Leaderboard

When Gen Creech took over what was TACC at the time, he directed his staff to scrap at least half of the AFIs. He believed the AFIs were stifling innovation and creative problem-solving. Whenever one of his staff would protest, Gen Creech would tell them that he had faith in the judgement of his subordinate commanders. See, I did learn something useful from the online ACSC.

For some institutional change, perhaps start with AFIs. Cut/chop/eliminate. Some have plenty of useful guidelines like an MEL, some are used as ammo against one another. For example, the uniform AFI can change to, "Wear a uniform. Here are the ones we have." Take away the shoe ammo. Lower the waiver level of all AFIs after they've been chopped of the stupidness. Why the fuck a multi-star general is listed as the waiver level of so much stupid shit is well beyond me. Again, removing shoe ammo. That's all for now. Out

Fair enough. I guess I've just seen a lot more of group commanders sitting in meeting after useless meeting, and not a lot of ordering troops to their death.

I'm glad that someone is interested in change that is sorely needed (pension reform, the end of "up or out", fighting the idea of only one ideal career path, ease of movement between active & reserve status, etc...) but I don't think this (direct lateral entry at O-6 level) could happen except in some limited career fields (some cyber, medical, legal, maybe some intel, etc..) but in terms of operations (kinetic but also direct support to kinetic capability missions) I think that is a disaster waiting to happen. It has an odor of desperation to it, not a strong one but I can smell it. Our institutional culture is sick and therefore we have to call in true outsiders, insert them directly into senior rank structure and hope that somehow their talent is universal and that will fix it, just seems like naive hope and that is not a COA. The real solution is to "fix the glitch" and that glitch is a huge swath of officers and senior NCOs that have little operational experience / perspective / concern but high administrative focus & authority. I realize that there are lots of other parts of the AF that are not operations and they are important, important that they support and not hinder operations. One way they hinder operations is by growing excessive amounts of leadership in their fields which will give them an outsized influence in the policy and strategy of the AF as an institution.

When you look at it from the perspective that big Army's purpose is to conduct maneuvers to gain and hold land...it makes total sense that big Army guys are just sitting on their hands doing nothing because our troops aren't out there doing that...just SOF and special skills folks advising or whatever they call it. So what they really need is to just take most of big Army out of the chain and trim the fat. That would help with the bureaucracy part a bit (although less infighting entertainment). Then, if they would drop some actual achievable goals, it would be great. Our forces are great at fighting force-on-force, and our counter-terrorism is spot-on...but now they're nearly at the insurgency phase of existence. And we all know how well that goes.

Heard from more than person Bob is a terrible DPE - if anyone goes there, reschedule checkrides until you don't have Bob.

How is the EU supposed to pass around Britians money if they leave?

The funny thing about making a competent leader with 15+ years of experience is that it takes 15+ years.

You are reducing the number of slots for career officers, but opening up those slots to officers who say, served for 6 years, got out, got an advanced degree, worked in the civilian world for a while, and who want to serve in the military again. That potentially actually reduces pressure on officers at all levels, because a single bad promotion board doesn't end your career (since you could get out and back in again.) I don't really think that the MQ-9 community is a very good example. It's a horrible train wreck of a disaster for so many reasons that simply blaming it on outsiders really paints an incomplete picture IMO. It would be cool to have more commanders who simply wanted that job, rather than see it as a stepping stone to the next job.

100% agree. I get more inspiration out of watching a TedTalk on youtube than I do listening to the same old, tired rhetoric of a kool-aid spewing O-6/above.

I guess I don't understand how opening up leadership positions to a bigger pool is a bad idea. If a civilian wants to be the mission support group commander, I say let him or her interview against whatever O-6 was "groomed" for that position. I think this organization would be improved with some outsider perspectives in positions of authority.

Maybe they should have documented some of the history, instead of threatening to wash a kid out for riding one of these admittedly ridiculous hoverboard contraptions.

Shameless Plug for Planeform and Flanders, they did a bulk order of SICK T-38's and U-2's for the guys at Beale in flat black that came out frickin' sweet.

Something I cut for a Navy customer:

Thanks for posting, deaddebate. I'm currently on a 365 in the desert, and the Army staff of CJTF-OIR are nothing but a worthless waste of manpower and bureaucracy that get in the way of what the CAOC is meant to do -- FIGHT AN AIR WAR! Seriously, it's maddening. The joke "The word Joint is spelled A-R-M-Y" couldn't be more spot on.