panchbarnes Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Lots of gems in this article. Unfortunately, the AF leadership problems are not unique. I still hold our senior AF folks accountable for the recent issues, but the problems and the culture didn't develop overnight. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/alcohol-isnt-the-secret-services-problem-lousy-leadership-is/2014/03/28/6cc1b48c-b5be-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop Dan Emmett, a former Marine Corps captain, retired Secret Service agent and former CIA intelligence officer, is the author of “Within Arm’s Length: A Secret Service Agent’s Definitive Inside Account of Protecting the President,” forthcoming in June. Sound familiar? The problem in the agency is not alcohol or debauchery, but weak leadership. There are too many incompetent managers who want the title, pay and perks of management while performing no duties of leadership. The problem is not bad Secret Service agents but bad leaders of Secret Service agents The Secret Service may not admit it, but its promotion system is primarily designed to move the best-liked people, not necessarily the best-qualified, into managerial positions. The Secret Service of today is awash in managers, not leaders. Many supervisors have little tangible or leadership experience, yet they are designated as managers on the basis of their titles and long lists of schools attended. The tragedy of this horrid and ineffective system is that many highly qualified agents who would be superb leaders are passed over for promotion; they are not in “the club.” The result is evident in today’s embarrassing headlines. And finally, Col Stanley this is for you. The best leaders willingly take responsibility for the actions of their people. When I was a 23-year-old second lieutenant with the 1st Marine Division, my first company commander informed me that he would hold me responsible for everything my men did or failed to do. His hard lesson: It is the commander who bears the ultimate responsibility for subordinates’ actions. This lesson seems to be unique to the military, though it should apply non-uniformed government workers, too. If high-ranking officials were terminated or disciplined for the infractions of their wayward subordinates, rather than the wrongdoers themselves receiving all the punishment, perhaps there would be fewer incidents such as the ones haunting the Secret Service of late. Edited March 30, 2014 by PanchBarnes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skitzo Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 http://www.af.mil/mobile/News/tabid/252/Article/475142/sesame-street-friends-help-military-children-move.aspx Did someone just reference 6 to 9 with regard to children? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlboro BLACK Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Ain't nothin' wrong with that. As stupid as I think this duckfacing (whatever the f*ck) thing is, I give the dude props for the atmosphere he's appeared to have created in that office. Being able to hang loose with the boss (and vice versa) is pretty damn far from what's wrong with the AF. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KState_Poke22 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 http://www.af.mil/mobile/News/tabid/252/Article/475142/sesame-street-friends-help-military-children-move.aspx Did someone just reference 6 to 9 with regard to children? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Some writer didn't listen at their last SAPR training. Don't they know sexual references (intentional or not) lead directly to sexual assault within months or weeks or even days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnkr Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Ain't nothin' wrong with that. As stupid as I think this duckfacing (whatever the f*ck) thing is, I give the dude props for the atmosphere he's appeared to have created in that office. Being able to hang loose with the boss (and vice versa) is pretty damn far from what's wrong with the AF. Part of me wants to agree with you but all I can think about is how embarrassing that pic will be to welsh when it reaches his fb page, cuz you know that's going on the fb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Part of me wants to agree with you but all I can think about is how embarrassing that pic will be to welsh when it reaches his fb page, cuz you know that's going on the fb. Surely you aren't talking about the same General Welsh that gave a speech wearing a Captain America mask? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleRattle Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Surely you aren't talking about the same General Welsh that gave a speech wearing a Captain America mask? Not Captain America; Captain Airpower! Edited March 31, 2014 by BattleRattle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnkr Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I stand corrected. Where once we were led by men feared but dignified, now we are led by men that want to e our fb friends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComingLeft Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I stand corrected. Where once we were led by men feared but dignified, now we are led by men that want to e our fb friends. Look at the people in the picture. Which of these hypothetical leaders will receive candid feedback or be given the benefit of the doubt when a policy misses its mark. Leader-subordinate relations are powerful. We new that after the World Wars in which a soldier's relationship with their First Sergeant was the best predictor of survival. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raimius Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I stand corrected. Where once we were led by men feared but dignified, now we are led by men that want to e our fb friends. Who would you rather follow into combat, the one who is dignified and would never stoop to looking goofy on the internet, or the one who knows their people and isn't afraid to occasionally look a little foolish for them? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HercDude Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The duck-facing Col is a former C-130 Sq/CC and later the OG/CC at Ali Al Salem. Trust me, he is not what is wrong with the Air Force. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The duck-facing Col is a former C-130 Sq/CC and later the OG/CC at Ali Al Salem. Trust me, he is not what is wrong with the Air Force. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Now this... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/air-force-removes-bible-from-pow-mia-display/ Mark my words, it is only a matter of time before the Code of Conduct will be changed (specifically Article VI) WTF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Now this...http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/air-force-removes-bible-from-pow-mia-display/ Mark my words, it is only a matter of time before the Code of Conduct will be changed (specifically Article VI) WTF... I don't remember a Bible ever being part of the Missing Man table. Stolen from Wikipedia: Table: set for one, is small, symbolizing the frailty of one isolated prisoner. The table is usually in the range of the entrance to the dining room. For large events of the Missing Man Table is set for six places: members of the five armed services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard) and a sixth place setting reminiscent of the civilians who died during service alongside the armed forces or missing during armed conflict.[8] Table is round to represent everlasting concern on the part of the survivors for their missing loved ones.[9]Tablecloth is white, symbolic of the purity of their intentions to respond to their country’s call to arms.[10] Single red rose in the vase, signifies the blood that many have shed in sacrifice to ensure the freedom of our beloved United States of America. This rose also reminds us of the family and friends of our missing comrades who keep the faith, while awaiting their return.[11] Yellow ribbon on the vase represents the yellow ribbons worn on the lapels of the thousands who demand with unyielding determination a proper accounting of our comrades who are not among us tonight.[12] Slice of lemon on the plate: represents the bitter fate of the missing.[13] Salt sprinkled on the plate: symbolic of the countless fallen tears of families as they wait.[14] Inverted glass: represents the fact that the missing and fallen cannot partake. Empty chair: the missing and fallen aren't present.[15] Candle: reminiscent of the light of hope which lives in our hearts to illuminate their way home, away from their captors, to the open arms of a grateful nation 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Stacker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Now this...http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/air-force-removes-bible-from-pow-mia-display/ Mark my words, it is only a matter of time before the Code of Conduct will be changed (specifically Article VI) WTF... I can keep faith without being a Christian, and Article VI is pretty specific about it being MY god, whatever I determine that to be, not a specific religion. And like StoleIt pointed out, I've never seen a Bible as a part of the Table. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negatory Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Numerous PDF scripts for non-official POW/MIA ceremonies reference the bible, but it seems it was thrown in more as an afterthought than an actual part of the ceremony. The only official doc I found had no mention of a bible.http://www.62aw.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120524-091.pdf The most annoying thing about the Fox News article, though, was that they incorrectly argue that the first amendment's freedom of speech allows those that are pro-religion to force official military events to continue with religious nuances or have religious undertones. I don't know about you, but I always feel a little bit weird when at a commander's call or an awards ceremony or any other random event, the commander or chaplain starts praying, sometimes even prefacing it with something like, "If you like, join us." I can always look up and see that, while there are plenty of guys going along with it, plenty of truly Christian people in the Air Force, there are also a good 1/4 to 1/3 of the people there wondering "WTF is going on?" Forcing religion directly into the mainstream military culture is not something that the AF should be doing or caring about whatsoever. The point of religion is to help bolster someones personal spiritual life. Edited April 1, 2014 by brawnie 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachAT802 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Never seen a bible on the POW/MIA table in 30+ years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I remember as a lieutenant being "invited" to watch this video where multiple O-5s talked about how they would tend to trust a religious officer more, and how they would try to provide more opportunities for advancement to religious officers. The whole thing creeped me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addict Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I remember as a lieutenant being "invited" to watch this video where multiple O-5s talked about how they would tend to trust a religious officer more, and how they would try to provide more opportunities for advancement to religious officers. The whole thing creeped me out. like this one? http://youtu.be/BLhpoRP8VkE?t=3m14s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Forcing religion directly into the mainstream military culture is not something that the AF should be doing or caring about whatsoever. The point of religion is to help bolster someones personal spiritual life. I'm cool with one's personal religion/philosophy being discussed at personal events...like a promotion ceremony or a retirement. But that's about it. I agree on it being weird (and I'm a Christian) that people are invited to pray at an official ceremony that is inclusive (awards dinner, change of command). Didn't they also recently take out the 'So help me God' portion of the oath if the member chose not to say it? (I'm too lazy to look it up)...either way, I'm cool with that too. Here's a question for debate: Guest speaker at an awards ceremony, class graduation, etc--should the invited speaker be able to mention his/her personal faith? For example, if they say "Back when I was at X school and struggling, I was able to find that praying Y prayer helped me remain calm and focused..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guineapigfury Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I remember "So help me God" being optional when I commissioned in 2006. You also have the option of using "affirm" instead of "swear" at the start of the oath. So 4 possible permutations of the oath of office. Everyone should be able to find one that works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seriously Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 It's always seemed odd to me as well that religious prayers are routinely given at official functions under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If you don't think it's weird, try to imagine a change of command with a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish invocation. I could see that not going over too well. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Because the constitution was written by Christians, that included the words freedom from religion....oh wait, they didn't include that. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) If you don't think it's weird, try to imagine a change of command with a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish invocation. I could see that not going over too well. I'm no theologian (though I did stay in a Holiday-Inn Express last night), but 2 out of the 4 religions you mentioned are montheistic, and one of the other two does have only one 'Supreme God'. So when I hear a chaplain say 'God' does that mean they are automatically only referring to the God that Christians worship? Or is it just implied based off the faith of the Chaplain (which is usually Christian)? In all my years in the military, I don't specifically recall ever hearing the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in a military prayer (I'm sure it has happened, but if I can't remember it then it must not happen too often). To be fair though, I do hear Chaplains say 'Father' in their prayers, but Christians aren't the only ones worshipping a single God that use this term. So is your concern only with Christian Chaplains invoking a prayer before an official event...or is it with any Chaplain, regardless of religion, saying a prayer? I have already agreed that I don't think Chaplain duty should be used at these events, so I'm not disagreeing with the overall point people are making. Just to stir the pot even more, I think promoting 'X' heritage/history month also promotes inequality in the force, but I seriously doubt those are going away anytime soon. Edited because I can't properly count, and I'm just an overall idiot. Edited April 2, 2014 by HeloDude 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 In all my years in the military, I don't specifically recall ever hearing the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in a military prayer (I'm sure it has happened, but if I can't remember it then it must not happen too often). I've heard it plenty of times and even as a Christian it grates. It's wrong. If not that then some variation of "Your Son" thrown in for enough supposed ambiguity. I like chaplains and think they provide a vital service to the Amn that choose to use them. But that blatant support for a single religion/belief-system is going to turn off a lot of the younger folks that don't buy in and now won't use any of the non-missionary services they offer. People at my location are now filing complaints that the Chapel is using official email to send out notifications of services they offer (marriage counseling, couples retreats, etc), which is lame. They're really the only org on base that's just there to assist in any way possible without (for the ok to good Chap's) any agenda. Just had a thought that the only time I've seen a Chaplain throw out the JC/Son thing is when there was a CC that liked crossing that line as well. Guess I shouldn't be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now