SOS/ACSC information

[gswolfpack]

I know a lot of good leaders right now in the air force....and i applaud them for doing what they have done and the hoops they jumped through to get to that point.  Taking school is just a game of chance though of the air force giving you a bad deal.  For my situation and where i am at....its been a week since i said no....and i feel great about it.  I do enjoy my current job and the people i work with so i am no rush to get out.  However, i like the peace of mind to know that if/when that changes or something good pops up on the other side i have options.

[Bender]

Hmm, I know several school grads/students that regret saying yes. Pretty sure one is on this board.

Personally, I said yes only because I didn't want to 7 day opt since I have 16 years TIS. I'm already wondering "what if" I'd said no, but not in the way you're implying. I'm wondering just how much QOL I'll be giving up over the next 4 years, how much seniority I'm losing, and if I'll end up regretting my decision to stay i.e. getting stop lossed just before retirement eligibility in 2020. I'll let you know once I get my post school assignment if I regret saying yes, but I'm not optimistic...

BTW, I would have absolutely declined IDE in-res if I could've done so without 7 day opting. And I seriously considered it anyway.

If I've ever seen a sports bitch...that's it.

When did you decide you wanted to stay? 12? 13? The day you clicked I'll go to school? Sure, with 16 in and 4 to go, the math may skew...but, why post that?

No one, other than those in charge of it believes that ACSC or AWC will make you a leader. The people working around you (for you) often show you how to be a better leader. Wether you are one or not is on you. You're right, you are or or aren't with few exceptions. I do not believe we're giving SOS DG to people who aren't...for what that's worth.

Chang's a shit nut...the only difference is on here I can call him a shit nut. If we worked together, I'd have to apologize for calling him a shit nut, then not get to call him a shit nut again...you know cause I have no privacy and all.

If retirement is the only goal, it's the wrong goal. I DO NOT scoff the goal, but it's supposed to be more than that. Maybe career tracks can help sort some of that out...I really like that idea.

Some of us are just going to have to stick it out to make our country a safer place...stand by for the point where it's decided that's not needed...with the complimentary 365.

So much emotion, so many problems, so few empowered leaders...

Tough, tough, tough,

Bendy

[sqwatch]

As a counterpoint to all the school hate- it turns out education makes you more educated. Maybe you don't walk out of that education a better leader, but you've been exposed to some of the strategic mistakes made throughout history. I'll be the first to admit I'm more knowledgable after some online air university. Also, the views expressed by a few of the non-ers gives you a good idea of the insanity you'll be up against in a leadership role.

[pcola]

If I've ever seen a sports bitch...that's it.

When did you decide you wanted to stay? 12? 13? The day you clicked I'll go to school? Sure, with 16 in and 4 to go, the math may skew...but, why post that?

I'm prior E. I reached the end of my UPT commitment with 16 years TIS. Knowing that to be the case all along, I'd always planned to stay until 20. I've had great assignments and am not nearly the most disgruntled dude on here, but I did not want school. Didn't even honestly think it was a possibility. I'm not tracking your logic in why it's a sport bitch, but even after 13 years on this board, I can rarely follow most of your posts.

[Fuzz]

On May 20, 2016 at 6:44 AM, General Chang said:

Looking way too deeply into my words.  This forum is full of washed-up pessimists telling young people, "Leadership sucks, the AF sucks, get out ASAP."  That message is one-sided and must be counterbalanced with a more sensible message from leadership.  

Many on here are not washed-up pessimists including myself, we are the line flyers and Instructors in the squadrons hacking the mission. I and many others don't need anyone on here to tell me the current state of the AF. The numbers and daily office conversations say it all, and I can see it with my own two eyes. Few people I know are sticking around, several have turned down school. Colleagues with several years on their ADSCs are positioning themselves to leave for the airlines with knocking out their ATPS or considering which assignment will best set them up to for a palace chase and airline gig. The daily conversations in the office becomes more and more about the airlines as more dudes that punched get hired. I have the luck of working in an awesome squadron under phenomenal leaders but that doesn't change the over arching fact that the AF is in a leadership death spiral that even a young captain like me can recognize.

[Duck]

Many on here are not washed-up pessimists including myself, we are the line flyers and Instructors in the squadrons hacking the mission. I and many others don't need anyone on here to tell me the current state of the AF. The numbers and daily office conversations say it all, and I can see it with my own two eyes. Few people I know are sticking around, several have turned down school. Colleagues with several years on their ADSCs are positioning themselves to leave for the airlines with knocking out their ATPS or considering which assignment will best set them up to for a palace chase and airline gig. The daily conversations in the office becomes more and more about the airlines as more dudes that punched get hired. I have the luck of working in an awesome squadron under phenomenal leaders but that doesn't change the over arching fact that the AF is in a leadership death spiral that even a young captain like me can recognize.

I'll even take it a step further in an effort to totally blow the Changs of the AF's minds (sts). A lot of guys I know aren't even talking about airlines when they get out. I know many dudes who just want out regardless of what they do, own a business, office job, etc. Kinda screws with your guys plan to just blame it on the airlines huh???

[Fuzz]

1 minute ago, Duck said:

I'll even take it a step further in an effort to totally blow the Changs of the AF's minds (sts). A lot of guys I know aren't even talking about airlines when they get out. I know many dudes who just want out regardless of what they do, own a business, office job, etc. Kinda screws with your guys plan to just blame it on the airlines huh???

This is true as well, I see fewer of these but literally for most the grass is greener on the other side and it doesn't matter what the other side it.

[FUSEPLUG]

On May 20, 2016 at 11:44 PM, General Chang said:

Listen carefully...the grass isn't always greener.  

Chang is Butters... BUTTERS IS CHANG!!

[HecticManatee]

Hey all, there's been some conversation in this thread and others over the last year or two on ASG attendance, but I had a follow-up question:

If I decide that I want to go to SAASS or another ASG for the right reasons and that I'm actually interested in the curriculum, how can I optimize my chances?

I'll meet my Major's board in the next couple of months.  I have a good enough record that I will probably be a school select, though I'm also probably not a top 5% kinda guy either.  I've got good strats, not many awards, some good leadership duty titles, and a Master's from a for-profit diploma mill.  

What did ASG selects here who actively pursued attending do to better their chances? Thanks.

[HecticManatee]

Hey all, there's been some conversation in this thread and others over the last year or two on ASG attendance, but I had a follow-up question:

If I decide that I want to go to SAASS or another ASG for the right reasons and that I'm actually interested in the curriculum, how can I optimize my chances?

I'll meet my Major's board in the next couple of months.  I have a good enough record that I will probably be a school select, though I'm also probably not a top 5% kinda guy either.  I've got good strats, not many awards, some good leadership duty titles, and a Master's from a for-profit diploma mill.  

What did ASG selects here who actively pursued attending do to better their chances? Thanks.

[pawnman]

On 5/19/2016 at 3:12 AM, ChkHandleDn said:

Bwahahahahaha!  Yeah, great leadership opportunities.  Who want's a 365 where you can write a leadership MFR telling people how to wear their PT gear!?

My previous DO got a 365 to Kabul, with about 2 weeks to report.  I wonder how many people 7-day opted prior to him getting the assignment?  He was a SAASS grad, BTW.  At least he got a SQ/CC slot out of the deal.

[pawnman]

On 5/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, General Chang said:

Looking way too deeply into my words.  This forum is full of washed-up pessimists telling young people, "Leadership sucks, the AF sucks, get out ASAP."  That message is one-sided and must be counterbalanced with a more sensible message from leadership.  We have incredible leaders in our AF at all levels, and to get a slot for in-res education is an honor, whether you accept or not.  I am disappointed whenever a selectee turns down these incredible opportunities for leadership advancement, but in no way does that denegrate their service, as you seem to think I am implying.

Listen carefully...the grass isn't always greener.  If you earn a school opportunity, please seriously consider joining the ranks of our honorable AF leadership.  You won't regret saying yes, but you'll always have to live with the "what if" of saying no, and that deep regret may last a lifetime.

Young man: thank you for you service.

"The grass isn't always greener"...your rated manning numbers seem to tell a different story.

[tac airlifter]

16 hours ago, HecticManatee said:

Hey all, there's been some conversation in this thread and others over the last year or two on ASG attendance........

What did ASG selects here who actively pursued attending do to better their chances? Thanks.

I'm not an ASG guy, but since no one else answered you I'll try.  But take it with a grain of salt.

My impression is that ASG programs, especially SAASS, select people who already have a record indicative of O-6 or higher potential.  Then they advertise that their grads go on to high ranks, but there's a bit of "chicken and the egg" with those claims because the candidates likely would have been successful without the extra year.  Ergo, to increase your chances of being selected for SAASS, do all the things you would normally do to have good paperwork, then arrive at your IDE and apply.  

For ACSC, volunteering for MDOS will help your chances, being a PAS guy will hurt your chances.  My impression only!

[Muscle2002]

23 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I'm not an ASG guy, but since no one else answered you I'll try.  But take it with a grain of salt.

My impression is that ASG programs, especially SAASS, select people who already have a record indicative of O-6 or higher potential.  Then they advertise that their grads go on to high ranks, but there's a bit of "chicken and the egg" with those claims because the candidates likely would have been successful without the extra year.  Ergo, to increase your chances of being selected for SAASS, do all the things you would normally do to have good paperwork, then arrive at your IDE and apply.  

For ACSC, volunteering for MDOS will help your chances, being a PAS guy will hurt your chances.  My impression only!

 

Your impression is not that far off based on what the staff expressed to us.  The SAASS selection board looks at an applicant's ROP and ranks accordingly.  Based on the initial ranking, the faculty will then review each applicant's writing sample to ensure there are no major red flags present.  Assuming that the writing samples and board rankings cohere, the list should mirror the original list.  There are some attempts to balance the class based off of AFSC.

People tend to apply for the MDOS elective based off of the assumption that being in the program will help their chances.  Realistically, the data do not seem to support that assumption.  MDOS does expose one, however, to a small selection, and only superficially, of the works that will be read in SAASS.

[mcbush]

For the young punks out there, what's MDOS? My Googling skills didn't turn anything up.

[Muscle2002]

From the AU website:

Multi-Domain Operational Strategist (MDOS) concentration is a selective yearlong advanced concentration specializing in developing leaders who understand the employment of multi-domain operational maneuver to counter future A2/AD threats during the period 2025-2035 . This concentration focuses on improving critical thinking and problem solving skills at the operational level of war. It prepares selected students for future operational and command assignments requiring advanced knowledge ofthe capabilities, methods, and challenges associated with operations within and across six domains (electromagnetic spectrum, space, air, land, maritime, and human). MDOS is based on student potential to contribute to their seminars and the overall goals of the concentration.

You can see that there are a lot of buzzwords in the description (i.e. strategist, human domain, etc). Basically, one learns about operational planning and the operational level of warfare.

[di1630]

All these schools, what a waste of time/resources to pull an operator away for a year.

We have leadership that can't lead, procure, strategize, manage resources etc. I'd abolish every school we have as they are self-licking ice cream cones of mediocrity.

[Disco_Nav963]

5 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

 

From the AU website:

 

Multi-Domain Operational Strategist (MDOS) concentration is a selective yearlong advanced concentration specializing in developing leaders who understand the employment of multi-domain operational maneuver to counter future A2/AD threats during the period 2025-2035 . This concentration focuses on improving critical thinking and problem solving skills at the operational level of war. It prepares selected students for future operational and command assignments requiring advanced knowledge ofthe capabilities, methods, and challenges associated with operations within and across six domains (electromagnetic spectrum, space, air, land, maritime, and human). MDOS is based on student potential to contribute to their seminars and the overall goals of the concentration.

You can see that there are a lot of buzzwords in the description (i.e. strategist, human domain, etc). Basically, one learns about operational planning and the operational level of warfare.

Sounds like the attempt a few years ago to create an "Advanced Integrated Warfare" WIC that would focus on operational level planning/integration... Died in the womb thanks to sequester (thanks Congress). 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

All these schools, what a waste of time/resources to pull an operator away for a year.

We have leadership that can't lead, procure, strategize, manage resources etc. I'd abolish every school we have as they are self-licking ice cream cones of mediocrity.

I totally agree, and said almost exactly that in my end of course feedback. 

[Chuck17]

5 hours ago, di1630 said:

All these schools, what a waste of time/resources to pull an operator away for a year.

We have leadership that can't lead, procure, strategize, manage resources etc. I'd abolish every school we have as they are self-licking ice cream cones of mediocrity.

Just for transparency, state quals/schools attended...?

Not trying to be a smart ass or out you, trying to illustrate the point - because I think there are a lot of in-res IDE grads who would agree with your statements. The schools could be a hell of a lot more. Myself included.

But to your specific point, would leaving the mass unaware and uneducated be the right alternative? Is more civilian schooling the right avenue of attack then, or merely less military-institutions? What does that get you? There is a difference between the haves and the have-nots, which is why the AF invests in the mid career schooling in many forms. I'm on the leadership-receiving end of inbound personnel right now. Education, in its many forms, is actively sought - be it WIC, IDE, SAASS, even high-end degrees in your Masters/undergrad, etc. They're looked at and considered, something that took me a little by surprise to be honest.

I still believe we could do much better when it comes to getting our force educated... But no schooling is not the answer.

Chuck

Edited June 3, 2016 by Chuck17

[di1630]

Chuck, quals....experience, school, only SOS in-Res, others by correspondence.

Here's my point and example. I dg'd sos for essentially boozing and going to the gym for 5 weeks. It was a vacation. That meaningless DG essentially set me up for career bullets and perks I earned for nothing special. All I actually learned was why shoe clerks had their well deserved reputation.

Going to SOS/ACSC you name it, to be a "leader" is like getting a 4-yr feminist literature degree and thinking you'll be competitive in the workforce.

What does this PME education produce? I can't seem to distinguish any of the grads have a greater tactical or strategic viewpoint....nor leadership ability.

The leaders the USAF needs do not need school to be USAF leaders.

[Fud]

20 minutes ago, di1630 said:

The leaders the USAF needs do not need school to be USAF leaders.

Shack!

I work with another service as a civilian now, and their take on school is very different than the USAF's view.  I think there should be one school for each level, and individuals can go either in residence or correspondence.  This would eliminate a lot of wasteful spending.  Keep ICAF and all the War College locations just to maintain continuity, but all the other stuff is bullshit.  I didn't learn a thing in SOS or ASBC that was worthwhile. 

One problem I see everywhere is leadership through consensus.  I hate this concept, and I wish someone would simply say "we are shutting this school/program/initiative down". 

[TnkrToad]

1 hour ago, Chuck17 said:

Just for transparency, state quals/schools attended...?

Not trying to be a smart ass or out you, trying to illustrate the point - because I think there are a lot of in-res IDE grads who would agree with your statements. The schools could be a hell of a lot more. Myself included.

But to your specific point, would leaving the mass unaware and uneducated be the right alternative? Is more civilian schooling the right avenue of attack then, or merely less military-institutions? What does that get you? There is a difference between the haves and the have-nots, which is why the AF invests in the mid career schooling in many forms. I'm on the leadership-receiving end of inbound personnel right now. Education, in its many forms, is actively sought - be it WIC, IDE, SAASS, even high-end degrees in your Masters/undergrad, etc. They're looked at and considered, something that took me a little by surprise to be honest.

I still believe we could do much better when it comes to getting our force educated... But no schooling is not the answer.

Chuck

The point, in my mind, is not that we shouldn't be educating our current/future senior leaders, but that we are overeducating them, and in the process losing out on experience and operational credibility. It's Friday, so read on if you want a history lesson:

- Spaatz (first USAF Chief of Staff): famously despised his time at CGSS/never went to War College  . . . yet effectively led the Army Air Forces during WW II (when the AAF peaked at over 2.4 million men). Given his disdain for PME, the fact that they named the officer education center at Maxwell after him is laughable. 

- Vandenberg (second CSAF): was best educated of the first 5 CSAFs--ACTS, CGSS & War College--but when he taught pursuit at ACTS, he was somehow was incapable of making the case for fighter development during the interwar period. Even though he was a fighter pilot, he de-emphasized fighters as CSAF. He took over from Spaatz as CSAF in 1948--two years before the Korean War. 

- Twining (CSAF #3): never attended War College, but served as both CSAF and CJCS

- White (CSAF #4): also never attended War College

- LeMay (CSAF #5): the 3-month ACTS short course (during the '39-'40 academic year) was the only PME he ever attended in his career. Nonetheless managed to build SAC into an impressive war machine between '48 and '57. Ironically, there's a doctrine center at Maxwell named after the guy, even though he never taught or commanded there.

None of those individuals, by the way, got any meaningful airpower instruction in their precommissioning sources, and there was no equivalent to ASBC or SOS for any of them. The Air Corps was part of the Army throughout the interwar period when these guys were CGOs, and the Army wasn't all that enthused about preaching the virtues of airpower back then.

Now, along the way to earning four stars, our most senior leaders get: 4 years of undergrad precommissioning airpower education/indoctrination, SOS, perhaps 6 months at a WIC, 1 year of IDE, perhaps 1 more year of SAASS, 2.5 months of JPME II, 1 year of SDE, and probably some other fellowships at ivy league schools along the way. 

It doesn't appear to me that the professionally overeducated crop of senior Air Force leaders is appreciably more competent than the minimally-educated leaders who kicked the snot out of the Axis in WW II and led a much bigger Air Force during the Cold War than exists today.

Education is important, but it's pretty clear to me we've gone a bit overboard with the emphasis on education over practical experience.

TT

 

[Muscle2002]

2 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

The point, in my mind, is not that we shouldn't be educating our current/future senior leaders, but that we are overeducating them, and in the process losing out on experience and operational credibility. It's Friday, so read on if you want a history lesson:

- Spaatz (first USAF Chief of Staff): famously despised his time at CGSS/never went to War College  . . . yet effectively led the Army Air Forces during WW II (when the AAF peaked at over 2.4 million men). Given his disdain for PME, the fact that they named the officer education center at Maxwell after him is laughable. 

- Vandenberg (second CSAF): was best educated of the first 5 CSAFs--ACTS, CGSS & War College--but when he taught pursuit at ACTS, he was somehow was incapable of making the case for fighter development during the interwar period. Even though he was a fighter pilot, he de-emphasized fighters as CSAF. He took over from Spaatz as CSAF in 1948--two years before the Korean War. 

- Twining (CSAF #3): never attended War College, but served as both CSAF and CJCS

- White (CSAF #4): also never attended War College

- LeMay (CSAF #5): the 3-month ACTS short course (during the '39-'40 academic year) was the only PME he ever attended in his career. Nonetheless managed to build SAC into an impressive war machine between '48 and '57. Ironically, there's a doctrine center at Maxwell named after the guy, even though he never taught or commanded there.

None of those individuals, by the way, got any meaningful airpower instruction in their precommissioning sources, and there was no equivalent to ASBC or SOS for any of them. The Air Corps was part of the Army throughout the interwar period when these guys were CGOs, and the Army wasn't all that enthused about preaching the virtues of airpower back then.

Now, along the way to earning four stars, our most senior leaders get: 4 years of undergrad precommissioning airpower education/indoctrination, SOS, perhaps 6 months at a WIC, 1 year of IDE, perhaps 1 more year of SAASS, 2.5 months of JPME II, 1 year of SDE, and probably some other fellowships at ivy league schools along the way. 

It doesn't appear to me that the professionally overeducated crop of senior Air Force leaders is appreciably more competent than the minimally-educated leaders who kicked the snot out of the Axis in WW II and led a much bigger Air Force during the Cold War than exists today.

Education is important, but it's pretty clear to me we've gone a bit overboard with the emphasis on education over practical experience.

TT

 

3

3

Your examples are highly contingent upon the context in which those men operated.  The organizational inertia and blind faith in "strategic bombing," only emboldened by WWII, gave considerable momentum to the bomber tribe.  Given the burgeoning Cold War, in which the Soviets tested the A-bomb in 1949 followed by thermonuclear weapons in 1953, is it any surprise that SAC grew the way it did?  LeMay did great things, but one could assert that he and the organization were a product of the times.

Practical experience is important, make no mistake, but does it not seem reasonable to suggest that the AF is highly experienced at fighting the current conflicts, yet airpower has made a negligible impact on achieving political objectives (note: I am not saying that the USAF has not done well at the tactical level, we most certainly have).  Certainly, the service has rarely received concrete policy aims, but if few will question the efficacy of current strategy, how does the nation exit a morass or achieve sustainable ends?  Operational experience provides the necessary data for testing the various ideas on how to use airpower, but formal education (outside of PME) may be a good way to provide the historical and theoretical background necessary to see patterns from the past that are salient to the present.  I am not advocating that we should copy from history's examples, but they do provide insight.  This insight may not come from frontline experience.  I think we would agree that the "right" kind of education should be emphasized.

I also agree that formal PME is lacking.  If I were CSAF, I would try to send more officers to civilian graduate programs in the IR, Security Studies, Politics, Economics, and other social science/humanities fields, while reducing the number of times officers had to attend military PME.  I think it is quite telling that the number one thing people find valuable from ACSC and AWC is that it provided an opportunity to make new friends.  When I tried to get credit for IDE, some tried to dissuade me stating that I was passing on networking opportunities.  There was no mention about how I would learn new ideas or become better educated.  Their reasoning convinced all-the-more that I could skip IDE.  SAASS, in contrast, was different.  I made friends, but the educational experience was, in my opinion, fantastic, and well worth the year away from the line (obviously, my case was somewhat of an anomaly because I did not have to go to IDE in-residence).

Edited June 3, 2016 by Muscle2002

[TnkrToad]

3 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

Your examples are highly contingent upon the context in which those men operated.  The organizational inertia and blind faith in "strategic bombing," only emboldened by WWII, gave considerable momentum to the bomber tribe.  Given the burgeoning Cold War, in which the Soviets tested the A-bomb in 1949 followed by thermonuclear weapons in 1953, is it any surprise that SAC grew the way it did?  LeMay did great things, but one could assert that he and the organization were a product of the times.

Practical experience is important, make no mistake, but does it not seem reasonable to suggest that the AF is highly experienced at fighting the current conflicts, yet airpower has made a negligible impact on achieving political objectives (note: I am not saying that the USAF has not done well at the tactical level, we most certainly have).  Certainly, the service has rarely received concrete policy aims, but if few will question the efficacy of current strategy, how does the nation exit a morass or achieve sustainable ends?  Operational experience provides the necessary data for testing the various ideas on how to use airpower, but formal education (outside of PME) may be a good way to provide the historical and theoretical background necessary to see patterns from the past that are salient to the present.  I am not advocating that we should copy from history's examples, but they do provide insight.  This insight may not come from frontline experience.  I think we would agree that the "right" kind of education should be emphasized.

I also agree that formal PME is lacking.  If I were CSAF, I would try to send more officers to civilian graduate programs in the IR, Security Studies, Politics, Economics, and other social science/humanities fields, while reducing the number of times officers had to attend military PME.  I think it is quite telling that the number one thing people find valuable from ACSC and AWC is that it provided an opportunity to make new friends.  When I tried to get credit for IDE, some tried to dissuade me stating that I was passing on networking opportunities.  There was no mention about how I would learn new ideas or become better educated.  Their reasoning convinced all-the-more that I could skip IDE.  SAASS, in contrast, was different.  I made friends, but the educational experience was, in my opinion, fantastic, and well worth the year away from the line (obviously, my case was somewhat of an anomaly because I did not have to go to IDE in-residence).

       I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing my point. The men I mentioned were effective as both combat leaders and as organizational leaders of an Air Force that was substantially larger than the one we have today, despite having gotten little in the way of PME. Bottom line, I see no evidence that having those who are being groomed for senior Air Force leadership spend so much of their careers in school (as indicated in my previous post) directly correlates to proportional increases of battlefield effectiveness or at the very least organizational efficiency. To get more academic-like, there's an imbedded counterfactual in your argument--you seem to indicate that: (1) if the functional equivalent of USAFA/AFROTC, ASBC, SOS, JPME II and Air War College had existed before the war (arguably ACSC already existed, in the form of ACTS), and (2) Tooey Spaatz, Hoyt Vandenberg, Nate Twining, Tommy White, Curt LeMay, etc., had the spent more time in those schools, that the Air Force wouldn't have been so bomber-myopic during the Second World War and the early Cold War. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. If they had spent more time getting the HAPDB doctrine preached to them during the interwar years, would they not have been even more misguided?

      The weird thing is that the first dyed-in-the-wool bomber pilot to become CSAF was John D. Ryan--in 1969. His six predecessors--Spaatz, Vandenberg, Twining, White, LeMay (yes, even including Curt LeMay) and McConnell--started their careers as fighter pilots. All but LeMay were, if anything, more aligned with fighters than bombers throughout the bulk of their respective careers. If they were bomber zealots, even though they came from fighter backgrounds and spent little to no time in PME schools which preached the virtues of strategic bombing, I can only imagine how bomber-focused they would have been in a more fully-articulated interwar airpower PME system. 

       You mention SAASS, which highlights a significant concern about the period of over-professionalization:

- Step 1: take your smartest, highest-potential folks from the already-selective IDE pool and put them through an additional year at SAASS (so far so good)

- Step 2: pick the smartest/most articulate SAASS students and sponsor them to get their PhDs (taking them out of operations for another three years--not so good). This is done because unwashed non-SAASS grads certainly couldn't teach SAASS students, and surely if a little education is good, then more must certainly be better.

- Step 3: send those smart guys to schools that aren't configured to let them get through in 3 years (which describes most civ Ph.D. programs), such that only about half complete their Ph.D. programs on time (oops--our very smartest folks spend up to 5 straight years in school--IDE-SAASS-Civ Ph.D) and now half of them are screwed (five years out of ops/not exactly operationally relevant, yet don't have Ph.D.s in hand, so can't teach at SAASS, as originally intended--really not good)

But we have to risk ruining our smartest folks' careers and denying the valuable services they otherwise could be providing to the operational Air Force because having more PME credentials and spending more time in school is magically going to make us smarter than real-world experience.

Alternatively, the folks who do get their Ph.D.s in the allotted 3-year timeframe spend most of their careers at Maxwell teaching, rather than leading or serving on senior staffs where they could have value-added operational effects. 

Education is awesome. The hyper-education I see for our senior leaders, which has second- and third-order effects such as I described above, does more harm than good (IMHO). 

Not trying to get into a pissing contest, but rather hoping for substantive discussion. I do find it interesting that we're arguing about military history, yet you don't specifically list military history as one of the fields we should be sending folks out to study at civ universities. By the way, the faith in strat bombing wasn't blind, certainly not by the end of the war. You can figure that out by reading (former SAASS instructor) Rob Ehler's book Targeting the Third Reich. Perhaps his book and others like his are being ignored in PME. If so, I really don't know why we have such an extensive PME program.

I would say you were very lucky to get a SAASS slot, without having had to attend ACSC beforehand.

TT