Hacker

The USAF, on the other hand, has a ratings system in which everyone, in every rating period, single-handedly won the GWOT.

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/more-than-350-airmen-take-early-retirement-route-1.239779

"Half naked"? Glorifying sexuality? Seriously? What's next -- PT shorts and short-sleeve shirts banned on base because they're too revealing? So, his story used as an example in his Commander's Call about the airman at Transpo who stopped filling out the Form 1800s isn't what he really meant? Or, more correctly, this is how mid-level AF leadership interpreted what he said?

The irony that a senior leader would even need to care, much less be worried in some way, about it being publicly known that he was having straight talk with the rank-and-file is staggering.

It was from a 2006 ACSC paper on the effectiveness of pre-UPT screening programs. https://testrakeaviation.editme.com/files/Backupfiles/Baker-5472.pdf

Her response was to the suggestion that Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, actual combat veterans in the NMUSAF, be covered or painted over.

Of note, "Camera Shy" was a 25th Photo-Recon Sq F-5 (a recce P-38, more specifically an F-5B-1-LO Serial # 42-67561), which is now the T-38 Squadron at Vance (25th FTS). The Wing/CC at Vance during the 2012 "purge" is the same one who is there now. What is your Wing's connection to that aircraft, Liquid? Regarding it now being "not appropriate", reference the July memo from CSAF in which he directed that noseart with verifiable provenance could be displayed if verified by the MAJCOM Historian.

Looks like a Mini 14 in the one photo of it I saw. Maybe they can re-ban them all, just so they can "do something about gun violence".

By what objective standard is that true? Who is drawing that line and by what authority?

Here are the historical UPT washout rates per year -- the T-1's IOC was in '92 or '93.

The more I see what SEA posts, the more I am convinced that he actually is senior level military leadership.

Nope, also totally wrong. Just because the loadmaster doesn't know the corrective action doesn't mean I tell him to STFU when he reports that he sees smoke coming out of the engine. There are a lot of folks in the service who aren't in positions where they can impact the solution, yet have no difficulty identifying there is something wrong. It is leadership's job to un-fuck that goat; that's sorta, y'know, why they got put in that position in the first place.

Get bent, assclown. Guys who leave the service have done their time and deserve to have their hand shaken for their service on the way out, not your finger wagged at them for not staying in.

The AF is stamping out fighter culture everywhere it possibly can, and vilifying it where it can't.

That was one gun that, like you, I quickly sped past as I was trying to find the right pistol caliber carbine. Just wasn't that fun of a gun to shoot. Also could not deal with the Hi Point or the Beretta CX4 because of various things that just didn't ultimately work for me. I was almost happy with a 9mm AR, but ultimately didn't find what I like until I shot an MP5 clone.

It is important to note, here, that no "justification" is required as there is no legal minimum standard that must be met for the Convening Authority to make a ruling. Flying service is not a UCMJ-protected activity.

False dichotomy. Nobody at Vance wrote the letter posted earlier, nor has espoused as a matter of policy that use of 69 in regular speech is a form of harassment...yet, that is the chain of command that allowed that class to choose to wear the pink class patch.

Ban Infiniti "assault cars"!

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.

So, what if that 2-striper Gen Welsh mentioned in that speech just decided on his own to stop filling out the 1800s? How would that have played out. It is one thing for a 4-Star to make such a decision, but another thing entirely for an A1C. It is funny that he mentions an information gap, because clearly his vector on this is 180-out from the compliance-at-all-costs policy that's been the law of the land for many years. He talks an EXCELLENT game, especially with regard to fighting the "mother-may-I" decisionmaking technique that most field-level USAF leadership seems to take. My fear is that his push to allow subordinate leaders to actually make their own decisions will go away once he leaves as quickly as the "don't worry about getting your Masters" policy disappeared seconds after Jumper was no longer the CSAF.

That's all good, and I'm impressed and happy to hear you relate that, and certainly I wish your outlook were mirrored by more current squadron and wing-level leadership, but my question regarded other Flag officers and why they don't seem to feel that there's value in doing what you are doing. What is the view on this type of informal interaction from your leadership level -- obviously you see personal value in spending time on BaseOps and trying to have a conversation with us minions, but why aren't there others (or at least ones who are willing to identify themselves as leadership and intentionally engage in conversation)? Why do other officers of similar rank and position NOT choose to do that these days when, in my experience in my little sliver of the fighter world, it used to be a much more typical point of view? What do your peers say about it? Why are more of your peers not taking off their stars and talking honestly with the rank and file in a no-rank, no-stigs environment like this?

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?

Legit. This happens more frequently than one might think....but most folks don't really talk about it in public.

Unless you are one of the guys whose careers and futures in aviation were deep-sixed. My bet is that they see it quite differently.