What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Slick]

18 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

By enthroning an incompetent, clueless leader in the Oval Office? I do see your point in part. IF Trump's approach to the military is one of benign neglect, I think we can count on solid leadership from Secretary Mattis and 'mo money from Congress (for at least the next two years). If Trump tries to actually be substantively involved in defense policy (with the psychopath General Flynn whispering in his ear) I fear for our future.

I don't know you, and I don't know how long you've been in, so please don't take this as patronizing: I've seen a lot of young guys in the squadron the last few years that, because they commissioned midway through the Obama years, believe all the incompetence and all the PC bullshit in the Air Force stems from the Obama administration and Obama appointees. Not true. I came in when Rumsfeld was SecDef and "Buzz" Moseley was CSAF. Guess when Masters degrees came back, CSSs went away, Finance got centralized at Ellsworth, and E-9s were already rampaging? The latter part of the Bush years. It was probably happening earlier. Hell, it was probably happening from the days of He Who Shall Not Be Named on. In my adult life I've cast my four presidential votes for Bush 43, McCain, Romney, and, well, not the new guy. By far the lowest my morale has ever been in my career was the first 6 months of it when Rumsfeld was SecDef and the professional military advice of the generals—that our strategy in Iraq was clearly not working—was considered seditious.

I say all of that to say, (a) PC bullshit/E-9s gone wild is an AF cultural problem we brought on ourselves, not one imposed by the political branches of government (**caveat that holy shit Debbie James encouraged it, thank God she's gone**, and (b) with the political people, it's not Republican vs. Democrat you have to worry about, it's "People who understand and respect the professional culture and political independence of the military" vs. "Those who don't." Among the former in my time we've had Gates (Republican... although holy shit he hated the Air Force... who pissed in his Cheerios during his two years as an Lt at Whiteman in the 60s?), Panetta, and Ash Carter; among the latter we've had Rumsfeld and Obama/Biden themselves, all of whom treated the generals and admirals as a suspect Fifth Column loyal to their partisan opponents, who would try to steamroll the president's agenda by... offering their professional military advice, and who had to be beaten in the bureaucratic war.

So I am one the one hand buoyed by everything about Mattis, and most recently the letter you alluded to. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned by the new POTUS's CIA HQ visit, because it suggests the president falls into the latter camp, viewing us in partisan rather than professional terms.

I'm not saying that partisan differences on military issues don't matter; clearly they do. I like 3% pay raises better than 1.69% pay raises. But I care more that we avoid situations such as '02-'03 when the Chief of Staff of the Army got canned for questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq with >50% fewer people than the OPLAN called for, or 2009-10 when the office of the Vice President leaked like crazy to the press to attack Gen McChrystal for essentially saying "These are the forces required to achieve the objectives the White House set in its own Spring '09 Afghan policy review."

What we've seen so far does not have me optimistic at all. It has me very worried. But I do see Mattis and the esteem the public has for him as a potential BS filter, and for that I am grateful.

Thanks for the informative write-up; definitely appreciated.  FYI, I'm still in the applicant phase for UPT and have been applying to guard/reserve units.  However, I am now very strongly considering AD since I am getting near the age limit and have been following this thread for a few years.  So, I wanted to pose the question given my situation and the rather unprecedented change in leadership for our country.  

To add to the discussion, a new secretary of the Air Force has just been selected.  All I'll say is that I guess I spoke too soon.

[Disco_Nav963]

42 minutes ago, Slick said:

Thanks for the informative write-up; definitely appreciated.  FYI, I'm still in the applicant phase for UPT and have been applying to guard/reserve units.  However, I am now very strongly considering AD since I am getting near the age limit and have been following this thread for a few years.  So, I wanted to pose the question given my situation and the rather unprecedented change in leadership for our country.  

To add to the discussion, a new secretary of the Air Force has just been selected.  All I'll say is that I guess I spoke too soon.

That being the case... Even in the most asinine of times, the AF has been worth it for the people you get to serve with. I'd still try to go Guard/Reserve if at all possible. I'm a CSO, came in knowing there would be a 6 year commitment, and have stayed for 11 (punching for the Reserves at end of the year). I would not sign up for a de facto 12 year commitment in the current environment. Even if President Trump made fixing the Air Force a top 10 priority and dumped a crap ton of money into the project, it would take many many years for the changes to materialize because of limited production capacity for new pilots. On AD you'll be entering a world that is chronically undermanned and can expect to spend 12 years chasing your own tail in terms of ops tempo. But if you have to choose between AD and no slot at all, by all means go AD.

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Valid.  But again, he vowed to completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.  Unfortunately, that means a hell of a lot more people, in a hell of a lot more places, than ISIL.  As you know, there are many other formidable terrorists networks, both Sunni and Shi'a, throughout the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia, and the subcontinent.  

Thus, it's a patently idiotic and dishonest statement.  We're not going to completely eradicate anything, and he knows it.  And you should know it too.  It's tough-guy rhetoric and bluster that sells well to his base.  And yet it could really shape our national security landscape for many years to come.

Additionally, Spicer and Tillerson have just commented that US forces will defend islands in the SCS and block China's access to the Spratly and Paracels via massive naval blockades.  Awesome.  That should work out well for us.  From an article on the subject: "The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."

And wait, there's more.  Trump continues to mention "taking the oil" from Iraq.  Absolutely absurd, and in addition to being logistically impossible and entirely immoral, it's a proposal that I'm hoping everyone here understands is illegal.  It's against US and international law, and it would establish the worst possible precedent - that the global leader goes to war for economic gain.  Do you guys want to live in a world where it's cool for countries to wage war for financial profit?  Where one country recognizes value in the resources of another and goes to war to steal them?  I don't.  In fact, I seem to recall us going to war in 1991 for exactly that purpose - to stop a large country with a powerful military from stealing the oil from a smaller country.

Dude I'm the first to admit that Hillary is a corrupt liar and a scum bag.  But it's not about Hillary anymore.  (And it's not about Obama either, for those tempted to draw comparisons to his foreign policy blunders).  It's about Trump.  And the things he's said, both during the campaign and now as President, have serious implications for people in the military.  I understand the hatred and distrust towards Hillary and the left-wing, but it seems like that hatred has morphed into blind allegiance to a guy who has, and continues to say really shortsighted, naïve, conflicting, crazy, dangerous shit.

War has always been about money.

[Jaded]

5 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Stuff.

Really well said. I have trouble converting my feelings on some of this into words, and this post communicates my unease very well. Any recommended reading on this subject? Non-partisan analysis is challenging to find.

[pawnman]

It seems like a lot of people already think we went to war in Irag and Afghanistan for oil (even though Afghanistan doesn't even have appreciable amounts of oil).  I wouldn't be for taking over all their oil wholesale...but I would be for some agreements that actually benefit us, like forcing Iraq to pay for all the equipment they keep turning over to ISIL.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Valid.  But again, he vowed to completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.  Unfortunately, that means a hell of a lot more people, in a hell of a lot more places, than ISIL.  As you know, there are many other formidable terrorists networks, both Sunni and Shi'a, throughout the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia, and the subcontinent.  

Thus, it's a patently idiotic and dishonest statement.  We're not going to completely eradicate anything, and he knows it.  And you should know it too.  It's tough-guy rhetoric and bluster that sells well to his base.  And yet it could really shape our national security landscape for many years to come.

Additionally, Spicer and Tillerson have just commented that US forces will defend islands in the SCS and block China's access to the Spratly and Paracels via massive naval blockades.  Awesome.  That should work out well for us.  From an article on the subject: "The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."

And wait, there's more.  Trump continues to mention "taking the oil" from Iraq.  Absolutely absurd, and in addition to being logistically impossible and entirely immoral, it's a proposal that I'm hoping everyone here understands is illegal.  It's against US and international law, and it would establish the worst possible precedent - that the global leader goes to war for economic gain.  Do you guys want to live in a world where it's cool for countries to wage war for financial profit?  Where one country recognizes value in the resources of another and goes to war to steal them?  I don't.  In fact, I seem to recall us going to war in 1991 for exactly that purpose - to stop a large country with a powerful military from stealing the oil from a smaller country.

Dude I'm the first to admit that Hillary is a corrupt liar and a scum bag.  But it's not about Hillary anymore.  (And it's not about Obama either, for those tempted to draw comparisons to his foreign policy blunders).  It's about Trump.  And the things he's said, both during the campaign and now as President, have serious implications for people in the military.  I understand the hatred and distrust towards Hillary and the left-wing, but it seems like that hatred has morphed into blind allegiance to a guy who has, and continues to say really shortsighted, naïve, conflicting, crazy, dangerous shit.

This is how I feel about our present situation ^! I admire this site for what it does for years, in terms of the clarity of a situation members are able to express ever one in awhile without the he said/she said noise. Had to join to say, Dude thanks, spot on x100!

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, Jaded said:

Really well said. I have trouble converting my feelings on some of this into words, and this post communicates my unease very well. Any recommended reading on this subject? Non-partisan analysis is challenging to find.

Brookings is always a good source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/01/23/seven-trump-foreign-policy-assumptions/

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, Jaded said:

Really well said. I have trouble converting my feelings on some of this into words, and this post communicates my unease very well. Any recommended reading on this subject? Non-partisan analysis is challenging to find.

The Atlantic has some excellent in depth reporting. It does tend to lean left at times, but what gets reported is usually spot on. They most definitely plan to hold this administration's feet to the fire. The Economist is usually also balanced, good reading. For newspapers, I like the Wash. Post, and before I get flamed, I like the WSJ for a conservative counterpoint. 

[Sprkt69]

10 hours ago, Prozac said:

The Atlantic has some excellent in depth reporting. It does tend to lean left at times, but what gets reported is usually spot on. They most definitely plan to hold this administration's feet to the fire. The Economist is usually also balanced, good reading. For newspapers, I like the Wash. Post, and before I get flamed, I like the WSJ for a conservative counterpoint. 

The Economist used to be balanced. It most definitely is not anymore.

[Lord Ratner]

BL: Heavy lies the crown.  We can take the crown off, and it might feel like a relief at first, but I'm not sure you'll like the long-term results.
 

The EU nations in NATO are taking advantage of our generosity, and have been for years. They aren't Haiti, or some other natural disaster-ravaged nation. Granted, many of the Americans who are OK with Europe having a pathetic military wish that we would follow suit, but as long as we are paying for them, we should expect a contribution proportional to their economic size.

[Jaded]

8 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

The Economist used to be balanced. It most definitely is not anymore.

Balanced? What does that mean? Equal space for facts and "alternate facts"? 

[pawnman]

21 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Listen to Gen Mattis speak about why nations go to war.  Reciting widely accepted IR/FP theories, of which he is well versed, he lists Fear, Honor, and Interest.  Yes, sometimes when really shitty, dishonorable groups of people go to war, their 'interest' is in part defined by financial gain or benefit.  But when that happens, it should be condemned.  Strongly and unequivocally.  Instead, Trump is explicitly advocating for America to engage in pillaging.  Not sure how this is a grey area for anyone -- I checked, and pillaging is not found in any part of our just-war tradition.

Trump has a fundamental vision about our character and our role in the world that's radically different than previous Presidents.  It wholly rejects the stake we have in defending the liberally-oriented order we've led for the last 70 years.  From an article yesterday about Trump's "America First" inaugural speech: "Trump’s America need not heed the opinions or promote the freedom and wellbeing of others around the world. In his accounting, the country has no mission beyond the pursuit of its own naked, narrowly defined, and misconstrued self-interest."

"America First" sounds awesome to many Americans.  Great.  Who doesn't like to rally around Old Glory and chant 'Mur'cah(!)?  Just realize that to everyone else in the world, "America First" sounds a lot like "Fvck you guys, you're on your own now."  And to China, Russia, and the EU, it sounds a lot like "hey guys, the leader-of-the-free-world position is now vacant......any takers?" 

American global strategy since WWII has been based on the idea that the US can do best for itself by helping others succeed. i.e. cooperate to graduate.  "Trump, by contrast, depicted a zero-sum world in which gains for any other nation — friend or foe — automatically represent a loss for the United States. His agenda, therefore, is designed to immiserate our neighbors and partners. In the end, history and basic economic theory tell us, it will immiserate us, as well."

This is what I find troubling about Trump's instinctive desire for financial compensation, which your comment echoes.  Yes, we pay disproportionately into NATO and the UN, and in many state, defense, and intelligence operations.  We do lots of humanitarian aid and disaster relief.  We pay a lot for economic development.  We're tied up in places all over the world, providing training, security, assistance, etc.  Is it "fair?"  Financially speaking, no.  But there is value in our influence and leadership in the world that goes far beyond cold hard cash. 

BL: Heavy lies the crown.  We can take the crown off, and it might feel like a relief at first, but I'm not sure you'll like the long-term results.

 

You may be right, but I'd question how well our policy of supporting democracy and freedom around the world has really gone so far.  We ended up in Korea to a stalemate, and we're still there.  We pulled out of Vietnam with our tail between our legs.  Iraq hasn't exactly blossomed into a stable democracy after three tries at it.  Afghanistan is still as corrupt and ungovernable as ever.  Libya had a dictator willing to give up his WMDs and work with the US to repair ties...a few tweets later, we're bombing his administration, giving Iran a close look at why they should NOT abandon their own nuclear weapon research.  Egypt was a strong ally of the US for years, but again, a few tweets, some action-packed protest video, and we pushed their leadership under the bus in favor of an overtly hostile political group.  There have not been many times where our direct intervention has actually helped.  So maybe, just maybe, instead of responding to every crisis in the world with a "we can fix this, we're a super-power", we should weigh our options and think hard about what we're going to get out of our involvement first.

[Sprkt69]

6 hours ago, Jaded said:

Balanced? What does that mean? Equal space for facts and "alternate facts"? 

You tell us, you are the one that used the term first. 

[daynightindicator]

People shouldn't forget the guy has lived his entire life as a businessman and understand what that means. When I left active duty, I had no idea how little the military taught me about the importance of bargaining, negotiation, and compromises. Being a near to some of the details of airline contract negotiations recently was a fascinating experience. The psychological tactics, threats, fear, and brinksmanship required to make a deal as close as possible to where you want to be is something I don't think I would have ever been able to develop an appreciation for in the military.
It just seems obvious to me that in these first few days, his strategy is beginning with a negotiating position for every issue that is off the charts compared with previous political positions. He's essentially daring people to challenge him with leveraged counterproposals and no one is. If he seems to be some sort of "America First" ideological maniac, he's faking it for "The Art of the Deal." When he says he's going to completely annihilate Islamic terrorism instead of create partnerships of peace with Islamic nations, I'm betting he knows that it's impossible to deploy our military to every hot spot around the globe, but he did immediately lower the expectations of what someone with radical leanings can expect to achieve, essentially moving the ball down the field. The same goes Mexico, NATO, EPA, etc. Instead of intelligently responding with counterproposals, he's allowed to continue wheelin and dealin on his own terms, while the media and everyone taking an adversarial position is rocked, on the defense, emotional, and fearful. I'm not saying I agree with, or even know what the hell he's doing, but I find how he's doing it fascinating as hell.
 
 
 
 
 

I don't doubt that he views the issues from that perspective. The problem is, these issues are not all "business deals." They are, in some cases, life and death decisions that affect millions.

In business, you have two (or more) rational actors with an easily discernible goal (improve bottom line/increase stockholder ROI). Geopolitics doesn't work that way. Motives and intent are extremely difficult to discern. Cultural characteristics and differences affect how other parties respond to negotiations. You can't use the same tactics for every problem set. The President is our chief statesman, and it's worrisome that so far, all sense of tact and nuance seem to have left the building.

The dismissal/resignation/whatever of the four top DOS officials today is not a good sign.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Blue]

1 hour ago, daynightindicator said:

In business, you have two (or more) rational actors with an easily discernible goal (improve bottom line/increase stockholder ROI). 

 

 

Done a lot of business over the years, with a lot of different people.  Rarely is everyone rational, with "easily discernible goals"............

Edited January 27, 2017 by Blue

[Lord Ratner]

In business, you have two (or more) rational actors with an easily discernible goal (improve bottom line/increase stockholder ROI).

This sentence makes it seem as though you've never been involved in a business negotiation.

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

This is why I didn’t answer the initial question about “non-partisan” sources.  I don’t think the concept exists anymore.  Either the sources are partisan, or they are interpreted as partisan.  Many of Trump’s foreign policies are objectively incoherent, contradictory, unconventional (to put it mildly), or illegal.  But we’ve got to the point as a society that even true objective journalism is rejected anytime it incorporates criticism. 

Case in point, the Economist is constantly critical of Trump proposals.  Either Trump’s policies are in fact worthy of criticism, or the Economist has simply become part of the “liberal media.”  Trump supporters instinctively assume the latter.  (For the record, the exact same is true of the left, the blame is just concentrated elsewhere.  Criticisms of Obama, for example, are either because Obama did things worthy of criticism, or because everyone is a racist [or sexist, xenophobic, etc].  Democrats instinctively assume the latter.)

Agreed.  It’s jacked up.  They’re supposed to contribute 2% of GDP to defense and 23 of 28 countries don’t.  This is exactly where we need global leadership and strong commitment to historic alliances.  Trump should absolutely pressure them to get to 2%, BUT....instead, he’s responded by saying NATO is “obsolete” and suggesting that we might just pack up our shit and leave.  This is where experts in foreign policy and security get confused and frustrated. 

If the leader of your club, who was vital to its very existence, wanted you to pay your annual dues but simultaneously said he wasn’t sure he wanted to be in the club anymore, how eager would you be to pay up?

Lots of viewpoints get idealized when you use hindsight.  Knowing the outcome, anyone can point out flaws in the original plan.  It doesn’t mean we were wrong when these campaigns began, although some of the examples you listed were controversial and disputed from the beginning. 

I don’t really understand your expectations.  Korea resulted in a stalemate, but are you saying we shouldn’t have gotten involved at all?  Just let the North unify the peninsula under Communism?  It’s not an ideal situation now, but at least we have a major ally in the region with shared values and a skyrocketing economy.  Same question for Iraq.  Desert Storm was the most successful campaign in US military history.  We didn’t take out Saddam, for a litany of reasons, but should we have just minded our P’s & Q’s and watched Iraq annex Kuwait?  Were you against us going into Afghanistan after 9/11?  --I don’t think many people anticipated us still being there 16 years later. 

On the issue of hawkish versus isolationist foreign policy, the problem is that no one can tell where Trump will fall on the scale.  He talks at length about “America First,” the slogan of the interwar period isolationist movement, says we shouldn’t meddle in other countries, and says globalism is a farce.  Other times, he threatens to block the Chinese in the SCS, says he will annihilate ISIS (and all terrorists world-wide), moves to reinstate torture, says he will tear up the Iran deal, and vows to expand the military massively.  Which is it?  No one knows.  Personally, I don’t think even Trump knows.  ......Buckle up for one hell of a ride.

Lastly, what does “weighing our options” and “thinking hard about what we’re going to get out of our involvement” mean, exactly?  You don’t think previous administrations did those things?  More importantly, is that what you see going on when you watch Trump throw twitter tantrums on a daily basis?  You think Trump, known for his vindictiveness, impetuousness, sensitivity to slight, and inexperience, is “weighing our options” or “thinking hard?”  The guy tweeted about expanding our nuclear arsenal, and when questioned about it possibly leading to an arms race with Russia, said "let it be an arms race."  ....What the actual fvck?  He later responded to North Korean threats of developing nuclear-capable ICBMs by......wait for it......yup, taunting them with tweets.     

I get that there’s anger towards many of the foreign policy decisions made under the Obama administration, and that some people are using the logic that things can’t possibly get worse than they were under Obama.  I’m here to tell you they can get worse.  A lot worse.  I'm the first to give Trump a golf-clap for retaining jobs in the US, bringing down the cost of the F-35, and shit-canning TPP.  But I'm telling you, as military professionals, this guy has a lot of crazy ideas that could fvck your world up. 

I think we should have caged our expectations to reality.  Desert Storm was such a success because we did just that.  The campaign was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.  We removed Iraq from Kuwait, crippled their ability to try it again, and we went home.  We could have done something similar in Afghanistan...attack the Taliban's strongholds, destroy as much of their capacity to inflict fear on their neighbors, and walk away.  Instead, we're on our second decade of trying to build a nation where one has never really existed in a form we're familiar with.  Same with Iraq take-two...we invaded the country, dismantled every part of the functional government, then we were caught off-guard when we had a hard time building a democratic government from scratch.

My point isn't that we should never get involved.  It's that we should take a cold, hard look at whether that involvement is in our own interests, rather than the pursuit of some noble and unattainable ideal of "liberty" or "justice".  When we get involved, we should do so on the smallest scale possible.  At our current rate of progress, we'll be in Afghanistan into the 2050s, and that's probably being optimistic.  

In short, we need a more pragmatic approach to our foreign policy.  Saddam was a terrible person, but because he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, he kept groups like ISIS from emerging.  Qaddaffi was a long time antagonist of the US, but he was willing to work with us on getting rid of WMDs.  Now Libya is just a giant, messy civil war (much like Syria)...perhaps the US needs to recognize that foreign dictators don't have to be good people to be useful to US interests.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I think we should have caged our expectations to reality.  Desert Storm was such a success because we did just that.  The campaign was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.  We removed Iraq from Kuwait, crippled their ability to try it again, and we went home.  We could have done something similar in Afghanistan...attack the Taliban's strongholds, destroy as much of their capacity to inflict fear on their neighbors, and walk away.  Instead, we're on our second decade of trying to build a nation where one has never really existed in a form we're familiar with.  Same with Iraq take-two...we invaded the country, dismantled every part of the functional government, then we were caught off-guard when we had a hard time building a democratic government from scratch.

My point isn't that we should never get involved.  It's that we should take a cold, hard look at whether that involvement is in our own interests, rather than the pursuit of some noble and unattainable ideal of "liberty" or "justice".  When we get involved, we should do so on the smallest scale possible.  At our current rate of progress, we'll be in Afghanistan into the 2050s, and that's probably being optimistic.  

In short, we need a more pragmatic approach to our foreign policy.  Saddam was a terrible person, but because he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, he kept groups like ISIS from emerging.  Qaddaffi was a long time antagonist of the US, but he was willing to work with us on getting rid of WMDs.  Now Libya is just a giant, messy civil war (much like Syria)...perhaps the US needs to recognize that foreign dictators don't have to be good people to be useful to US interests.

I think you make some good points but you are off in your assessment that it should no longer fall on the United States to promote freedom around the world. Yes, the last two decades of open ended conflict has been ill conceived and is unsustainable. However, there are avenues other than military force to promote our values worldwide. When we do use force, it has to be with a well defined endgame and we must resist the temptation to expand on the goals of the original mission. None of this means that we should back away from a preeminent role in world affairs. Quite the contrary. China and Russia are licking their chops right now. There was news recently that the two countries have been holding high level meetings. What do you suppose they are discussing? This is their Yalta moment. They are planning what they'd like the post Pax Americana world to look like. My fear is that we have been slowly compromising our position in the world since shortly after the wall fell. Rather than reversing that trend, Trump looks to be accelerating it. To those who say our strategy has been less than successful in the post war world I have a question: Do you think major global conflict (probably nuclear) would have been more likely or less likely in the last 70 years without American leadership?

[pawnman]

2 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think you make some good points but you are off in your assessment that it should no longer fall on the United States to promote freedom around the world. Yes, the last two decades of open ended conflict has been ill conceived and is unsustainable. However, there are avenues other than military force to promote our values worldwide. When we do use force, it has to be with a well defined endgame and we must resist the temptation to expand on the goals of the original mission. None of this means that we should back away from a preeminent role in world affairs. Quite the contrary. China and Russia are licking their chops right now. There was news recently that the two countries have been holding high level meetings. What do you suppose they are discussing? This is their Yalta moment. They are planning what they'd like the post Pax Americana world to look like. My fear is that we have been slowly compromising our position in the world since shortly after the wall fell. Rather than reversing that trend, Trump looks to be accelerating it. To those who say our strategy has been less than successful in the post war world I have a question: Do you think major global conflict (probably nuclear) would have been more likely or less likely in the last 70 years without American leadership?

I'm all for using our influence culturally, diplomatically, and economically to promote freedom around the world.  This idea that we're going to invade third-world hell-holes and shape them into industrialized Western democracies has got to stop, though.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

Finally got around to watching this. Good share, it's incredibly relevant to today.

Yup, it's really a good movie, particularly Shatner's speech at the 45 minute mark.  

A pretty good explanation on how we rationalize tolerating the injustices we encounter in systems where people misuse their power. 

 

[sqwatch]

Does not address my need to have my zipper half way down to my crotch but it is a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUSEPLUG]

Thankfully the 3-stars are all over the important shit going on in today's Air Force.

Meanwhile at the squadron level... the experienced guys/gals are racing out the door so fast it makes your head spin.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, GENERAL NOWLAND!

[pawnman]

35 minutes ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Thankfully the 3-stars are all over the important shit going on in today's Air Force.

Meanwhile at the squadron level... the experienced guys/gals are racing out the door so fast it makes your head spin.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, GENERAL NOWLAND!

Dude, it's a step in the right direction.  I'll take it.  It won't solve all the problems, but it's a damned easy kill and serves to boost the morale a little bit, so let's take it in the spirit in which it was intended and build on this victory to try to get our morale patches back.

[sqwatch]

Dude, it's a step in the right direction.  I'll take it.  It won't solve all the problems, but it's a damned easy kill and serves to boost the morale a little bit, so let's take it in the spirit in which it was intended and build on this victory to try to get our morale patches back.

Exactly. Being angry at those trying to affect positive change fuels the liquids of the AF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homestar]

Is this real life?