FourFans

A little humility goes a long way. Almost every mustang I knew, if not outright humble (most of them), at a bare minimum knew when and where to turn that switch on. A solid argument can be made that all officers should be enlisted first, a la Robert Heinlein. If nothing else it’s a solid thought experiment.

Glad to know you’ve got such a good grasp on ground truth. I make no claims on understanding the root cause of the invasion…and there likely isn’t one such singularly cause. NATO expansion, demographics, a weak US president, rising US isolationism, EUROPEAN UNION SPINELESSNESS, good timing with Ukraine internal politics, Putin being megalomaniac, Russians being Russians? All of the above? But sure, go ahead and believe you’ve got it sorted. When you make claims like that, does it strike you at all as melodramatically black or white? Or do you genuinely believe it was solely ‘NATO expansion’? If so, why? *Side bar: NATO didn’t go out looking for new members. New members saw Russian aggression starting in Georgia during the GW era and started asking for membership. I know this because I worked in NATO, and membership was a hot topic. “NATO Expansion” is a known misnomer propagated by Russian media and intelligence agencies. Call it whatever, NATO expanded due to Russia invading its neighbors over the past 30 years.

Interesting. True you made an observation…one that clearly stated that you observed no benefit from the academies…which implies that you see no benefit to having the academies. Perhaps I was making a stretch in seeing that implication. Ok. We’ll use your yardstick for the sake of discussion. When did I say anything at all about critical thinking as a product? So you must be evaluated by precisely the words you say, but you get to imply where and when you like in evaluating others arguments? There’s a word for that style of argument: Pedantic Can we please leaving the childish discussion style behind? I get it, you didn’t see a benefit for having the academies. I simply provided you demonstrated benefits for our service from having the academies. As to critical thought and a warrior mentality that others have mentioned, that’s a trickier subject. I would argue that those traits cannot actually be inculcated by an institution, only fostered. I went to the zoo. I don’t think it explicitly taught me either of those. Rather the environment provided the opportunity for both to grow and become stronger. You can’t make a coward brave or an idiot savvy, but you provide the opportunity for them to grow in those direction if they so choose. It’s a fine, but important distinction. I think the reason we largely don’t observe those traits as stronger in academy grads is because the shitty grads get all the press, and the good ones fly under the radar until rare extraordinary events thrust them into the limelight. That makes it very difficult to judge the quality of the process without very acute observation. I won’t judge if I was a good leader or not. That’s for those I served with to decide. I did observe that most people were surprised when they found out I was a grad though. I attribute that largely to the reputation built by asshats who let everyone know where they came from. I think the same was true of most of the other grads that I observed and thought were good. They flew under the radar, did their job well, lead well, and people were surprised when they found out they were grads. That level of nuance is why I find it sad to see sweeping observations like: “I don’t see a benefit for the academies.” It appears to expose a lack of earnest curiosity to find truth. Perhaps if you fail to see a benefit, it wasn’t because there is no benefit, but because you weren’t actually looking for it.

This is one of the most abused lines of false reasoning I've heard used in attempts to back up nearly any argument these days. "I didn't see it so obviously ... *insert claim*" It's arrogant, irrational, and lazy. In my military career it was the go-to argument of every arrogant career climbing O-6 to justify why he didn't want to implement the COAs his team had just spent days creating to solve some problem. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. You choosing to be actively ignorant about what actually happens at the academies is simply evidence of your own intellectual habits. Are you grad? Have you ever been to the academies? You are looking at elite centers of education and research that are service centric and saying "I don't know why we have that." The Jet Lab at USAFA by itself sets it apart as an elite development center, not to mention the R&D done on aviation tech that takes place at the airfields. Have you ever seen the 105 hanging out the side an AC-130J? The aerodynamic fairings on and around it were initially designed by cadets as an aero department senior project. Or perhaps the cadet chemist who created a whole new style of body armor. I know for a fact the USA and USN both have equivalent stories. But I'm sure those kinds of developments would definitely happen at Berkley or Embry Riddle, so yeah, clearly we should shut down the academies. Come on man. If you're going to make an argument against them, please do. But put some meat behind it. Otherwise, pull your head out of the sand and do some observing.

The defense rests.

The lack of nuanced analytical thinking about the complex and highly dynamic subjects addressed in this thread is palpable. Biff, I'm pretty sure you're the most even keel here.

Why do we have UPT? Just take civilian pilots with commercial licenses and go straight to the FTU. After a couple years you won't notice the difference. And why do we have ivy league schools anyway? It's not like you can't become a doctor or a lawyer online. Just do that instead. Having trained UPT 2.0 students, the answer is clear: You don't realize what you have until you don't have it anymore. If you want a high quality product, you create competition and a set a high bar. That's what every elite university does, or should do. Judging that process by the vocal minority of arrogant asshats it creates is not how you measure the quality of the process. Yes, military academies need to improve (and get rid of the social experimentation bullshit). So does EVERY university. If you can't understand the reason for having a process that's competitive and pursues creation of elite levels of education, university level R&D, and leadership, you're seriously missing the point. Zero hit the nail on the head. We need USAFA and the other Academies to live up to what they're supposed to do: create and cultivate high quality mission focused military leaders. I think they still do that to a degree, although they've noticeably strayed into social activism. That means they need to course correct, not cease to exist.

Assuming those are mom and dad (or perhaps dad and dad?), I'm trying to imagine the upbringing that resulted in such a severe mental disorder.

So they monitor these guys as cadets...and then keep that access after they graduate...

If the driver is anything but a caucasian straight man, it'll stay

Ya know, it's been a minute since I've heard an airline captain ranting "bring back SAC"...

Please support that statement. Preferably with facts. You would have been a riot to listen to during the Blitz in England, or during the Battle of the Bulge, or during the seige of Stalingrad, or right after Pearl Harbor. You are taking a very short and narrow view of a very broad and deep problem. Maybe try a wider breadth of media coverage. Ukraine is winning. Ukraine is losing. Both sides have valid arguments, yet you're only choosing to listen to one side. I don't know what bias is driving you to that, but I recommend some self-analysis.

How do you see us avoiding the fallout of: - an imploding russia and the power vacuum it would create OR - an emboldened russia on the border of Poland OR - a stalemate in eastern Europe that takes a massive crap on the world food and energy markets OR - (most likely) some horrible combination of all of those? I'm not a globalist. I'm a realist. The US COULD be largely independent and even isolationist if it wants to, but our leadership simply won't be, and clearly aren't, doing that...at least not to the degree where we're completely divorced from the happenings in Europe. Watch our energy sector. The moment our leaders actually start deregulating POL and start stiff arming solar/wind and all the energy that requires an import, THEN your dream will be coming true. Good luck. For the present, like it or not, our economy and politics are tied to events in Ukraine, and to a lesser degree Taiwan. I don't like it either, but it's a plain fact we have to deal with.

@BashiChuni Have you read any of these? 'Principles for dealing with the Changing World Order' - Ray Dalio 'The end of the world is just the beginning' - Peter Zeihan 'The Fourth Turning Is Here' - Neil Howe

“Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar; and still there are things worth fighting for.” - Norman Schwarzkopf I didn't articulate it clearly enough. Yes, some nation will eventually claim victory in Ukraine. That's not the point. My concern isn't about who is victorious, it's about the fact that the rest of the world will have to deal with the aftermath. The bloody unstable aftermath in which no one really won and lots of people died. My sentiments are not based on squishy axioms. My sentiments are based on the cold hard reality of the seeing the business end of events that armchair quarterbacks call 'engagements' and 'warfare' when in reality they are organized death, chaos and the destruction on a scale most humans alive can't comprehend...and Ukraine is a meat grinder compared to the horrible things I personally witnessed over the past twenty years. No one here should ever advocate for war. Conversely if it comes to the point of violence, we need to be the baddest mothers in the valley and make sure it ends quickly and decisively...which is precisely the opposite of what's happening in eastern Europe right now...and yet people talk about some kind of victory being attainable there. It isn't. The only options are a bad outcome or a worse outcome. Yet some here want to church it up like there's still a possible glorious victory to be had. Many these days are content to talk about 'winning' the war in Ukraine in the same way they talk about 'winning' in sports. Sure, someone will come out relatively victorious. (My prediction is a stalemate that leads to new borders and a war that never really ends until the next major conflict) But we need to stop talking about who's 'winning' in that war. None of them are, and it's currently going nowhere. All that's happening now is the blunting of Russia as a nation against the cast iron of Ukrainian lives. All that's happening now is useless death. I understand it's the russian way of warfare, but having been witness to enough of that over my career, I'll thank everyone to stop celebrating it. Nailing the point home about our American divorce from the realities of war is that I have heard several people, on both side of politics, ADVOCATE for a civil war in the US. Most recently it was a retire AWACS pilot who said, "we just need to have this civil war already." I wanted to choke him. THIS is my point. Stop pretending that war has no cost. It does. The Ukraine war is going to end Russia as a modern state...and probably Ukraine too. The outcome is very important to us, as it will define whether we have to put more US troops into Europe or not. It will also define just how bad the world wide post-war economic slump is. And then there's the power vacuum when Russia loses. Power vacuums are never a good thing. Go read "The Dead Hand" to get a glimpse of the scary shit an imploding Russia would leave behind for all of us to deal with. If you think America gets out of dealing with the aftermath of this war politically and economically, well, then you're just ignorant and I can do nothing to help you (that's a royal 'you', not you specifically tac airlifter). A decisive victory was possible at the start of this thing. It isn't anymore. The only victory to be had will be the most costly kind, and we all get to help pay the price in some form or fashion. That's history. It's happened before and will happen again.

Indeed. If nothing else, the west is getting a re-introduction into the Russian (or even Eastern) way of war where body counts don't matter to the leaders so long as strategic objectives are met, or even appear to be met. Make no mistake, Ukraine is not western in its thinking. I'm not a Ukraine studies guy, but my gut says they'll keep fighting with or without western support. We have to take the world as it is, not as we want it to be. What's happening there is tragic and sad, but it can be leveraged for a strategic outcome that is better for Ukraine, and all western nations.

No one. That's who's winning. It's war. No one wins in THIS war. Counter question: What do you think would happen afterwards if Russia were allowed to go unchecked by western support? US and NATO stops supporting Ukraine, as you think should happen, and Russia dominates and takes the entire of Ukraine. Then what? You think he'll stop?

Apparently you can't see through the rhetoric. Being globally aware and engaging the power we (USA) still have is simply responsible for our own well being, forget the rest of the world. We have options now that we won't have later. You can choose to stick your head in the sand now, but that only leaves tomorrow you two options: A: Try to become globally aware and engaged later with options, power, and leverage you might not have any more. B: Learn Chinese. That's not an opinion. That's fact proven by history time and time again.

That chick looks crazier then a bag full of cats.

No

Unbelieveable

Likewise. Simply sitting next to this buddy of mine at high school football games has been amazingly educational. The dude can see penalties literally before they happen.

I second that

To the idiots who love doing the instant replay lawyer bullshit: A: Second guessing the physical decisions that highly trained athletes make in the matter of nanoseconds makes you nothing more than a completely worthless critic. "That guy made a decision to hit the most valuable player on the other team and then clearly didn't change his decision because he didn't make a split second decision to change his tackle posture when that important player changed his posture at the last microsecond." Get a life you sunken chest spinless incel personification of virginity. Instead, put the beer down, and go compliment the ref who had to make that call with no access to replay before doing so, fully knowing he'd be second guess for the rest of his career. I know that ref, and he's a good man. He's an athlete and a man of intense integrity. In comparison, you are nothing greater than a raging fart snorkeler. If you haven't been in the arena, shut up and go do 20 pushups...if you can. //rant switch off seriously, I'm friends with a professional Ref who has to make these calls. The number of completely un-informed and un-engaged dudes that make idol threats to him is thoroughly UNSAT. If the ref called it a personal foul, I believe it. Those guys have seen some shit and know what they're doing. The guys on either side of a "that was a bad/good call" debate universally don't know a damn thing. Step out of the peanut gallery and onto the field, or STFU.

I want one