Leaderboard

SNL could learn a lot from the Netherlands. They make fun of Trump without sounding like a bunch of butthurt little children, unlike our media.

I think we should have caged our expectations to reality. Desert Storm was such a success because we did just that. The campaign was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. We removed Iraq from Kuwait, crippled their ability to try it again, and we went home. We could have done something similar in Afghanistan...attack the Taliban's strongholds, destroy as much of their capacity to inflict fear on their neighbors, and walk away. Instead, we're on our second decade of trying to build a nation where one has never really existed in a form we're familiar with. Same with Iraq take-two...we invaded the country, dismantled every part of the functional government, then we were caught off-guard when we had a hard time building a democratic government from scratch. My point isn't that we should never get involved. It's that we should take a cold, hard look at whether that involvement is in our own interests, rather than the pursuit of some noble and unattainable ideal of "liberty" or "justice". When we get involved, we should do so on the smallest scale possible. At our current rate of progress, we'll be in Afghanistan into the 2050s, and that's probably being optimistic. In short, we need a more pragmatic approach to our foreign policy. Saddam was a terrible person, but because he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, he kept groups like ISIS from emerging. Qaddaffi was a long time antagonist of the US, but he was willing to work with us on getting rid of WMDs. Now Libya is just a giant, messy civil war (much like Syria)...perhaps the US needs to recognize that foreign dictators don't have to be good people to be useful to US interests.

You may be right, but I'd question how well our policy of supporting democracy and freedom around the world has really gone so far. We ended up in Korea to a stalemate, and we're still there. We pulled out of Vietnam with our tail between our legs. Iraq hasn't exactly blossomed into a stable democracy after three tries at it. Afghanistan is still as corrupt and ungovernable as ever. Libya had a dictator willing to give up his WMDs and work with the US to repair ties...a few tweets later, we're bombing his administration, giving Iran a close look at why they should NOT abandon their own nuclear weapon research. Egypt was a strong ally of the US for years, but again, a few tweets, some action-packed protest video, and we pushed their leadership under the bus in favor of an overtly hostile political group. There have not been many times where our direct intervention has actually helped. So maybe, just maybe, instead of responding to every crisis in the world with a "we can fix this, we're a super-power", we should weigh our options and think hard about what we're going to get out of our involvement first.

This sentence makes it seem as though you've never been involved in a business negotiation.

https://www.tehachapinews.com/news/edwards-air-force-base-pilot-dies-in-san-antonio-crash/article_bd4f2c2c-e423-11e6-aad2-0bf8c6e8a090.html To SWAB

Hater. JHMCS is OK, but there will be a new helmet that is 100% better soon. Block 30s and A-10s are already flying with it.

I'm all for using our influence culturally, diplomatically, and economically to promote freedom around the world. This idea that we're going to invade third-world hell-holes and shape them into industrialized Western democracies has got to stop, though.

JFTR is dead. Long live the JTR

JTR replaced the JFTR.

That was hilarious

I don't doubt that he views the issues from that perspective. The problem is, these issues are not all "business deals." They are, in some cases, life and death decisions that affect millions. In business, you have two (or more) rational actors with an easily discernible goal (improve bottom line/increase stockholder ROI). Geopolitics doesn't work that way. Motives and intent are extremely difficult to discern. Cultural characteristics and differences affect how other parties respond to negotiations. You can't use the same tactics for every problem set. The President is our chief statesman, and it's worrisome that so far, all sense of tact and nuance seem to have left the building. The dismissal/resignation/whatever of the four top DOS officials today is not a good sign. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

The EU nations in NATO are taking advantage of our generosity, and have been for years. They aren't Haiti, or some other natural disaster-ravaged nation. Granted, many of the Americans who are OK with Europe having a pathetic military wish that we would follow suit, but as long as we are paying for them, we should expect a contribution proportional to their economic size.

I'd prefer that the President pick the next SECAF based on their ability, not their looks. If Mrs. Wilson spends half the time managing personnel that SECAF James spent taking selfies, it'll be an improvement.

The mobility enterprise is way ahead of you on this, for once. There are folks with stars asking the same questions, making the same arguments, and that's a good thing... Similar to the MAAP function consolidation from "home", they're also asking why we need a separate AMD... why mobility isn't integrated with the rest of everything else... why we can't do more C2 from the 618th... even working (from above and below) to force a discussion on things like OPCON and TACON... because right now in the mobility and some other communities (GS, etc), we operate between the lines more often than not in execution of global missions. It's nice to see smart, engaged leadership re: these topics instead of just going along with "the way it's always been." Chuck

What Huggy won't tell you: NoMo likes an additional UNOFFICIAL photo of the candidate in a speedo as well.

Yeah the funny thing about it is that I'm sure plenty of people would be glad to take the offer as a means of having a full time employment. So to force a 6 year commitment on somebody when a lot of people would probably gladly take it anyway didn't seem to make a lot of sense. But based on what I've heard from talking to people in AFRC - there is likely enough demand for you to participate a lot even without the ART commitment.

I think that wiped itself out already anyway, except maybe for the goobers that signed it.