What's wrong with the Air Force?

[pcola]

First, I certainly don't condone and won't advocate for any sort of sexual assault, discrimination, harassment (legitimate) or sexism. Second, I'm not a fighter pilot, so I have no personal attachment to their specific cultural values.

However, I do vehemently oppose this current trend of neutering our fighting force through the eradication of the warrior ethos in the name of "political correctness." We are fighting the replacement of a true warrior ethos with a weak and fabricated "everybody is a warrior" mentality. We are witnessing the pussification of the world's greatest air power, and the topic of this thread is yet another symptomatic manifestation.

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.

Congratulations on your shoe PhD. You have just quoted a rule that is so broad that it can easily be interpreted in the manner that most easily benefits the easily offended. "Sexual harassment is...verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature." Really? So, if I hear a sexually explicit song played on someone else's IPod at work, I (and presumably anyone else within earshot) is being sexually harassed? If a doc asks about my sexual contact to facilitate a diagnosis, am I being sexually harassed? Ridiculous you say? Well, it falls into the law that you so readily quoted as clear and definitive. This is what the shoes do every day in order to justify their queep and rid the AF of black boots, black T-shirts, morale patches, friday shirts, and impose reflective belt and sock check policies.

And what about your definition of a reasonable person? You first define sexual harassment in the broadest terms possible, then continue to assert that anybody who is exposed to anything that fits this very broad definition as being subjected to a hostile work environment. I'd argue that it is weak (and therefore unreasonable by military standards) for any person to be so offended by a non-threatening sexual reference made in the military workplace that they consider the workplace to be hostile solely as a result of their feelings regarding said non-threatening sexual reference. Does it then stand that a reasonable person is one who joins the military (a killing, fighting force) and then expects to operate in a sterile environment, devoid of any and all sexual reference?

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.

"we" as in you and your GO cronies at the Pentagon? Because the "we" of the "boots on the ground", "flying, fighting, winning", "mission hacking", "getting the J-O-B fucking done" AF will certainly miss it.

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.

Of all of the things you have claimed on this board, this may be one of the most revolting assertions you have made to date. Given your AFSOC background and reference to the "joint force," I'm assuming you are referencing the SF world as a whole when you say "my community." As a person who spent the better part of a year in the JFSOCC-I J3, working side-by-side with FGO, CGO, and SNCO Green Berets, I'd beg to differ. Well, I guess they wouldn't consider their traditions "bullshit" any more than the operators of the AF would, but make no mistake, those folks aren't PC, nor are they the "professional" you would wish to impose upon them were they in the AF. Yes, trust and competence are of the utmost importance, but BS AADs, self serving careerist attitudes, and queep regulations are not. These guys are some of the crudest professionals I've ever had the pleasure of serving beside, and since we were deployed, you can bet your ass it was all done in the "workplace." And yes, traditions are certainly important, and I'd wager a beer you'd call those traditions either bullshit or sexist, if not both.

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.

True and untrue. I just heard A-SecAF Fanning tell a crowded auditorium that the topic of Sexual Assault was on his radar because it was on Congress's radar. He said something to the effect of "trust me, it will be better for us as a service to lead-turn this one then to be perceived as doing nothing and then to have Congress dictate to us how we should solve this 'epidemic'." Truth be told, it wasn't "DoD's failure" to do anything, it was, once again, the media's lopsided influence on the public and subsequently on the members of Congress that created this "epidemic." It was the media who hyped selected stories and created a disproportionate response to a statistically small issue. It was the members of Congress who jumped on the bandwagon as a means to gain popularity amongst their constituency. It was the AF Senior Leadership who pandered and cow-towed in the name of staying in good graces. If the AF's true track record of sexual assault (vice the media-hyped sensationalized version of sexual assault amongst the ranks) were at play, then any reasonable mom or dad would be far more concerned about sending their daughters to college than to the AF. I am not privy to AF sexual assault stats outside of my Wing, but I feel pretty safe in making an anecdotal assumption that a far higher percentage of females are sexually assaulted on a college campus than on an AF installation. And certainly that a typical frats traditions are far more toxic than those of a typical fighter squadron.

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.

Did you not read several of the previous posts outlining the reality of today's AF for a CGO/Jr FGO? Standing up to this queep will get you squashed just as certainly as standing up against your idea of sexual harassment will. Remember, General, that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone equally as powerful as you. Your hot button appears to be this idea of the demon of sexual harassment in the workplace, and I can bet you intend to squash anybody who doesn't fall in line. Well, you may be out of touch enough to not realize, because as a GO you are apparently above it, but for some other O-6s out there, their hot button is strict compliance with any written regulation, regardless of the validity or importance. (sound familiar, like a "shoe PhD maybe?) "Aggressively challenging" them would get me no further than aggressively challenging your weak, overly-pc assertions of what actually constitutes a hostile MILITARY work environment. And while I'll sit on BODN and call BS all day, you can bet your ass I'll be saying the same things in very hushed tones around the office from here on out (well, at least for the couple of years the AF still owns me.

"Out."

[Lord Ratner]

Just a FAIP, but what are some of the enduring traditions the Air Force can have/has? We have roll calls, bro calls, squadron events and outings where we cut loose and drink. MWS guys I've talked to say that this squadron is a lot more tight knit than any AMC unit they've been apart of because of these things.

As a FAIP who just moved into the AMC (really USAFE, but same difference) heavy world: go to and enjoy every single one of those squadron events. If you ever find yourself thinking about sitting one out, slap your self and tell the POC you'll be there. It does not exist in any way, shape or form out here, and like you, I got the same feedback from the MWS guys.

If your UPT squadron was anything like mine (or is the same one), you aren't going to find that anywhere else. Enjoy the hell out of it.

[Liquid]

First, I certainly don't condone and won't advocate for any sort of sexual assault, discrimination, harassment (legitimate) or sexism. Second, I'm not a fighter pilot, so I have no personal attachment to their specific cultural values.

However, I do vehemently oppose this current trend of neutering our fighting force through the eradication of the warrior ethos in the name of "political correctness." We are fighting the replacement of a true warrior ethos with a weak and fabricated "everybody is a warrior" mentality. We are witnessing the pussification of the world's greatest air power, and the topic of this thread is yet another symptomatic manifestation.

Congratulations on your shoe PhD. You have just quoted a rule that is so broad that it can easily be interpreted in the manner that most easily benefits the easily offended. "Sexual harassment is...verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature." Really? So, if I hear a sexually explicit song played on someone else's IPod at work, I (and presumably anyone else within earshot) is being sexually harassed? If a doc asks about my sexual contact to facilitate a diagnosis, am I being sexually harassed? Ridiculous you say? Well, it falls into the law that you so readily quoted as clear and definitive. This is what the shoes do every day in order to justify their queep and rid the AF of black boots, black T-shirts, morale patches, friday shirts, and impose reflective belt and sock check policies.

And what about your definition of a reasonable person? You first define sexual harassment in the broadest terms possible, then continue to assert that anybody who is exposed to anything that fits this very broad definition as being subjected to a hostile work environment. I'd argue that it is weak (and therefore unreasonable by military standards) for any person to be so offended by a non-threatening sexual reference made in the military workplace that they consider the workplace to be hostile solely as a result of their feelings regarding said non-threatening sexual reference. Does it then stand that a reasonable person is one who joins the military (a killing, fighting force) and then expects to operate in a sterile environment, devoid of any and all sexual reference?

"we" as in you and your GO cronies at the Pentagon? Because the "we" of the "boots on the ground", "flying, fighting, winning", "mission hacking", "getting the J-O-B ######ing done" AF will certainly miss it.

Of all of the things you have claimed on this board, this may be one of the most revolting assertions you have made to date. Given your AFSOC background and reference to the "joint force," I'm assuming you are referencing the SF world as a whole when you say "my community." As a person who spent the better part of a year in the JFSOCC-I J3, working side-by-side with FGO, CGO, and SNCO Green Berets, I'd beg to differ. Well, I guess they wouldn't consider their traditions "bullshit" any more than the operators of the AF would, but make no mistake, those folks aren't PC, nor are they the "professional" you would wish to impose upon them were they in the AF. Yes, trust and competence are of the utmost importance, but BS AADs, self serving careerist attitudes, and queep regulations are not. These guys are some of the crudest professionals I've ever had the pleasure of serving beside, and since we were deployed, you can bet your ass it was all done in the "workplace." And yes, traditions are certainly important, and I'd wager a beer you'd call those traditions either bullshit or sexist, if not both.

True and untrue. I just heard A-SecAF Fanning tell a crowded auditorium that the topic of Sexual Assault was on his radar because it was on Congress's radar. He said something to the effect of "trust me, it will be better for us as a service to lead-turn this one then to be perceived as doing nothing and then to have Congress dictate to us how we should solve this 'epidemic'." Truth be told, it wasn't "DoD's failure" to do anything, it was, once again, the media's lopsided influence on the public and subsequently on the members of Congress that created this "epidemic." It was the media who hyped selected stories and created a disproportionate response to a statistically small issue. It was the members of Congress who jumped on the bandwagon as a means to gain popularity amongst their constituency. It was the AF Senior Leadership who pandered and cow-towed in the name of staying in good graces. If the AF's true track record of sexual assault (vice the media-hyped sensationalized version of sexual assault amongst the ranks) were at play, then any reasonable mom or dad would be far more concerned about sending their daughters to college than to the AF. I am not privy to AF sexual assault stats outside of my Wing, but I feel pretty safe in making an anecdotal assumption that a far higher percentage of females are sexually assaulted on a college campus than on an AF installation. And certainly that a typical frats traditions are far more toxic than those of a typical fighter squadron.

Did you not read several of the previous posts outlining the reality of today's AF for a CGO/Jr FGO? Standing up to this queep will get you squashed just as certainly as standing up against your idea of sexual harassment will. Remember, General, that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone equally as powerful as you. Your hot button appears to be this idea of the demon of sexual harassment in the workplace, and I can bet you intend to squash anybody who doesn't fall in line. Well, you may be out of touch enough to not realize, because as a GO you are apparently above it, but for some other O-6s out there, their hot button is strict compliance with any written regulation, regardless of the validity or importance. (sound familiar, like a "shoe PhD maybe?) "Aggressively challenging" them would get me no further than aggressively challenging your weak, overly-pc assertions of what actually constitutes a hostile MILITARY work environment. And while I'll sit on BODN and call BS all day, you can bet your ass I'll be saying the same things in very hushed tones around the office from here on out (well, at least for the couple of years the AF still owns me.

"Out."

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.

[Hacker]

This is an epically great discussion.

Liquid, on a slightly different topic -- why don't more flag-level leaders get down in the trenches and talk with the troops like this? I feel that this is a bit like when -- albeit 15 years ago -- the Wing CC used to actually come to my sq Roll Call (which was sometimes even a weekly event, so not exactly rare), drink with the boys and submit to the Mayor's wrath and hijinx, and talk on a bro level with guys about anything and everything. It wasn't some scheduled event that was obviously forced as part of some plan to intentionally go have a talk in the trenches; the Exec or protocol officer didn't show up beforehand and make sure the bar was stocked with his favorite drink or to ensure that the squadron was cleaned up before he arrived...he just wandered in to the bar 5 minutes before roll call and started interacting like a normal warrior.

Plenty of discussions like in this thread took place, and their replies were similar in nature to what you are giving here: slamming down a half-full beer mug and telling us to fuck off right back at us because our limited CGO view of whatever the topic was, was way off base, and then taking the next 10 minutes to explain the view from the front office and in the offices above him. Sometimes we left the discussions in agreement, and sometimes we made fun of him behind his back after he left the bar, but the interactions were key in having most of us feel like he actually wanted to lead us rather than simply be a military dictator to us.

There are two or three one-stars that I can think of who were perfectly comfortable "solving the world's problems from a barstool", and such interactions with them, for me as a young Captain, just gave me tremendous respect for them. It was fantastic. I'd still go follow those guys anywhere to this day.

In the last 6 years, though, the only time I've seen the WG/CC come to the bar was to give us a pep talk for the latest MAJCOM-level inspection, and he was out the door within seconds of his transmit-only, no-receive message.

I'm sure there's an AWC or SAASS-taught, "you lose respect for your office and position if you casually go socialize with the boys" mantra that is behind it, but as someone who was a junior officer when it took place it NEVER eroded my respect for their position and leadership, even when I did not agree with their viewpoint or decision. In fact, it had quite the opposite effect.

That's the same way I see this discussion. I'm not in AFSOC, and I have no idea who the flag officers in AFSOC are, and thus aren't trying to figure out who Liquid is...but I sure as hell love that he's here duking it out with the boys, taking his lumps, and pushing back trying to actually have a discussion. Not just sitting in his office and writing memos about how he wants shit to be under his command and in Big Blue. I don't buy all of it, but fuckin-A it is great to see you here trying.

I wish others would do the same. I think all parties involved would find it very enlightening and valuable.

[Liquid]

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.

[pawnman]

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.

Are we planning to rename the 69th Bomb Squadron so they don't have 69 on all their comm cards, letterheads, and other products?

[magnetfreezer]

Thanks for coming here and talking things out. I've been fortunate to have several good leaders at various levels with the same view on talking with the troops, bars, morale, etc. One of them also took away/forced renaming of multiple people with potentially offensive stories behind their call signs. No one held it against him personally, since we all know where it started and that he'd get fired for appearing anything less than all in. Similarly, I don't think this board hates you, on the contrary people love the AF, don't want to see people leave and are passing on to you exactly what needs to be changed-you hit on it in the last paragraph, the redefinition of harassment to call all men ( and many of the female aircrew) harassers. We all know the AF has budget crunches, etc but most of the things people don't like are self imposed-if it was started by an AFI or policy letter it can be removed at no cost by same (heck, even just an email from the original certifying authority).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk now Free

[Liquid]

Are we planning to rename the 69th Bomb Squadron so they don't have 69 on all their comm cards, letterheads, and other products?

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?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Liquid

[pawnman]

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?

If I need an MFR explaining it, then apparently leadership thinks that I do.

The real problem with the current leadership focus is that by queeping out on things like "69" and "STS", you cheapen the entire discussion. I think everyone is on-board with the idea that we should prevent sexual assaults and sexual harassment, that everyone, male or female, should be able to come to work without fear of being harassed or assaulted, that everyone should be respected...I get it, I think 99.9% of the AF gets it as well. But now, instead of thinking I'll learn something new in SARC/SAPR training that will help me prevent the next sexual assault, I'm told that I'm the same as a rapist for making a dick joke. In my last SAPR training, we were told that having sex with a woman at any level of intoxication was technically rape since she didn't have the ability to consent. So I'm not allowed to go out with the wife, have 2-3 drinks, and get romantic afterwards...no consent.

When leadership goes way overboard in such a manner, it makes it much more difficult to sift through what is an actual problem, and what is queep. Further, when you preach it so loud, for so long, people just stop listening entirely. Then when you have a real point to make, you have no one in the audience that hears it.

[tac airlifter]

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.

This is what we should be talking about. Leadership in AFSOC has spent years giving commanders calls about uniforms, sexual assault, professionalism, etc. Never once have I seen anyone over 0-5 ask about getting better at the mission. I've had a few talks here and there about specific problems, but fundamental fixes never came and as soon as we weren't fucking it up down range the attention left. Maybe you are a fantastic leader who facilitates tacticians tweaking the latest TTPs to outmaneuver and enable F3 of HVIs. Or maybe you're FOS; I'll likely never know. Regardless, I don't know any 0-6s who read AARs so your sentiment seems disingenuous. Which is a damn shame because our joint partners (who always seem to be the down range CDRs instead of AF) often ineffectively employ us and we could use some knowledgeable and credible advocates.

Edited October 2, 2013 by tac airlifter

[AnimalMother]

Liquid, again, thanks for the dialogue here. I'm going to change topic here because honestly I'm pretty tired of hearing about sexual assault and 69ing. As such, I'll withhold any additional personal commentary on the subject.

You made a comment which I find both very disturbing, and very reassuring at the same time. Something to the effect of how challenging it is to get the civilian authorities to kill the people who need to be killed. I know in the military we tend to get focused on killing people and breaking their shit, which is understandable because that is part of our job description. But I would hope that as folks grow and mature, they absorb some of the greater lessons beyond the crassness of just killing people. Namely, our job isn't just to kill people, our job is to protect our country and our way of life, ie our Constitution. This, however, is something for which we haven't truly been used for many years.

In order to keep things short, Ill stop there, but ask that you consider reading the following books:

The New American Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich

The 1000 Year War in the Mideast, by Richard Maybury

The Road to Serfdom, by FA Hayek

Additionally, you might take a look at the following case studies/historical events and how they relate to our current situation, particularly in terms of precedent or lack thereof:

The Treat of Westphalia of 1648

Switzerland's military model and doctrine

Nuremberg Trials and verdicts/conclusions

Not trying to be a smart ass here, seriously interested in opening some dialogue about more than just nudie mags, sock checks, and the like. PM works too.

[di1630]

Liquid, coincidence, today my great uncle who is 99 years old and was a 3-star general (at one point a MAJCOM CC), fought in 3 wars, bailed out of 3 aircraft sent me this email FWD. I tell him stories of the USAF now and he barely can beleive it is the same service he once loved to be in. He was mostly a bomber guy and to this day he likes to give fighter pilots s#it. Give it a read, or maybe you read it before.

We used to go to the Officers Club or NCO Club Stag Bar on Friday afternoons to drink, smoke and swap lies with our comrades. Think about this when you read the rest of the letter below. What happened to our Air Force/Marines/Army/Navy/CG... (or Military)? Drinking then became frowned on. Smoking caused cancer and could "harm you." Stag bars became seen as 'sexist'. Gradually, our men quit patronizing their clubs because what happened in the club became fodder for a performance report. It was the same thing at the Airman's Club and the NCO and/or Top 3 clubs. Now we don't have separate clubs for the ranks. Instead we have something called All Ranks Clubs or community clubs. They're open to men and women of all ranks....from airman basic to general officer. Still, no one is there. Gee, I wonder why. The latest brilliant thought out of Washington is that the operators ("pilots?") flying remote aircraft in combat areas from their plush desk at duty stations in Nevada or Arizona should draw the same combat pay as those real world pilots actually on board a plane in a hostile environment. More politically correct logic? They say that remote vehicle operators are subject to the same stress levels as the combat pilot actually flying in combat. ----- REALLY...you're bull-shitting me, right !!!???

Now that I've primed you a little, read on.

There are many who will agree with these sentiments, but they apply to more than just fighter pilots. Unfortunately, the ones with the guts to speak up or push for what they believe in are beaten down by the "system." "Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in the following text - supposedly,

Secretary Gates had a force beating the bushes to learn who wrote this.... Where have all the fighter pilots gone? Good Question. Here is a rant from a retired fighter pilot that is worth reading: It is rumored that our current Secretary of Defense recently asked the question, "Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?" I can only assume, if that is true, that he was referring to Robin Olds, Jimmy Doolittle, Patton, Ike, Boyington, Nimitz, etc.? Well, I've got the answer: They were fired before they made Major! Our nation doesn't want those kinds of leaders anymore. Squadron commanders don't run squadrons and wing commanders don't run wings. They are managed by higher ranking dildos with other esoteric goals in mind. Can you imagine someone today looking for a LEADER to execute that Doolittle Raid and suggesting that it be given to a dare-devil boozer - his only attributes: he had the respect of his men, an awesome ability to fly, and the organizational skills to put it all together? If someone told me there was a chance in hell of selecting that man today, I would tell them they were either a liar or dumber than shit. I find it ironic that the Air Force put Brigadier General Robin Olds on the cover of the company rag last month. While it made me extremely proud to see his face, he wouldn't make it across any base in America (or overseas) without ten enlisted folks telling him to zip up his flight suit, get rid of the cigarette, and shave his mustache off. I have a feeling that his response would be predictable and for that crime he would probably get a trip home and an Article 15. We have lost the war on rugged individualism and that, unfortunately, is what fighter pilots want to follow; not because they have to but because they respect leaders of that ilk. We've all run across that leader that made us proud to follow him because you wanted to be like him and make a difference. The individual who you would drag your testicles through glass for rather than disappoint him.

We better wake the hell up! We're asking our young men and women to go to really shitty places; some with unbearable climates, never have a drink, have little or no contact with the opposite sex, not look at magazines of a suggestive nature of any type, and adhere to ridiculous regs that require you to tuck your shirt into your PT uniform on the way to the porta-shitter at night, in a blinding dust storm, because it's a uniform. These people we're sending to combat are some of the brightest I've met but they are looking for a little sanity, which they will only find on the outside if we don't get a friggin' clue. You can't continue asking people to live for months or years at a time acting like nuns and priests. Hell, even they get to have a beer.

Who are we afraid of offending? The guys that already hate us enough to strap C-4 to their own bodies and walk into a crowd of us? Think about it. I'm extremely proud of our young men and women who continue to serve. I'm also very in tune with what they are considering for the future and I've got news for whoever sits in the White House, Congress, and our so-called military leaders. Much talent has and will continue to hemorrhage from our services, because wanna-be warriors are tired of fighting on two fronts - - one with our enemies, another against our lack of common sense.

[tac airlifter]

Good post Animal, maybe we can branch that into another thread because I'm equally tired of hearing about STS and bar songs.... Seriously, we have a dude claiming to be senior leadership talking to us & this is the topic we choose?

I am personally convinced that killing is the only strategic solution against our current enemy. It sounds simplistic, but we've tried nuanced COIN operations to no avail. War is politics by other means, right? So we're using violence as required to achieve desired political outcomes. Our enemy is doing the same thing. Logically, we stop using violence when it's no longer the best tool to accomplish our desired outcome.

However, our enemy doesn't share this logic. They would gouge my sons eyes out with a spoon if they could because they genuinely believe God wants them to. We can never compromise with them, we can never get along with them. Our only answer for this particular ideology is to destroy it. So yes, we need to convince our civilian leadership to loosen the ROE and let us kill more people. I understand the dangers of creating new enemies by killing old ones in the wrong time or place, but the only response to Zarqawi's horror houses in Iraq was death. By killing the few utterly resolved to our destruction, we not only mitigate that direct threat but indirectly we strengthen whatever moderate elements within our enemies camp who think they can achieve an acceptable outcome without terrorism.

In this case more killing is the right answer. Nothing else we've tried against this enemy has shown results.

[Homestar]

Impossible when your leaders are raised in Washington, D.C., instead of Sparta.

[Wing Sweep]

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?

1a. Now gentlemen, turn to page 1-69 of your Dash-1; change to my freq, 269.0; In offset container, 3 will wait 6 to 9 seconds to begin his turn after lead initiates his turn.

1b. We still don't have our craniums above water, so to speak. Mr. Black's life was an open book, so to speak; they must learn to wear several hats, so to speak.

2. ROE's that tie my hands. I can choose to help out the guys and get a Q-3 or keep my Q-1 status and let guys die. I've personally had it happen that I've had dudes I was providing air support for get shot because the ROEs wouldn't let me take care of business on the spot (i.e. decentralized execution). I had to get CAOC approval for the most menial bullcrap. Still pisses me off that someone has a bullet scar in their neck when I could have easily killed the bastards before there were friendly injuries.

[Splash95]

Liquid, coincidence, today my great uncle who is 99 years old and was a 3-star general (at one point a MAJCOM CC), fought in 3 wars, bailed out of 3 aircraft sent me this email FWD. I tell him stories of the USAF now and he barely can beleive it is the same service he once loved to be in. He was mostly a bomber guy and to this day he likes to give fighter pilots s#it. Give it a read, or maybe you read it before.

Solid material, thanks for sharing di. I'm probably less cynical and angry than the average BODN poster, but the point about deployed conditions is valid. From the books I've read, stories I've heard, etc., deployments of yore were often wild and wooly experiences. These days, we go and spend months and months in desert sh1tholes with no booze, no conjugal visits, no p0rn, Maxim-type (clothed) pics ripped down from sh1tters and hooches, no sports or music to speak of (oh wait, I forgot, TiB tours!), no civvies, no leaving base, and very little freedom from the shoes (thankfully I've had some shielding from them being in my chili 24-7). And yeah, the fact that we're out there hacking the mission, protecting the good guys and killing the bad guys is what matters, but dudes would be a lot happier if they had some outlets. Having deployed only a few times myself, I have all kinds of respect for guys in AFSOC and elsewhere with double-digit deployments who have stuck it out despite the suck seeming to constantly build. I'm not a huge partier or skirt-chaser myself, but the stifling, super-PC influences in the AF today disgust me and certainly motivate me toward becoming one more dude who punches at his first opportunity.

[Dupe]

Our traditions and heritage, no matter how stupid and meaningless they may seem to an outsider, are written in the blood and sacrifice of our predecessors' real combat experience. Whether bar songs, accurate time hacks, being a quiet professional, callsigns with possible double meanings, IYAAYAS, NKAWTG, the Hap Arnold Symbol, nose art, or anything else born of combat professionals bonding as a community, these things are real. We can eliminate them to try and appeal to a corporate mentality or for political reasons, but we will lose something. That something cannot be replaced by any focus group, think tank, or officer seeking an OPR bullet for inventing a "new" tradition or rewriting a politically correct replacement heritage.

People don't join the Air Force to be a member of a corporation... they join to be part of a combat-capable group with a tight culture. There's more to this than sexual harassment... it's about the culture of our organization. So some of the innuendos and such should go away: that's probably fair. The problem is that folks see us transitioning from a group where combat capability is the priority to becoming more corporate. Leadership needs to stop the corporate slide and not just remove a few elements that are now distasteful/archaic.

[Hacker]

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.

That's all good, and I'm impressed and happy to hear you relate that, and certainly I wish your outlook were mirrored by more current squadron and wing-level leadership, but my question regarded other Flag officers and why they don't seem to feel that there's value in doing what you are doing. What is the view on this type of informal interaction from your leadership level -- obviously you see personal value in spending time on BaseOps and trying to have a conversation with us minions, but why aren't there others (or at least ones who are willing to identify themselves as leadership and intentionally engage in conversation)? Why do other officers of similar rank and position NOT choose to do that these days when, in my experience in my little sliver of the fighter world, it used to be a much more typical point of view? What do your peers say about it? Why are more of your peers not taking off their stars and talking honestly with the rank and file in a no-rank, no-stigs environment like this?

Edited October 3, 2013 by Hacker

[TheInner]

IMHO, it all boils down to leadership and personal accountability. However, we have all contributed to a culture that equates leadership to metrics and personal accountability to blaming it on someone else. Because we are so concerned with competing for COCOMs and such we have to pick our future commanders so early it's crazy. These dudes must go to school first look, in the case of a fighter guy this means they are probably just getting to the point where they are an IP who has legitimately done and seen it all and not just a "wide eyed, just finished IPUG, must get hours to get picked up for WIC" IP. It also means they have been a flight commander with a whopping 5-8 (I would have said 6-9 if it was still authorized) dudes under their charge and maybe did a stint as a TDY projo where the MSgt from MX and LRS probably carried them through. After that they do a year of school where they broaden their perspectives on the rest of the AF but really just strengthen their desire to just serve with fellow fighter pilots. Probably do a tough and go on the staff where they learn a bit more about big blue and become powerpoint warriors and then a DO job somewhere. While a DO they may get some actual real world leadership experience (the legit leading people, not leading a gorilla package against the hordes) but in my experience they end up spending a bunch of time getting their feet wet again in the tactics, beating the AMU OIC into submission, micromanaging the scheduling shop because he failed to beat said AMU OIC into submission, and still trying to fit in with the bros. Now they become a commander. When, where, and how does the operational community learn, and more importantly practice, the leadership that is required?

[Liquid]

That's all good, and I'm impressed and happy to hear you relate that, and certainly I wish your outlook were mirrored by more current squadron and wing-level leadership, but my question regarded other Flag officers and why they don't seem to feel that there's value in doing what you are doing. What is the view on this type of informal interaction from your leadership level -- obviously you see personal value in spending time on BaseOps and trying to have a conversation with us minions, but why aren't there others (or at least ones who are willing to identify themselves as leadership and intentionally engage in conversation)? Why do other officers of similar rank and position NOT choose to do that these days when, in my experience in my little sliver of the fighter world, it used to be a much more typical point of view? What do your peers say about it? Why are more of your peers not taking off their stars and talking honestly with the rank and file in a no-rank, no-stigs environment like this?

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.

Liquid, again, thanks for the dialogue here. I'm going to change topic here because honestly I'm pretty tired of hearing about sexual assault and 69ing. As such, I'll withhold any additional personal commentary on the subject.

You made a comment which I find both very disturbing, and very reassuring at the same time. Something to the effect of how challenging it is to get the civilian authorities to kill the people who need to be killed. I know in the military we tend to get focused on killing people and breaking their shit, which is understandable because that is part of our job description. But I would hope that as folks grow and mature, they absorb some of the greater lessons beyond the crassness of just killing people. Namely, our job isn't just to kill people, our job is to protect our country and our way of life, ie our Constitution. This, however, is something for which we haven't truly been used for many years.

In order to keep things short, Ill stop there, but ask that you consider reading the following books:

The New American Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich

The 1000 Year War in the Mideast, by Richard Maybury

The Road to Serfdom, by FA Hayek

Additionally, you might take a look at the following case studies/historical events and how they relate to our current situation, particularly in terms of precedent or lack thereof:

The Treat of Westphalia of 1648

Switzerland's military model and doctrine

Nuremberg Trials and verdicts/conclusions

Not trying to be a smart ass here, seriously interested in opening some dialogue about more than just nudie mags, sock checks, and the like. PM works too.

Good stuff Animal. I'll put them on my reading list. Reading Supreme Command now. Just finished The Generals by Ricks.

[TacAirCoug]

I suspect some may be reluctant to engage in this type of forum because there is risk.

This right here is exactly the problem. Fear gets in the way of common sense among far too many of our senior leaders. Unfortunately, that's a weakness that's rewarded at every level of our organization these days.

I don't agree with many of your points, but good on ya for taking the spears here anyway.

[pawnman]

So has the risk substantially increased in the last five years? The OG when I first got to Ellsworth was a regular at roll calls, and he would sit with the young pups and share the giant global vision he had for the Air Force, and why things that might not make sense in our tiny, cockpit-focused world were actually necessary for the health of the fleet, the group, the base, and the Air Force. He was the last OG who would regularly talk about this stuff in an informal setting. Have we really bred a group of senior leaders, even at the OG and WG level, who are so risk-averse that they can't even have a beer and share the real perspective without a speech writer and a 100 slide powerpoint? If so, we are in much worse shape than anyone here imagined.

Edited October 4, 2013 by pawnman

[Hacker]

Liquid, thanks for the response; that's the kind of outlook I think we're all interested to see, especially since it isn't one that any of us have. I hope you choose to keep participating here, despite all of the points you mention as why someone in your position wouldn't want to.

Just something for you to take away, though; two statements you made really stuck out for me:

Hacker, I can't speak for others. I suspect some may be reluctant to engage in this type of forum because there is risk.

Not careerists, but realists.

The first point, regarding risk, is IMHO part of the core cancer infecting USAF leadership. The perception of me and my fellow line personnel is that leaders are more concerned with avoiding risk than they are with really leading. That they are more concerned with protecting their careers than they are with actually accomplishing the mission, and thus their leadership and decisionmaking strategy is based on ensuring they don't do something that pisses their bosses off (but unfortunately doesn't appear have a primary basis in our real core duty of advancing combat airpower). I found it telling that it was the very first reason you mentioned for senior level leadership not wanting to informally interact with the ranks.

Naturally, this term "careerist" is thrown around as a pejorative toward those folks who value risk avoidance and career protection more than they do actual warrior leadership, and I find it interesting that you would caveat the term with your second statement, as if your (their) GO-level career deserved more protection from risk than anyone else's, and such decisionmaking patterns were valid because they were being a "realist" instead of a "careerist".

So, why is it that our GO-level leaders aren't the FIRST ones in line to play that "moral courage" card, and make the right decisions for the mission and their people and throw their career cautions to the winds? IMHO these are the people who need to be using that logic process more than ANYONE else in the chain of command...and yet by most appearances, they are the ones who use it least. I primarily see Captains and Majors and Lt Cols making morally courageous decisions that are "right" for mission and people -- and they are the ones who I primarily see have their careers/futures in the military destroyed, or take their talents elsewhere when they have the opportunity to leave because their ideas/decisions/leadership do not translate into career advancement in the current USAF.

How is it that the service that was born on the backs of rogues who vehemently supported airpower to the spite of Army leadership has turned into the one where anyone who even thinks outside the container -- much less acts outside it -- is marginalized, ostracized, or even outright punished for not following the career-progression-formula of risk aversion and compliance-is-more-important-than-achievement?

Again, I don't know you, have never worked for you, and have no idea about your leadership style or decisionmaking history. As I've said, I don't agree with all of your points (and some I significantly disagree with, reference my "gimme a fucking break" comment in my earlier post). I will say, however, that you talk a pretty damn good game here with some of the things that you've posted with respect to your outlook and motivations as a senior leader.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Hacker

[RTB]

So, why is it that our GO-level leaders aren't the FIRST ones in line to play that "moral courage" card, and make the right decisions for the mission and their people and throw their career cautions to the winds?

Ambition and ego?

[BitteEinBit]

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.

I don't think the expectation is that GOs become drinking buddies with Capts, but when I first joined the Air Force there was this thing called mentorship (supposedly from GOs)...and well, we just don't have that anymore. Young Capts (future leaders) can certainly be shaped by GOs willing to have that occasional drink at the club. It used to work.

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.

That was my impression of the main jobs and lives of senior leaders (WG/CC and above). What I actually see are these senior leaders more involved than I would expect in relatively minor issues like (hate to bring it up) sock checks and mustaches. If you're ordering your GP/CCs to patrol the base DFACs looking for these violations, you're not focusing on the bigger institutional issues. MICROMANAGEMENT is what we like to call it. Quite honestly, SQ leadership should be fixing those "problems" if we have them, and the WG/CCs should trust that the issues are being squashed at the SQ level.

Senior leaders are much more familiar with political and financial realities, so I think they tend to lose the Captain's perspective.

Agree. Understandable. So let your junior leaders lead since they are in a better position to understand that Capt perspective...that is if they aren't too focused on their own progression. It appears to me (in my little corner of the AF) that commanders aren't being empowered to lead anymore. Gen Welsh brought it up at his All Call at Spang. The "mother may I mentality" I watched two of my last three SQ/CCs struggle through indecision because they weren't sure how the OG/CC or WG/CC would react to new ideas. It was more like "how can I keep my boss from firing me" rather than "how can I make my organization better." At least that was my impression. I've never seen more paperwork (LOAs, LOCs, LORs, etc) thrown at people for the smallest things, all to appease their boss. Yes, these had to deal with reflective belts and Friday retreats. LOCs and LOAs? Really? Yes men don't make good leaders.

When you don't empower your people to make their own decisions and take their own actions, they'll wait for you to make it for them...and well, from what I see, they wait, and there is indecision because of it. Probably can be attributed to the risk aversion or "mother may I" mentality.

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.

Believe me, despite some of the name calling and accusations, your perspective is valued here. Hacker makes some excellent points, and I think he's spot on. I too hope you continue to engage on this forum and accept that risk. I think the payoff by understanding the young Capt's perspective will help you and other senior leaders realize the impact of some of these cancerous decisions (policies) being forced upon a "new generation" of leaders growing up in today's Air Force who are, as you mentioned from your response above, different than past warriors from the Gulf War I/ Cold War / Vietnam era.