Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

After Bastion people suddenly remembered this was a war and actions like the brigade at KAF put the pathfinders on the line in the dark because we had no idea if we were next. T walls instead of a cheap unguarded chain link fence. Crew chiefs were launching aircraft strapped, because of anything is more vulnerable than a parked aircraft it’s a parked aircraft with an APU and engines running. Really it was a wake up call to stop pretending just because you could go to the boardwalk and get ice cream you weren’t in a war zone.

I don't understand how any one can consider a "conflict" like Afghanistan a "War" zone.  Yes stuff is exploding, people are dying, but I'm sorry when you've been at it this long it can't be considered a War any more.  It's like the 3 star making a plea to a auditorium full of pilots that are approaching their ADSC to please stay in because we are needed to keep releasing bombs, support the war etc etc.  I'm sorry but when I've been deploying to that conflict for my entire 12 years in, when that conflict was already 6 years old the whole point becomes lost. 

This isn't an excuse for people to get complacent, because that can easily mean you are risking others and your own lives while out there. But calling this long term live action shooting range a "War" gives it too much credit.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

I don't understand how any one can consider a "conflict" like Afghanistan a "War" zone.  Yes stuff is exploding, people are dying, but I'm sorry when you've been at it this long it can't be considered a War any more.....

This isn't an excuse for people to get complacent, because that can easily mean you are risking others and your own lives while out there. But calling this long term live action shooting range a "War" gives it too much credit.    

Afghanistan is definitely a war.  What is the timeline when a war becomes a conflict in your mind?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, uhhello said:

Loved flying over that house directly on the fence every day and picturing a dude stepping out with an RPG and making things interesting

Was always interesting driving around to other side of base through sniper alley with that house right there as well. There were a bunch of locals (I think, they had afghan style clothing) contracted to remove the old Russian mines that were within a rocks throw from the fence. For 4 months I was always on high alert, no one else in the crew can ever seemed to care but it had the makings of a great attack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MooseClub said:

In my mind you try to win a war.  There is no timeline.  

When all you’re doing is maintaining the status quo...I’m not sure what the hell you call that. 

Moose does a much better job of explaining my lack of respect for what we are doing in that region of the world.  Give me a clear obtainable objective and maybe I'd agree its a war.  But we are just spending blood, and treasure for nothing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MooseClub said:

In my mind you try to win a war.  There is no timeline.  

When all you’re doing is maintaining the status quo...I’m not sure what the hell you call that. 

Fair enough.  I won’t quibble with semantics, and I concur with the frustration.  I still think AFG is a war; using your definition: one side is trying to win.  And succeeding.  It’s just not our side.  To me that doesn’t make this “not war” it makes us dumb.

We seem to think WW2, which was historically anomalous, is the standard “war” and drawn out, ambiguous, sporadic fighting is abnormal and unworthy of study.  But it’s all war.  We’re just bad at it.  Not trying to put words in your mouth, that spear is aimed at USAF PME.

And I don’t blame politicians, I blame our generals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

 

And I don’t blame politicians, I blame our generals.

The military objective was to dismantle AQ in Afghanistan and deny the opportunity to use Afghanistan as a safehaven for attack planning against the homeland. We won the war in a few months.

The problem is when politicians decided that democracy and a strong central government was important in Afghanistan. That is not an objective that can be achieved with warfare alone. Any general that thinks that is a reasonable objective is more politician than military leader.

 

Edited by one1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, one1 said:

The military objective was to dismantle AQ in Afghanistan and deny the opportunity to use Afghanistan as a safehaven for attack planning against the homeland. We won the war in a few months.

The problem is when politicians decided that democracy and a strong central government was important in Afghanistan. That is not an objective that can be achieved with warfare alone. Any general that thinks that is a reasonable objective is more politician than military leader.

 

This.

And this is very much a war to the other side. You can't consider it "not a war" just because the enemy doesn't play to your strengths. They are most definitely using violence to achieve political objectives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

As long as the American public allows themselves to believe that the current conflicts cost them nothing more than an occasional “thank you for your service”, nothing will change. 

^exactly

Stuff in the Middle East couldn’t be further from the minds of typical Americans. My assumption is most politicians (and honestly prob many generals) are more than happy to keep their “wars” by in large out of the public eye. Status quo and keeping the machine rolling is much easier that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, one1 said:

The military objective was to dismantle AQ in Afghanistan and deny the opportunity to use Afghanistan as a safehaven for attack planning against the homeland. We won the war in a few months.

The problem is when politicians decided that democracy and a strong central government was important in Afghanistan. That is not an objective that can be achieved with warfare alone. Any general that thinks that is a reasonable objective is more politician than military leader.

 

This is where the military worship throughout the nation has unintended consequences. We should’ve gone hard with the diplomatic solution over a decade ago and doing the FID type missions to augment it*.

The government doesn’t want to ever just tell DoD “no”. Problem is that the military is a hammer but we need to paint a portrait. You can use a hammer to construct the picture frame, but at some point you need to use a brush.

*If you want to kill your way out of it, commit to that. I personally don’t think that’ll work but have a clear end state and put resources towards achieving it.

An interesting book on the subject is “War on Peace” by Ronan Farrow. The book worships diplomacy a bit too much in my opinion, but it’s very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought today...
 

Accurate. In my career I’ve had two great Sq/CCs and four who’ve ranged from piss poor to adequate. I’ve always laughed whenever a Lt has told me “we have a great commander!” Never listen to an Lts recommendation on CCs, beer, cars or Strip Clubs (or anything else for that matter).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth a read for those who weren't around 20+ years ago...

Quote

 

Criticism Over Blast Leads Top Air Force General to Retire

The top general of the Air Force said today that he would retire early, in part because he believed one or more Air Force officers would unfairly be held responsible for the terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 airmen last year, lawmakers and Pentagon officials said.

The officer, Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, said he would step down by Sept. 1, a year before his four-year term expires. General Fogleman, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since 1994, would become the first Air Force Chief of Staff to leave voluntarily before his tenure was up.

General Fogleman, 56, a highly decorated Vietnam-era fighter pilot, has told associates in recent weeks that he would leave if Defense Secretary William S. Cohen punished Air Force commanders for failing to prevent the bombing, at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dhahran.

In a statement issued today, General Fogleman said his decision was intended to ''defuse the perceived confrontation between myself and Secretary Cohen.'' The general added, ''my values and sense of loyalty to the troops led me to the conclusion that I may be out of step.''

(Rest of article at title link)

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

You an wear your leather jacket if you wear blues.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Good point! You are the freaking man! I didn't think of that at all. This is why I love this forum. That will definitely get underneath the GP/CC skin. Maybe he will come at me just like a spider monkey.

Edited by HarleyQuinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Good point! You are the freaking man! I didn't think of that at all. This is why I love this forum. That will definitely get underneath the GP/CC skin. Maybe he will come at me just like a spider monkey.

Blues, leather jacket, wheel cap.  Go old school.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...