FLEA

Like......? Edit: Also worth asking: if this is the ideal state strategy, why aren't any other free democratic states practicing it?

Wasn't sarcasm. A serious COA. Is it possible some of these border states know the best means of investment for their defense better than we do? Is it possible they could spend that money more effectively and wisely than we could? We gave Ukraine $21B and they have literally crumbled what we thought was our second largest conventional competitor. We are geographically the most secure country on the planet but have the largest standing army in history. We also have guaranteed our security through a massive nuclear enterprise. The vast majority of our forces are engaged to security commitments abroad. We can't reduce forces due to those commitments. We spend ~$700B on defense annually but ~$350B is actually spend on personnel cost, benefits, entitlements, salary, wages and insurance. People are the costliest asset in the DoD. We don't need 2 million people though to defend the US borders. We need that because of foreign commitments. And a smaller force would generally be overall healthier for our economy. Imagine reinvesting ~$350B annually back into the US economy, or approximately $1000/person, $4000/family. The average household income in the US is $70K/yr. That's a nearly 5% raise to buying power across the US population. It also puts the onus back on most of these other countries that they need to take more responsibility for their own security. I don't think it should be the job of US forces to hold the expectation to absorb the majority of casualties in foreign conflicts designed to protect other countries. I think back to McArthur's support for the South Koreans when he said we weren't there to fight the war for them, but to be their spine, knowing that the US was backing them was a major boost to confidence and morale that allowed them to be successful. Working in South Korea its very clear they feel responsible for their own defense. Working in Europe, its exactly the opposite. They largely believe it is the US's job to pick up the burden of defense and they will assist in support roles later in the conflict. (With the exception of France and the UK, who are pretty reliable and self sufficient.)

In light of that would it be better to reduce the DoD budget by half, fire half our force, and invest in efforts like this more so than maintaining the large standing force we conventionally use? Instead of participating in NATO at all why don't we withdrawal all troops from Europe and offer NATO say, $50B/year in subsidy, but 0 manpower or materiel unless it's through FMS or technology sales.

Copy, I see what youre saying now.

Ill play devils advocate here a bit but isn't that a good thing? Don't we want politicians who are authentic and do not put a façade on for camera.

You can tell the lack of interest in retaining pilots by the lack of urgency in getting these PSDMs out. Like literally, every day, some dude or dudette is hitting their go/no-go decision point on hitting the punch out button, and they may be waiting to see what the bonus is like to stay in. As an 11R I would certainly not have risked staying if I knew a few days later there wouldn't be any bonus offered at all. Thankfully something that I didn't get caught by but know a few people that did.

Was that a pro or a con? Asking for a friend...

So I agree and disagree with you. I agree in the sense you are 100% right. I got established in the higher ed space after separating and learned a few hard lessons along the way, such as 1.) Degree matters and 2.) School matters. I disagree in the sense that there is a very active and very strong DEI initiative to overturn that, especially in the veteran space, because veterans by nature are non-traditional students. There are some problematic issues with the current hierarchy of schools and degrees, specifically to how veterans can utilize VA benefits on education following separation, etc... So its in our interest to attempt to upend those status quos. What I have found in my recent relationship with an elite university (and I don't refer to it that way self-gratifyingly, rather that's how the top 20 schools or so refer to themselves) is that my BS degrees did distinguish me from other candidates in-so-much as they saw it as preparatory for my current program. So while the private sector didn't particularly value those degrees, the higher education sector did. I also agree that the Air Force needs to do this better by actually curating education experiences for talent by 1.) identifying individuals interested in a "warrior scholar" pathway, 2.) providing more opportunities to pursue those programs and 3.) actually providing values to individuals that pursue that path. In regards to #3, IDE/SDE are not the only opportunities to earn AAD in the Air Force. There is also AFIT, several fellowship programs, etc... the problem is, often those people fall out of their career field for 2-3 years and they get totally railroaded on stratifications and career development. If the current guidance is meant to address this very problematic facet of the current system, I would support that.

On SIPR yes, you basically have to fill out the regular classification markings, OCA, declassification date, etc.... most people don't know all of that crap so they just put blanks in or x's and then hit send. Total shit show.

Did you know in the private sector they have AI driven software that can automatically scan and classify all documents in your companies IT spaces. But we are still stuck filling out a 6 question questionnaire every time we hit send on an e-mail because the DoD can't get onboard 2022 and as a result we have far more leakages and mislabled classifications that endanger our national security.

I agree with you that in the US its not a solution at the moment or even worth investigating. I've done exactly 1 AMTRAK trip in the US, in 2011, and it was literally one of the worst travel experiences I had. But since it was new and I was young it just added to the adventure and the fun of the story. When people advocate rail in the US, I think what they really want is what most of Asia has developed (which is far superior to even Europe IMO, especially mainland China). However, I recognize there are certain bureaucratic and economic hurdles for the US to get there. What I don't appreciate though is the immediate defeatism that we shouldn't investigate something that could be highly beneficial and advancing for our society because of a few barriers. What happened to "America'ing the fuck up" and dumping huge sums of money into research and engineering to develop innovative and new solutions that are advancing on a civilization and industrial wide level. Remember when people said a rail to the west couldn't be built? Remember when people said space travel was impossible? Remember when people said airplanes were a fad? We're the smartest and most innovative country on the planet. If we want something that's going to make our lives better lets stop bitching about it and "America the fuck up" and do it. Edit: As a good example, recognizing there are a bunch of imminent domain issues for the east coast solution, have we looked at going subterranean? Boring Company's Prufrock-3 can tunnel SEVEN MILES a day! You can tunnel all 400 miles of the east coast 5 city rail line in a single month working from both directions and run the trains at full highspeed since there would be zero municipal concerns, making the worlds largest and fastest subway!? Like.... lets think outside the box! There is stuff our there, lets use it!

I think your missing a lot of context here. If train prices were high in Europe you weren't buying correctly. I lived there up until this year and very rarely paid more than $50 to go anywhere. Ryan air isn't cheaper because they nickle and dime you with baggage fees/etc.... There are no flight guarantees, the highest cancellation rate of any airline in Europe and the fact you will likely have to cancel your trip. Ryan air is great if you're a 20 something digital nomad with lots of travel flexibility. Less so if you have a family and are trying to get away for a long weekend. And yes.... 2 hours early. Bro I don't know how often you're traveling by air but just 3 months ago Schippol was a literal dumpster fire with people lined up on the INTERSTATE, three miles from the airport, to get into security. ORD is not quite as bad but wait times for TSA pre check we're 1.5 hours going to DC as recently as November. IAD, I waited 45 minutes in TSA pre check to go to Houston. This is with TSA pre check.... I'm sad for the schmucks who can't afford that or are not in the military..... If I miss my flight and have to get rolexed 2-3 hours, I completely lost the speed advantage of air. Let's also not forget the premium on rail travel because it simply is more comfortable than air travel. If a trip was only 20-30 minutes longer or 20% more expensive, I'd probably still take rail to avoid the headache of having to wait in lines, be yelled at by gate agents, be stuffed in a tuna can.... Like let's face it man, regional airline travel sucks in almost every scenario.

My 2c is the AF has always had an identity crises balancing between the technical proficiency of it's flyers and the officership, a casualty when we deposed of warrants and enlisted flyers. We want our front line fighters to be policy experts, strategist, leaders, and technical experts. You can't simply ask people to be everything. When I'm doing my own travel vouchers and personnel actions as well why even have other careers? Why not just make everyone pilots? 😂

Fair statements but in the airlines you are never going to be asked to review or contribute to policy memos with wide ranging effects on the joint force, negotiate with foreign partners, issue UCMJ actions, or embed with a SOF unit conducting culturally sensitive missions in austere parts of the world the US isn't officially involved with. I think the desire to see masters degrees in officers was originally penned on those task, which are task any officer can be asked to undertake, rather the primary duty which is flying an aircraft. I'm not saying a BS masters at AMU makes you better at that stuff--but the DoD somewhat has its hands tied where it is incapable of distinguishing a degree from for example, Northwestern University Chicago, from Trident Online. So long as both are regionally accredited, and they are, the DOE recognizes them as peer institutions, even though in the private sector a Kellogg MBA will get you into McKinsey or BCG, where as a Trident MBA is going to land you a cashier position at Navy Federal.

You don't use a trains to go across the country. Trains in Europe and Asia put pressure on regional airlines. There is a sweet spot on flight legs of about 0-2.5 hours where it is more advantageous to take a train. So your IAD to JFK example for instance.... Sure that leg is only 40 minutes, but don't forget, the general public (which includes me) has to be at the airport 2 hours early, 2.5 hours if airport workers are on strike, 3 hours if TSA is on strike.... there's also STTO on the tail end, waiting on a gate because the airline poorly scheduled, transit in the air terminal and waiting on bags. Total time expenditure is ~ 3-4 hours, which ironically I can drive from IAD to JFK in about 4.5 hours. Train prices are extortion rate prices here because they are not being pushed down by infrastructure overhaul and competition. A train from London to Paris for example, which is a similar distance as DC to JFK, can be done for $40.

I agree that the west is a bit too expansive to cover with extended high speed rail networks. However..... most of the US population lives in the geographic bounds of the east coast to the mid west. No reason networked high speed cant connect most of those cities and open up regional travel for the majority of Americans. And I realize that its counter beneficial to our careers to promote alternatives to air transportation but as a consumer I'll be frank.... taking a train is 1000X better than flying any day of the week. Flying (as a passenger) has become a miserable hell of an experience I try to avoid in any way possible.

I would presume so. They are accredited degrees, I don't know why they wouldn't. It would be a bad look on the AF if they didn't even accept their own degrees for promotion. If I recall when that guidance came out, the way it was worded was "if the AF wants you to have a masters degree, we will guide you to a program to get you to one."

They wasted 8 years in Afghanistan so I would say prolonged conflict isn't new to them. I can see the brass heads now telling the press that "victory is only a few months away" and "they will welcome us as liberators" while the greedy military industrial complexes start eyeballing profits for the next decade. This is probably a good thing for us, bad thing for Ukraine. This will likely have the same effect Afghanistan did in the 80's and completely cripple their global power/influence removing their great power status and forcing them to concede to western demands. It will likely also instill distrust in Putin's competence but only after several years of false messaging and failed goals. This could lead to an internal leadership ouster with a more pro-western strongman.

So hot take but the AF does not promote people for being good leaders and does not necessarily want good leaders at the top. Rather, they promote pedigrees. What upgrades have you accomplished? Been a flight commander? Been a squadron commander? Had staff experience? Have an AAD? They want people at the top that they think have the appropriate pedigree to make big picture decisions. Some of these people just happen to be awesome leaders. A lot, and I mean A LOT, don't. The AF doesn't need them to be good leaders though because they have the power of the UCMJ behind them. They can always order people to do things. However, things go smoother when they are good leaders and they don't have to micromanage their forces with written orders. So they "hedge" themselves by creating an environment that allows these senior officers to develop into good leaders by providing education experiences, guidance, etc... but there is nothing that's going to "force" that officer to become a good leader. And you can definitely see this because some of the best leaders in the AF never get promoted. Their leadership was never valued. Their pedigree was and they didn't have the pedigree. Rather than focus on getting good leaders pedigree, they take good pedigree and try to make them into leaders, which doesn't work.

I agree with you 100% here but there has to be priorities. Is our priorities to secure the financial freedom of our citizens and provide economic liberty or is it to help Ukraine win their war and help Europeans enjoy a better lifestyle then our own citizens?

Bingo.

I think a lot of people want to believe morality is static but I really do believe it's relative. There are some inherent problems with static morality including the ultimate conclusion that a perfectly moral being wouldn't have free choice. War is shitty. You so some things that seem right. You do some things that seem wrong. Was raging war on a country for 20 years only to up and leave them with the fallout moral? I dunno...

Are you going to hold that line when people say we cant afford social healthcare and higher social safety nets?

So what? Men should just remain powerless to the system knowing their entire lives can be ruined by a spiteful or vengeful ex-girlfriend at any time? Did you know you can be ordered to pay child support for a child that is DNA proven not to be yours? Look it up. Also worth noting that selective service registration failed to make it into the NDAA for like the 7th year in a row. Radical feminists' argue for all of these rights but want to take none of the responsibilities that go with them.

This right here. A masters will 100% help you on the outside if its in the right field. Know how its going to fit into your game plan. Even a BS online masters can be useful if you want to go to a competitive brick and mortar school lately. It shows that you have a natural inclination to pursue education. But don't get it if you cant articulate how it fits into a bigger plan of professional/academic goals.