloquently.

Loved the early Jack Ryan books. As crazy as it seems now, they were one of my earliest inspirations for military service. RIP

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."

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?

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

There's always ways to "pay" for the tobacco.... Also, you should shank somebody right when you get there, so everybody knows you're not a bitch.

I think the quote from General Dunlap in that AF Crimes article has the most bearing on the actions taken by Gen Franklin: "If you come to the conclusion the person is innocent, then it would be unconscionable not to try to restore an innocent man to where he was before the accusation was made." I wish all of our commanders had the courage of their convictions on that. The adultery issue is a separate thing, and I wasn't going to bring this up until you did, but I read the report of the 12 AF/CC-directed investigation of the "love child" that has now been posted to the AF FOIA Reading Room site. The report makes it clear that at the time of the "affair," the Wilkersons were not living together, were having marital problems, and were "physically" but not "legally" separated. As I understand it, "legally" is what counts as far as the UCMJ—but the report glosses over what exactly was meant by "physically." The statement Wilkerson gave to the investigator is not included, so from what is in the report it is impossible to tell if they were physically separated in anticipation of considering a legal separation in anticipation of a possible divorce, or if Mrs. Wilkerson had just gone to visit her parents for a month. And of course the third essential element of adultery under the UCMJ is whether it was "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." The author of the report, who is not identified, makes a post facto argument that the negative publicity resulting from the disclosure of the "affair" 8 or 9 years later constituted "discredit upon the armed forces," but ultimately relies on the fact that Wilkerson hooked up with the baby momma during a 4 ship RON to HIll that was scheduled after he met the woman—implying that Wilkerson wrongfully used government resources to advance the "affair," which would be "to the prejudice of good order and discipline." But the report's author never really proves that. IMO from the facts in the report, the author could have very easily found no wrongdoing, but perhaps felt compelled to nail Wilkerson on something due to the media focus. I'm just speculating, but I would hope Wilkerson told all of that to his lawyer, Frank Spinner, at some point, and had a pretty good idea that he was in the clear on that at least legally—and that formed the basis of what he told General Franklin's people. Which was really all he could do if he wanted to get his security clearance back. Anyway, none of that is anything I ever wanted to know about a guy who might have been my commander or IG had I taken some different paths in life... But it is all only tangentially related to the issue of whether Franklin was right to overturn the verdict. And at the end of the day, I still think with 99% certainty that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, and with about 90% certainty that Wilkerson was truly innocent of the charge. Fathering a love child doesn't make you a rapist. If you think it makes it more likely he was simply a cad who was perhaps trying to hook up with the nut job from the Med Group, and got caught, again, it doesn't make him a rapist (and both the prosecution and the defense agreed that the accuser was not so intoxicated as to be incapable of consent). But there are enough problems with the accuser's story that I don't even believe that. From reading through the documents, I think the only real heroes in this case are Franklin, Breedlove for supporting Franklin, and the Captain ADC who was courageous enough in the appeal documents to call out the O-6 prosecutor for misconduct. Everybody else made fools of themselves, one way or the other (and certain members of Congress and the media are continuing to do so)... But in the American system we aren't supposed to scapegoat people because we're afraid of negative publicity. (See: Duke lacrosse case)