What's wrong with the Air Force?

[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.

[Liquid]

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".

I won't disagree with you that careerism is a problem or that there may be senior leaders who are risk adverse to the point of hurting the mission. I think some may be reluctant to informally interact in these forums because of the anonymity and the risk of having written words used in an unfair and malicious way against you. It is not cowardice to protect against those who wish you harm. There are plenty of people in the media, politics and even the AF who would love to take out a senior leader or officer for what they said. The widespread use of audio and video recording has also limited some behavior. It is very easy to have a chopped picture of a senior leader doing tequila shots with a female Lt be destructive. Right or wrong, perceptions matter, and the perception of unprofessional or illegal behavior is unacceptable for officers, especially senior leaders. Don't discount the dangers of being in offensive and mean spirited conversations and environments. This forum turns nasty at times.

Don't confuse risk decisions with cowardice. Identifying unnecessary hazards, mitigating their impact, assessing the probability and severity, then making an informed decision that weighs cost and benefits is something we do every day, in the aircraft and on the ground. Although it may be very effective for a senior leader to attend a Capt's party, where booze, sex and frat boy behaviors are rampant, the risk is too high and difficult to mitigate to accept. The benefit does not outweigh the cost. Extreme example, but the point is, senior leaders are easier targets than Capts because there are more people who would like to take them out to make a point. Like I said, a good defense is needed to enable a good offense. Fools don't identify or mitigate risk. Warriors accept risk when necessary, but also mitigate and change the environment to their advantage to defeat the enemy. Just as you would not commit career suicide by getting a DUI or sexually assaulting someone, others won't behave recklessly to risk their careers. The question is, how do you engage better. You bring up some great points on how to do this.

[pawnman]

I won't disagree with you that careerism is a problem or that there may be senior leaders who are risk adverse to the point of hurting the mission. I think some may be reluctant to informally interact in these forums because of the anonymity and the risk of having written words used in an unfair and malicious way against you. It is not cowardice to protect against those who wish you harm. There are plenty of people in the media, politics and even the AF who would love to take out a senior leader or officer for what they said. The widespread use of audio and video recording has also limited some behavior. It is very easy to have a chopped picture of a senior leader doing tequila shots with a female Lt be destructive. Right or wrong, perceptions matter, and the perception of unprofessional or illegal behavior is unacceptable for officers, especially senior leaders. Don't discount the dangers of being in offensive and mean spirited conversations and environments. This forum turns nasty at times. Don't confuse risk decisions with cowardice. Identifying unnecessary hazards, mitigating their impact, assessing the probability and severity, then making an informed decision that weighs cost and benefits is something we do every day, in the aircraft and on the ground. Although it may be very effective for a senior leader to attend a Capt's party, where booze, sex and frat boy behaviors are rampant, the risk is too high and difficult to mitigate to accept. The benefit does not outweigh the cost. Extreme example, but the point is, senior leaders are easier targets than Capts because there are more people who would like to take them out to make a point. Like I said, a good defense is needed to enable a good offense. Fools don't identify or mitigate risk. Warriors accept risk when necessary, but also mitigate and change the environment to their advantage to defeat the enemy. Just as you would not commit career suicide by getting a DUI or sexually assaulting someone, others won't behave recklessly to risk their careers. The question is, how do you engage better. You bring up some great points on how to do this.

Somehow the squadron commander manages this risk while still showing up to these events.

It doesn't even have to be a roll call, just have an all officer's call at the club on base, and hang around for an hour or two after giving the pre-written speech to talk to people face-to-face. Gen Welsh stresses over and over again to know your people...you can't do that via email and PPT slides, you have to actually talk to them once in a while, even if it means taking a risk.

ORM is about accepting risks necessary to complete the mission. If a senior officer feels it's too much of a risk to be seen in a bar with CGOs, he's probably no longer accomplishing the mission. ORM isn't about avoiding all risks, it's about mitigating the ones you can and accepting the ones you must in order to complete the task. If aircrew viewed risk the way you are telling us our senior leaders do, we'd never fly an airplane.

[Liquid]

Somehow the squadron commander manages this risk while still showing up to these events.

It doesn't even have to be a roll call, just have an all officer's call at the club on base, and hang around for an hour or two after giving the pre-written speech to talk to people face-to-face. Gen Welsh stresses over and over again to know your people...you can't do that via email and PPT slides, you have to actually talk to them once in a while, even if it means taking a risk.

ORM is about accepting risks necessary to complete the mission. If a senior officer feels it's too much of a risk to be seen in a bar with CGOs, he's probably no longer accomplishing the mission. ORM isn't about avoiding all risks, it's about mitigating the ones you can and accepting the ones you must in order to complete the task. If aircrew viewed risk the way you are telling us our senior leaders do, we'd never fly an airplane.

I completely agree with you. Like I said, I can't speak specifically for why more don't do it. I only offer possible reasons. And Gen Welsh is an exceptional leader.

[AnimalMother]

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.

War is politics by other means you say? How much faith do you have in our domestic politics and politicians? Western civilization has been killing Muslims for over 1000 years, literally, still hasn't gotten us very far. Find brick wall, smash head, repeat. It's easy to do if you're using someone else's head.

[matmacwc]

And Muslims have been killing everyone else for 1000 of years, are we going to argue Isaac vs Ishmael?

Annnnnddd.. I'll take some of that, and I did, and I liked it.

Edited October 6, 2013 by matmacwc

[rancormac]

So 69 isn't ok, but pink bronies is?

ok...

[Hacker]

So 69 isn't ok, but pink bronies is?

False dichotomy. Nobody at Vance wrote the letter posted earlier, nor has espoused as a matter of policy that use of 69 in regular speech is a form of harassment...yet, that is the chain of command that allowed that class to choose to wear the pink class patch.

[rancormac]

False dichotomy. Nobody at Vance wrote the letter posted earlier, nor has espoused as a matter of policy that use of 69 in regular speech is a form of harassment...yet, that is the chain of command that allowed that class to choose to wear the pink class patch.

True.. can't really compare apples to apples here.

Just noticing overall trends, and things that make you think YGBSM

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Currently reading this book: "Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country" http://amzn.com/B00BQMKCCM

I'm not done with the book, and I don't agree with all the author's points, but this quote stuck out to me about not just what's wrong with the Air Force, but the military in general:

"As Faust’s formulation suggests, individual choice had now fully eclipsed state power as the principal determinant of who will defend the country. The end of conscription had shorn the state of its authority to compel service . The evolving identity of the all-volunteer force, culminating in the abandonment of DADT, progressively curtailed the state’s authority to deny individuals the option of serving, except on narrowly drawn grounds of mental or physical ability. The conversion of military service from collective obligation to personal preference was now complete and irrevocable. With that, an army that in the 1960s had been politically radioactive became politically inert— of no more importance in national domestic politics than the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Forest Service."

[nsplayr]

I'm not done with the book, and I don't agree with all the author's points, but this quote stuck out to me about not just what's wrong with the Air Force, but the military in general:

"As Faust’s formulation suggests, individual choice had now fully eclipsed state power as the principal determinant of who will defend the country. The end of conscription had shorn the state of its authority to compel service . The evolving identity of the all-volunteer force, culminating in the abandonment of DADT, progressively curtailed the state’s authority to deny individuals the option of serving, except on narrowly drawn grounds of mental or physical ability. The conversion of military service from collective obligation to personal preference was now complete and irrevocable. With that, an army that in the 1960s had been politically radioactive became politically inert— of no more importance in national domestic politics than the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Forest Service."

So you're for, what, a draft and a politically active military? Can't say I'm convinced that the AVF is what's wrong with the Air Force or the military in general.

If you don't think the military or DOD is any more important in today's domestic politics than the BIA or Forest Service, take a look at who was furloughed, who was guaranteed pay in the ongoing government shutdown. Being mil or a affiliated civilian definitely has its perks and on top of that, active duty troops and veterans are used in a political context very frequently.

Not arguing that the AVF is perfect; I'm a bigger fan of the "total volunteer force" as advocated for in Tim Kane's Bleeding Talent,but that's another discussion that's been had on the boards already.

Edited October 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

I think the point is on one side you have removed that power from the government, as proposing a draft or mandatory service would be political suicide. The other however, is people care less where the military is sent because unless you want to join the military then it's kinda out of sight out of mind because you'll never get the letter saying "report next week to Ft. Benning", so you don't have to really ever worry about ending up in one of the dozen hell holes all around the world we currently have people operating in.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Fuzz

[pawnman]

I think the point is on one side you have removed that power from the government, as proposing a draft or mandatory service would be political suicide. The other however, is people care less where the military is sent because unless you want to join the military then it's kinda out of sight out of mind because you'll never get the letter saying "report next week to Ft. Benning", so you don't have to really ever worry about ending up in one of the dozen hell holes all around the world we currently have people operating in.

Bingo. Politicians are way more likely to use the military now that it is so much smaller. Where once everyone knew someone in the military, we're now living in an era where, unless you live in a town near a military base, it's unlikely that you personally know people who have served overseas in the last ten years. Since so few people have a personal stake in the military, and since it is no longer seen as a sacrifice but as a personal choice to join, we don't have the same clout we once did.

It's not all that recent a phenomenon...look at the post-Desert Storm drawdowns for an example of how this will play out post-Afghanistan.

[matmacwc]

I got Ltcol'd a while back.

Park, sit on step ladder enjoying the weather and the sight of a flight line of F16s, start throwing in a dip. Said LtCol starts running at me from 69' away shaking his hands up and down. He starts yelling that dip isn't allowed on the flight line or any building. Then points at the shelter next to me and asks if the guy in that jet is my SQ/CC (he was), I say yes then my SQ/CC hears about it for the next 6-9 minutes. Moral of the story, hide it better.

Find out he was a MX LtCol, and nobody can stand him.

[HeloDude]

I got Ltcol'd a while back.

Park, sit on step ladder enjoying the weather and the sight of a flight line of F16s, start throwing in a dip. Said LtCol starts running at me from 69' away shaking his hands up and down. He starts yelling that dip isn't allowed on the flight line or any building. Then points at the shelter next to me and asks if the guy in that jet is my SQ/CC (he was), I say yes then my SQ/CC hears about it for the next 6-9 minutes. Moral of the story, hide it better.

Find out he was a MX LtCol, and nobody can stand him.

Thank God he stopped you from having that dip in on the flight line--who knows what could have happened!!

[Fuzz]

The more important question is did your SQ/CC care?

[TarHeelPilot]

Chiefed on Friday - Grabbed an apple as I stepped, completed it in 6 to 9 sec only to be intercepted by an E-9 a minute after entering the flight line with a... Gasp, apple core in hand. "Sir, you aren't allowed to eat on the flight line! You need to get rid of that before an Airman sees it and gets the wrong idea." Gee thanks Chief, I was just on my way to that FOD bucket right behind you.

Where is this attitude being cultivated? I have no issue complying with regs and I really have no desire to get into it with some dumbass E-9, but these people are getting out of hand and need to be stopped.

You aren't allowed to eat on the flightline? Who knew? Is that in an AFI?

[arg]

Missed meals for all flightline folks!

[GoAround]

The more important question is did your SQ/CC care?

Yeah, I bet he prob had a fatty in himself.

[magnetfreezer]

You aren't allowed to eat on the flightline? Who knew? Is that in an AFI?

Probably somebody overinterpreting FOD...our maintainers would get in trouble depending on MXG leadership for eating in their trucks, since that candy wrapper in the back of the bread van in the FOD container could shell an engine if it jumps out of the can and out the door.

[MD]

Chiefed on Friday - Grabbed an apple as I stepped, completed it in 6 to 9 sec only to be intercepted by an E-9 a minute after entering the flight line with a... Gasp, apple core in hand. "Sir, you aren't allowed to eat on the flight line! You need to get rid of that before an Airman sees it and gets the wrong idea." Gee thanks Chief, I was just on my way to that FOD bucket right behind you.

Where is this attitude being cultivated? I have no issue complying with regs and I really have no desire to get into it with some dumbass E-9, but these people are getting out of hand and need to be stopped.

I see nothing has changed on that side of DM, a side I don't frequent anymore.

Some idiot E-8 and his buddy here intercepted me near my truck and asked where my hat was in the BX parking lot a few months back.

Only problem is, Im not required to have one. It's not part of my tan two-piece flightsuit/enforcement uniform. Surprised the sidearm on the belt and mags/cuffs weren't a giveaway. No Mr E-8, Im not one of your Airmen, not even in the same uniform, have zero use for you anyway, and am not playing AF when it's not a drill weekend and a few days burning TPs. Now go find something to do that's actually worth an EPR bullet.

Moron.

Edited October 14, 2013 by MD

[matmacwc]

The more important question is did your SQ/CC care?

Things were good.

[brabus]

before an Airman sees it and gets the wrong idea."

This is the best part: the bullshit tagline at the end along the lines of, "I'm cool dude, I just don't want person X to see you." If you're going to say something, at least stop being such a faggot (shit, sorry for offending 6-9 of you reading this) and own it. Why is manning up impossible for so many of these retards?

My most recent experience was some fat nav chick chased me and couple dudes down because we didn't have hats on. When I explained we had diverted and don't have hats, she just reiterated we should have hats, quickly following up with "because I don't want the wg/cc to see you and get mad." I'm pretty sure she about had a hernia right there when I half laughed/half threw a "noted" her way. Funny that a Lt Col who saw me an hour earlier and asked the question completely understood the situation and we went our separate ways. I just don't get it, where do people like this come up with this crap?