Liquid

STFU "Marine". Troll somewhere else.

Well said. We need more of this.

I completely agree with you. Like I said, I can't speak specifically for why more don't do it. I only offer possible reasons. And Gen Welsh is an exceptional leader.

I won't disagree with you that careerism is a problem or that there may be senior leaders who are risk adverse to the point of hurting the mission. I think some may be reluctant to informally interact in these forums because of the anonymity and the risk of having written words used in an unfair and malicious way against you. It is not cowardice to protect against those who wish you harm. There are plenty of people in the media, politics and even the AF who would love to take out a senior leader or officer for what they said. The widespread use of audio and video recording has also limited some behavior. It is very easy to have a chopped picture of a senior leader doing tequila shots with a female Lt be destructive. Right or wrong, perceptions matter, and the perception of unprofessional or illegal behavior is unacceptable for officers, especially senior leaders. Don't discount the dangers of being in offensive and mean spirited conversations and environments. This forum turns nasty at times. Don't confuse risk decisions with cowardice. Identifying unnecessary hazards, mitigating their impact, assessing the probability and severity, then making an informed decision that weighs cost and benefits is something we do every day, in the aircraft and on the ground. Although it may be very effective for a senior leader to attend a Capt's party, where booze, sex and frat boy behaviors are rampant, the risk is too high and difficult to mitigate to accept. The benefit does not outweigh the cost. Extreme example, but the point is, senior leaders are easier targets than Capts because there are more people who would like to take them out to make a point. Like I said, a good defense is needed to enable a good offense. Fools don't identify or mitigate risk. Warriors accept risk when necessary, but also mitigate and change the environment to their advantage to defeat the enemy. Just as you would not commit career suicide by getting a DUI or sexually assaulting someone, others won't behave recklessly to risk their careers. The question is, how do you engage better. You bring up some great points on how to do this.

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.

Yes, the DT can award IDE equivalency credit. It does not count against the number of people you nominate to the DEDB. It is a quality check to make sure your record is "good enough" to earn the distinction of IDE in-residence. There are criteria for which programs qualify as well. Most eligibles I've seen get the credit. Not sure if about all the AFIT programs. Doing AFIT as a Lt probably wouldn't qualify, but you'd have to ask AFPC.

Hacker, I can't speak for others. I suspect some may be reluctant to engage in this type of forum because there is risk. The anonymity of on-line forums can create some nasty conversations where personal insults reign over logical arguments. Many people enjoy the raw humor, sarcasm and vulgarity permitted in venues where you don't have ranks and names. Participating in conversations that blatantly advocate unprofessional and occasionally obscene actions is dangerous. The advice is, don't wrestle with a pig, because you will both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. It is difficult to not lose your cool and trade blows during the personal attacks. It is difficult being called a c*** sucker, careerist, shitty pilot by some dirtbag that doesn't even know you. Those insults are usually reserved for someone you know well. Having a heated discussion with a few guys in a bar is different than posting online. Conversations happen quickly, points and counter points are made, sarcasm and humor are easier to read and you are directly accountable for what you say. The risk some senior leaders may be unwilling to take is having their written words taken out of context and attributed to them in a way that will impact how they do their jobs. Not careerists, but realists. Senior leaders are targets, period. Dealing with formal complaints, no matter how trivial, are a fact of life. Doing smart things to reduce vulnerability and risk is just playing good defense so you can continue to play offense. Some peers will also say it isn't really there job to hang out, trade verbal shots and drink with the Capts. Group of Wing command are really your last opportunities to do that regularly. Your comments can be officially attributed during press conferences, interviews, official emails or published articles. Senior leaders must be careful about what they say in public. Blog posts meant to be anonymous, but they can be attributed if you are outed. So there is risk that your smart ass comments, late night or booze induced rants or verbal sparing on controversial issues will be officially attributed and damaging not only to you, but to the AF. Bottom line, you can never take off your stars. The jobs and lives of most senior leaders are filled with issues above the unit level morale and discipline issues. We tend to deal with bigger institutional issues like resources, authorities, joint/interagency relationships and major policies, and those issues that we can directly effect. Squadron commanders rightfully have the most impact on the health and wellness of the force. Regardless of how much I would love to redo the EPR/OPR system, PT program, promotion priorities, PCS program, ACP and decorations policies, most of us simply are not in positions to influence those decisions AF wide. And by the way, I think the people in charge of them have it all wrong. These issues are discussed a lot, but changing a large organization is difficult and takes too much time. Senior leaders are much more familiar with political and financial realities, so I think they tend to lose the Captain's perspective. They remember what it was like for them and apply those lessons, which is usually a mistake. Conditions change. I love the old fighter and bomber pilots from WWII and Vietnam, but their experience and environment are very different than ours, for better or worse. Just as we would like the senior leaders to better understand our current situation before implementing policies, I would like the retired crowd to better understand our current environment before giving advice about what we should do. I don't expect a Vietnam era fighter pilot to appreciate or understand what RPAs do or how much we should value them. Denigrating what they do and who they are because you erroneously think they get hostile fire pay doesn't help. Not saying there aren't enduring qualities and lessons, just saying conditions change. Rambling, sorry. I do it because I learn a lot and I provide a perspective different from many here. Communication is good and it is worth the risk. More should do it, but I wouldn't expect it. Good stuff Animal. I'll put them on my reading list. Reading Supreme Command now. Just finished The Generals by Ricks.

Each of the DTs that met this summer were only allowed to submit one candidate for IDE. The rest of the reduced number of "seats" were for selects. The results of the DEDB, which assigns the school selects (and one candidate) from each DT to specific schools should be released sometime in November. AFPC and HAF A1 have briefed that it will most likely be the same for DTs 2014 and maybe 2015. MAJCOMs and HAF have discussed how bad this is for our force development and is recommending we fund more school slots so we can still send non-selects. It will be difficult with BCA cuts. I haven't seen official policy on this, but it was what our DT did this summer and what I have discussed with AFPC and A1. Hopefully we will get it worked out before next summer so commanders can nominate a reasonable number of quality non-selects.

Come on pawnman, you can do better than that. Do you really need to have the difference between a deliberate sexual innuendo and the legitimate use of the number explained to you?

Hacker, I really do value the tangible and intangible benefits of having discussions about flying and fighting over beers. As a squadron commander I converted our "Family Room" or "Heritage Room" back into a proper squadron bar. We had cold flash Guinness on tap and it made debriefs much better. At my base, I had the club bar remodeled into a proper horseshoe shaped bar. CE did the complete remodel project in house for a fraction of the cost contractors wanted. I did wing officer calls at the club with the bar open and a beer in my hand. I've spent many, many hours on barstools shooting the shit with Os and Es and I have learned a lot. I don't drink as much as I did as a young CGO, but it is still a lot. Our deglamorization of alcohol has hurt our AF culture, and smart people will make the same argument about this sexual harassment mess. The difference is alcohol use can be moderate, responsible and acceptable. Sexual harassment can't. I think you can have great conversations, throw back a few and enjoy life without being blatantly sexually inappropriate to the women in our force. Say what you want about the TSgt from Shaw, she was harassed and her leadership and her officers didn't do enough to stop it. It looks like the culture in the squadron wouldn't allow it. It may be a very isolated incident, but the attitude that defends the harassment is not isolated.

You make some outstanding points pcola, thanks. Don't agree with all of them, but I appreciate your perspective. BS AADs, self serving careerists and queep are problems. So is low morale. The very few incidents of sexual harassment is a minor problem, but the overall problem of sexual assault is a big problem. 69, sts and the other things in the FS/CC memo are relatively minor compared to other issues. For the most part, I just correct the inappropriate use of sexualized language. There isn't normally a reason to go further than a word or two or corrections. I think it is good you and others don't advocate or condone sexual harassment. I'll stop throwing rocks at the fringe of the argument.

Don't worry. My bullshit TDY ends tomorrow and I have to go back to work. No more rants for a while.

Just so I can more clearly understand your point, what is the appropriate use of the #69 and sts at work? Not sure I understand your comparison of PC and sexual harassment/hostile work environment. There is more to sexual harassment than political correctness. And I'm sure you understand the concept that politicians write the laws we are supposed to follow. There is a law that prohibits sexual harassment at work. And how exactly does PC kill good guys?

Ok, I'm not being clear or effective. I'll take a different approach. It is my problem to fix. I fear what our enemies are capable of doing to our nation. I respect the hell out of our ground teams that have taken horrific casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a firm believer that we will be fighting violent extremist organizations for the rest of my life. I think we will need to kill many, many people because there is no other way to prevent them from harming our families. I believe in a strong, independent and aggressive Air Force. I know that there are those in the Army, Navy and congress who would argue we don't need an independent AF. I fight them all the time, in resourcing, programming, policy and authorities. I believe that mission must come first because that is our job and nobody else is doing it. Kool Aid drinker? ###### you. I am also a senior officer in the AF with full understanding of the concept of civilian control of the military, the value of protecting our military profession, the importance of following lawful orders, the importance of being flexible enough to stay lethal in dynamic environments and just how challenging it is to get the authorities to kill people that need to be killed. I am a part of an incredibly effective joint force that hunts and kills terrorists. Trust and competence are important to my community. Bullshit traditions are not. Using the number 69 and saying so to speak is a bullshit tradition. ######ing get over it. You look like complete asses simultaneously arguing how it isn't really sexual harassment and how important it is to your warrior ethos. I am perfectly capable of participating in these relatively minor discussions about policy and being a leader who values our mission and our people. You are mistaken to think our senior leaders only focus on the small stuff. You focus on the small stuff by making a big deal out of a FS/CC MFR that should not have even raised an eyebrow. Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the DoD's failure to properly address sexual assault has limited our freedom of maneuver with our civilian leadership and eroded the trust of our elected leadership and made moms and dads question the wisdom of encouraging their daughters to serve. Like it or not, our senior leadership has determined that a culture change needs to be a part of the comprehensive and aggressive campaign to address the sexual assault problem. "Warrior" just posted an example of this culture. Get on board to change the culture that values and encourages sexual harassment or get the ###### out. Not because I don't understand your culture, or appreciate your contributions, or feel your pain. Get the ###### out because you are too stupid to know which fights to pick and which traditions to value. Go ahead and argue that sexual harassment is acceptable and worth defending. Fall on your sword over your right to act like an unprofessional ass while you tell 7th grade sex jokes and giggle about your songs. You'll either quit because it isn't like it used to be or you'll be kicked out. It cracks me up that some gray beards will post how they would kick someone's ass or pull them aside for saying inappropriate, harassing things to females, while the rest of you argue that you need to act like that to be good at what you do. You don't even listen to each other. I respect the hell out of fighter pilots. I know many, many great leaders, warriors and officers in the CAF. None of them make these stupid ass arguments to defend the "right" to sexually harass someone. So go ahead and roll your eyes. I really don't give a shit what you think about me. Quit your ######ing whining and help stop the relatively few cases of sexual harassment incidents we are talking about here. We have more important things to spend our time on than defending word games. Last point. CSAF has given you the opportunity to identify bad policies and stop doing them. Sexual harassment prevention is not bad policy, but there are plenty of others. The best most of you can come up with is sock checks. When I tell you to tell the sock checker to piss off, you whine about how your wing cc and chief will get mad and your career will be over. ######ing cowards. Pick some good fights and make a difference. Sock checks, reflective belts and gym bag policies are retarded and you should aggressively challenge them. I asked for some other examples of bad policies and got nothing. I personnally ignored, changed and waived a shit ton of bad policies at my wing and I challenged my subordinate commanders to do the same. Take your tough talk on the message boards and try to actually make some change in your unit and on your base. Be a ######ing hero to some enlisted troops for doing the right thing and looking out for them. Take some risk, do the right thing and make this job better. Quit bitching that senior leaders just don't understand your pain you ######ing babies. Out.

Look, I'm making arguments that mostly defend the policies coming out from senior leadership, and in this case of the FS/CC. I'm trying to articulate some rationale. I'm not being very successful, but I'm trying. Feel free to question my arguments and perspective, but don't question how I lead because you don't know me. I have commanded at the squadron, group and wing level, and I've commanded three times in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've given flags to widows and kids and I've given too many memorial speeches. I would challenge you to find anyone I have served with that would say I can't keep my eye on the ball, don't take care of people or don't know what is important. I have explained to a 16 year old girl and her parents why I wasn't referring her case to a court-martial and I've participated in sending rapists to jail. And I have never kissed anyone's ass or worried about a promotion. You mistake my opinions on sexual harassment with my priorities. I've never said it was more important than mission accomplishment or taking care of people. If you need my bio to assess my credibility and leadership abilities, I'll give it to you. di1630s remarks to me were ridiculously off base. I seriously question his judgment and ability to read people. I hope I run into him someday.

Excellent point. I stand corrected on the improper use of the word sexist. I agree that it is not sexist to say "so to speak" to an Airman when he or she asks "Can I give you a hand with that?" It is however sexual harassment and it is wrong. So is putting Version 1.69 on a comm card or singing S&M Man at work or in uniform. Federal law defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature.” Federal law also says an unlawful hostile work environment exists when a work environment is intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. I think it is fair to say that reasonable people would be offended by some of the word game traditions practiced in some FS due to them using communication of a sexual nature in the work environment. The fact female pilots participate in the tradition or condone the acts is irrelevant to the application of the law and the policies in DoD. I think we still have a problem with sexist attitudes and behaviors in DoD, but I wouldn't say it is a fighter problem. It was when females were first allowed to fly fighters, but in my experience, we don't have a problem with sexist discrimination. We do, or did until recently, have a problem with institutional acceptance of traditions that constitute sexual harassment. We didn't care at the time because we didn't think it was a big deal, everyone went along with it, and it was good for morale. Those times are behind us and we have evolved our language and behavior in the workplace to be more sensitive to sexual harassment. That is the part of the culture that we won't miss. I don't agree that it is only a number. It is a deliberate reference to a sex act and it has become a tradition that has expanded past the inner circle of those who think it is funny. So is the phrase "so to speak". The FS/CC memo clearly spells out his expectations to stop using these inappropriate phrases at work. Based on the emotional response by so many in this forum, it is hard to argue that he didn't need to be very clear on his expectations. Memos allow you to be precise with your language and enduring in your message. He probably discussed it with the squadron before or shortly after releasing it. It is not chickenshit to write a policy, especially if it is difficult to explain and not widely understood. Agree on the call signs. He obviously lost faith with the call sign decision makers so he lifted the approval. He could have handled it differently, but I don't know enough about it to comment.

Ops tempo, AAD for Capts, rack and stacks, bad commanders, Christmas parties, overemphasis on "discipline" and obedience to all written guidance, fewer good deal TDYs, impending budget cuts, emphasis on sexual harassment, RPAs, bad economy. Probably more. We have also created a force that doesn't value service. Defending this nation while serving in the profession of arms, particularly during a time of war, should motivate us. Not sure why so many have lost faith. Our nation needs airpower and skilled pilots and officers to make sure our military uses airpower properly. If you want to quit because of sock police or on-line master's classes or because it isn't fun anymore, I'm not sure what I can do about it. Have some courage to change what you can change. Don't sweat the little shit. Tell the person who asks to see your socks to piss off. Identify and change policies that don't make sense. Let your boss know what you are doing. Act like an officer and do the right thing. Take care of your Airmen and your subordinates. Serve because there probably isn't anyone better at this job than you and we will all suffer if you quit.

Materials for sale in the BX and programs on AFN are not the same as sexist language and traditions AT WORK. I don't care if you are offended by songs on the radio, movies on TV or magazines in a store. Get over it. I do care about sexual harassment in the workplace. Not because there is a direct link to sexual assault, there isn't. I care because you shouldn't act like a sexist ass at work. And for ######'s sake, nobody is saying every fighter pilot or every maintainer does it. What I am saying, CSAF is saying and Lt Gen Rand is saying, is that it happens too much at work and we need to knock it off. Why do you think senior leaders aren't putting their entire weight against the real problems? Do you really think cracking down on inappropriate traditions is the only think being done to address this? I never said any AFSOC squadron was better or worse than any FS, nor would I condone harassment for heritage. And I don't question your data point about this Airman's experience. The AF isn't really myopically focused on this issue. Many non-FS people say getting rid of sexist word games, sexist songs and sexist call signs makes perfect sense. I have trouble understanding the emotional response from some in this forum to what I consider reasonable guidance to not sexually harass at work. Robin Olds was a great fighter pilot and a true hero. No argument there. I don't know the song so I don't appreciate what you value in it. My grandfather was a B-17 pilot and squadron commander in the Bloody 100th. He was a hero too. Many of the pilots and commanders in my grandfather's era were racist. Many didn't think black pilots could fly or should serve. It may have worked during his time, but it was wrong and we eventually changed the mindsets and traditions. I would not argue that being a racist was what made my grandfather great, and you should not argue that being a sexist is what made Robin Olds great. Times change. We mature and get better. It is time to lose the "traditions" of being sexist while in uniform. We will still have great fighter pilots and leaders. Even Robin Olds obeyed the CSAF's direct order to get rid of the moustache. He didn't quit because he disagreed with the lawful order. I'm glad you acknowledge the observation that our joint counterparts think the word games make you look like idiots when used outside the community that values them. Don't be so naive to think it doesn't spill over to those not in the community, it does more than you think. You may be disciplined about when you say this shit, but many in your community are not. Here is my main point. When you use language that blatantly sexual in nature at work, you are creating a hostile work environment and probably sexually harassing someone. To be specific, when you do things at work like sing songs like S&M Man, or have posters or books full of half naked women or porn or use the word 69 to make a reference to a sex act or use sexually explicit language to describe what you like to do to women, you cross a line. It shouldn't matter if nobody was offended or not. When you use the "nobody was offended" litmus test, you pressure members of your group, flight, squadron, whatever, to go along to get along. It is not right to graphically talk about sex or make stupid sex jokes with word games at work. We are Federal employees and military officers. We should comply with Federal laws, policies and expectations to not sexually harass. We should be able to do this and still be steely-eyed killers. At the CSAF meeting with Wing CCs last year, a female GO fighter pilot stood up and told a story about a male fighter pilot asking her who she had to blow to earn the weapons school patch she recently earned. She ignored the idiot and went along to get along. She said she was a part of the AF that allowed this culture to grow and that she regretted not stopping it. She should not have been put in the situation of having to choose to stand up against sexual harassment or lose credibility with her peers. Our young Airmen and Lts should not have to be the only ones who point out sexually offensive material, hostile work environments or sexually inappropriate activities. Officers, commanders and real leaders should be the ones who stop it. And they should have the judgement and common sense to not go overboard or be overly sensitive to what is offensive. To be honest, I am surprised by how many people say we should allow sexist traditions to continue. Some argue that the traditions don't really exist, or that they aren't a big deal. Others argue they are an invaluable part of the fighter heritage. I think the latter is bullshit and I don't think it will be hard to stop these relatively few incidents of inappropriate sexist behavior at work. The overuse of the 69 jokes here isn't funny, but I am not offended by it at all here because it is not being done while in uniform and on duty. If you want to continue to make 69 jokes in uniform and/or while on duty, you will get what you deserve. Direct feedback and mentoring about how we expect more out of our officers.

I hear you that morale is not high. I am really not on the discipline and professionalism crusade when it relates to complying any and all written guidance. Many policies are stupid and CSAF has directed you to not follow the stupid ones. Have the courage to identify them and get rid of them. Sexual harassment and hostile work environments are not stupid ones, and I have not been convinced by anyone in this forum that we need the traditions prohibited by the Sq CC memo. I think morale patches are stupid and unprofessional, but I don't lose sleep over it. I told some idiot at the Dragon DFAC to take his naked lady silhouette patch off his ######ing arm. He did and we moved on. I rarely wore my reflective belt at BAF because I thought it was stupid. I chewed a pilot's ass for wearing a Yankees baseball hat when he stepped off the aircraft and shook the three stars hand who was welcoming him home. Not because I care if he wears a baseball hat when he flies, but because he was to damn stupid to know when to take it off. We definitely need to make sure our jobs are fun and rewarding. Happy to hear ideas how we can. Sorry I wasn't more clear. MSG and MXG don't need a memo saying your callsigns shouldn't have sexual innuendos, the number 69 shouldn't be used to make sex jokes and the beer light shouldn't be turned on too early. They need plenty of guidance and mentoring on how to address the problems of sexual harassment, hostile work environments and sexual assault. The focus isn't only on fighter pilots, everyone is getting the message. There is a difference between your personal entertainment (BX products) and what you do,say, watch and read at work.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQaqpoeVgr8U This is a leader I respect and a message I believe in.

Pawnman, the culture change and emphasis on treating everyone with dignity and respect has made a big difference. I have had many men and women, of all ranks, directly tell me how happy they are with this new message. Our message is a good one and it puzzles me how many disagree with it. To most, the policies to specifically prohibit "Buster Cherry" or "Heywood Djablome" on flight suit name tags, porn in the vault or sexist word games, are common sense. The maintenance community is working to change the sexist culture, language and traditions on the flight line as well, but they have SNCO and CMSgt buy in so it won't take long. Unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults is up and restricted reporting is down. That is a good thing. The victims feel confident that their senior leadership will do the right thing. Maybe this very public change of culture has made some victims more confident. Regardless, the small portion of the culture that valued stupid sex jokes and games needed to change. Whether or not fewer assaults are occurring is difficult to know since so many are unreported. I think we are moving in the right direction.

A senior rater can put whatever he/she wants on the PRF. The MAJCOM may or may not direct changes. Almost none of them put info on the PRF that is not in the record since the PRF should summarize the record. A mandatory LOE (command) will be in the record. An optional one won't. The optional LOE info that is good enough to be in the PRF should be in the OPR, so the senior rater will put it in the PRF without question.

You seriously don't know? Incredible.

Too bad. Our nation needs talented and dedicated pilots to defend us. It is a shame that you don't want to continue to serve. Perhaps our next generation of fighter pilots won't be so willing to stop serving when their commitments are up. I hope we don't destroy the morale and brotherhood in fighter squadrons. I don't think we will. Do you really think you and the community you say you represent are the only ones who know how to kill and how to create a force that effectively kills in the manner directed by our national leadership?

Really? He wouldn't have betrayed his sacred traditions if someone didn't make him because of a string of incidents? He knows, deeply knows, these traditions are not good for our AF and that they must change. He told me and I believe him. Don't blame others for his actions.