jice

I don’t assume your intent is malicious, but I think most here would prefer patience to wild speculation at this point, especially given the absence of your history here. There are people working very hard to get the facts. You’ll be privy to them at an appropriate time for your stake in the matter. Appreciate your patience (and taciturnity) while it gets sorted out.

You know what really pisses me off? Urinals. I mean, why do we have two standards for toilets? It’s so dumb. Nobody even has a urinal in their house unless they’re some kind of fanatic. I just don’t understand why everybody isn’t pissing the same. The standard should be the standard. Urinals are emotion. Sitpissers are logic. Edit to add: trying to go out of this discussion on a lighter note. Appreciate all the opinions; you have my agreement to disagree if you want it.

Totally with you for applying across the board. But! If for some dumb reason we’re unable to do that, I think it is better to accommodate (and consider headgear and hair ‘reasonable’) than not to in the name of “standards”; we’re (mostly) all saying allowing those things wouldn’t detract from the mission in and of themselves as we argue for allowing them across the board. That argument means it isn’t the beard that’s the problem. Somebody not working on the sabbath may be reasonable; it may not. For the same person it may be reasonable at some times and not at others. Depends on the situation. Same for beards. Reasonable accommodation is the name of the game, and I don’t think fear of the masses complaining renders something unreasonable. That’s just a leadership challenge.

Got interested, did a little reading. Of note: There’s a debate that’s been raging Re: warfare on Shabbat since hundreds of years BCE. Generally, fighting, support for fighting (and fighting fires!) are allowed, provided you don’t intentionally start a conflict on Shabbat or exploit it. You can also walk home with your weapons. Regarding your example: Refusing to work on Saturday when I need you to is a problem for everybody. I just don’t see beards and turbans as detracting from a member’s duty or the unit’s ability to function... unless I need them to not disclose their identity. In that case, lose the turban or you get a different job. If somebody has a problem with the AF-sanctioned headgear, that’s their problem. That person should have other things to worry about.

1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party. But! 2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them. Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!.. 5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone. If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares! 6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want.

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home? Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

Dude, if you’re pressing the cutoff for SOS and nobody has indicated that you’ll go 1) your leadership really really doesn’t like your act or 2) has forgotten. More likely 2 is true. Why roll the bones on meeting the board without it? If you’re a pilot, you’ll still be under an ADSC when you pin on. No reason not to take the money in exchange for a vacation to Maxwell. Ask your Bobs. Remember, there’s rarely a secret plan, oversights are common, and nobody cares about managing your career but you.

The law might not leave room for grandma’s house, but the enforcement certainly does. There’s always room there... unless you live and work in a military service so addicted to rules that oftentimes humans don’t matter. Add a few overeager 22 year olds with “special” investigative mandates (that they’d receive only after decades of law enforcement experience and/or law school anywhere else) to the mix and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Then! Conviction beyond reasonable doubt (but only most people’s doubt... some don’t count), and you get the military justice system. All dressed up with nowhere to go until the next big war and occupation. And yes, we believe them until we convict them under the best system available. Or better yet help them without convicting them where possible. Old Airmen too.

🥃

Sorry, I’m dense. Could you elaborate? No sarcasm intended at all, just completely tumbleweed re: this line of comments.

You said that, but a half dozen on this board heard (in your voice): “Spoilers! SPOILERS!! Yoke aft! Level the wings! Centerline, left wing up...Spoilers!!!”

Better yet, teach them to fish: “this jacket cost the government an arm and a leg because it is specially constructed to keep rain, cold air, hot air, fire, and your bullshit use our of time away from my body. I don’t need you to dive into rules in an effort to make/second guess decisions; this is how the jacket is worn. How are your airmen doing today? Can any young’uns benefit from your experience to solve a new problem? Anybody need help with something in their lives other than getting dressed? Is there any stupidity or missing the point that I can help squash for you?” (but really without being a dick)

For those units who do buy contacts, what money is used to purchase? Is this something that folks should be putting on the spend list at the end of the fiscal year in units that don’t buy contacts? Also, I’ve been in units whose AFE shop stocks approved contact lens solution, which saved each near-sighted flyer a hundred bucks or so over the course of the year. Whoever thought of that was really looking out for the bros.

True, but it also means that ops folks will still have input on combat support boards, which I don’t think is something we’d be willing to give up. The proof will be in how the rates are distributed.

Sure, talk is cheap. The corollary is “influence is expensive.” In this case, in particular, given the relatively small footprint to sustain a relationship that provided outsized influence, IMO we’ve made a strategic error. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iranian deterrence, and Syria writ large is a different question.

Nsplayer answered this above pretty well. It doesn’t have to be thousands of troops or continuous rotations of airplanes. It does have to be stable for our allies, consistent for our adversaries, and give the diplomats something to work with. It can even be assurances and threats. But what it cannot be is ceding the negotiating space to those who do not share our interests. Assurances are now worthless with that particular group and threats toward Turkey, Russia, or the Syrian Regime (Russia) don’t hold the same weight when we’ve taken our skin in the game elsewhere. “Your actions put American lives at risk” and “Your actions put our relationship at risk” are very different with regard to their implicit teeth.

Spot on, bro. Furthermore! They’re not fending for themselves; as it turns out survival instinct has kicked in and they appear to have aligned themselves with the Syrian regime and Russia to attempt to prevent annihilation. (Just as they said they would under these circumstances.) Now Russia and Turkey are in the driver’s seat where Europe meets the Middle-East and we’ve got the diplomatically envied position of “it’s too difficult so we quit” from which to negotiate. Do we really want Russia and Turkey to be the primary voices in the endgame of this misadventure? 20 years? 30 years? On 9-12 any of us would have volunteered personally to go for 100; the long game is worth winning, considering the alternatives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-troops-withdraw-from-another-syrian-town-as-turkish-forces-block-supply-lines/2019/10/13/aab5fab8-ec5a-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html Cliffnote: SDF reaches a Russian brokered deal with the Syrian regime to resist the Turkish incursion... Maybe we’ll get lucky and Turkey will shoot down a(nother) Fencer or three, Russia will retaliate directly, and Erdogan will have parlayed an attack on US allies into an Article 5 crisis. How did we even get here?

Loss history and presence of risk are very different things; different again when mitigation of either is largely beyond the entity’s control. Are you suggesting that Aramco/the Saudis are intentionally prolonging tensions or that they were no kidding complicit in recent attacks?

I mean, if our national interests depend on it for like... ever shouldn’t we be saying: “it’s a new world, I can prove it!” ? I mean really prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we can guarantee the same lethality of the Force through short pipeline initiatives? (Note: did not say lethality of the individual aircrew. I think most have a sense, without science, that losses would increase, but there’s likely a crossover point for end results in a choice between more aircrew and better aircrew. I’m sure RAND has done the math on it...? Sucks to suck or have your training suck. Likely not a conversation anybody is willing to have in public until a big war.)

What kind of back-end safety analysis are you planning on? Have you got a real statistician to validate the method and results? (Serious question, not a spear) Will there be a column for “how much did you lie in order for this thing to look normal?” Back end analysis is something aircrew is great at, but for most of us involves fistfuls of singles.

https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/08/08/cape-air-eviation-alice-electric-plane Cape Air Seems like a cool little airline, but I hope they’re making the right bets on their new Tecnam and this thing with props on the wingtips. How do you think it will handle the island winds?

Awesome points; would be interested to see how many airframes would be required to generate an air bridge to sustain something like that. Asking because I’ve got no concept: Do you think it would be possible to surge and provide that type of flexible resupply (assuming the admin were no factor) for any period of time with the current fleet? What would need to change if no? Is that something the MAF thinks about/trains for? Happy to exchange .mil/other via PM if you’re more comfortable answering there.

If we’re talking adaptive basing for survivability, we don’t need bathrooms, food, etc. We need airlift that takes off when the shooters do, survives one volley, and sustains one more iteration of the enemy removing pieces from the map while we do the same to them. We can’t assume our traditional command and control mechanisms will be intact. Comm might be limited to LOS radios and signal panels. Meaningful quantity at that point is one combat load of fuel and weapons because the enemy’s weapons are inbound X minutes/hours after we land. Totally spitballing (not an airlift expert), but a train of light(ish) airlift to deliver enough for one more sortie, taking off with the direction of “find and resupply with priorities X, Y, X” seems like a likely solution in this nightmare scenario. You’re absolutely right about only being able to move the fight as fast as the logistics tail, but if we need to fight an away game against a near peer, we need that logistics tail move faster than the targeting cycle of the adversary’s medium to long range weapons.

Fair point, but consider this through the lens of a scenario driving “adaptive basing” for survivability. [Don’t miss that one if you’re playing buzzword bingo at home]. The whole thing falls down under the extraordinarily centralized logistics plans we have now, but if we want to maximize (have?) offensive AirPower options after one adversary targeting cycle we’re going to need to sacrifice our current efficiency maximized system (laugh if you want) for a resiliency/flexibility maximized system. If a byproduct of that is a low intensity capability that fills gaps and increases flexibility: that’s great. The response to “they’re not supporting us” under that construct is: “we’re continuing to support like before, but are now able to provide armed American jets overhead in a high intensity conflict.” Lots of elephants in the room with the adaptive basing flavor of the week in general and with this in particular (where do the crews, airframes and money come from?), but dedicated rather than centralized logistics is a COA that may solve some problems.