"How to fix the Army: Sack all the generals"

[Buddy Spike]

Simple, but irrelevant.

Not really. You consistently prove that you have very limited knowledge (beyond perhaps a few ROTC or ASBC courses) of how the Air Force works from an operator level. You avoid the question every time it's asked, but yet you call out MWS's (like the Eagle and Raptor) while having no credibility.

So either post up what you fly or sit down and shut the fuck up while the adults talk.

[OverTQ]

Given the length of time it takes to make General, I cannot imagine any Generals in the next 5 years that do not have multiple deployments. Maybe a couple years ago there were still some floating around, but not anymore. Also given the cuts we are about to undergo (anybody else remember the 90's), no deployments will put your first in line for the door. At least speaking for the Army where you can look at someone's uniform and tell if they have deployed. I don't really worry about the bad Generals, they seem to be self eliminating at a fairly rapid pace these days.

[tac airlifter]

I don't think that mastering the art of being down in the weeds tactically is a prerequisite for upper echelon combat leadership.

You'd be wrong and the entirety of military history would be against you. Generals leading wars need not be current tactical experts, however, having that background is essential in knowing what can and cannot be done. Business comparisons sometimes work on a micro scale but always fall short on the macro. Besides that, you're entirely sidestepping the point: with current unofficial requirements for specific academic pedigrees we're rendering unqualified a large mass of people who have already proven themselves in combat, while simultaneously allowing only those with hardly any tactical experience through. There hasn't been a single successful military managed this way in all of history, and we seem to have stumbled into this practice rather than methodically reasoning our way here. Your whole discussion is tangential.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to offer something about your qualifications other than "it doesn't mater, I'm an officer."

[matmacwc]

Yeah, what does he fly?

[joe1234]

Ooh, fun. Many attacks to respond to, and so little time.

Not really. You consistently prove that you have very limited knowledge (beyond perhaps a few ROTC or ASBC courses) of how the Air Force works from an operator level. You avoid the question every time it's asked, but yet you call out MWS's (like the Eagle and Raptor) while having no credibility.

So either post up what you fly or sit down and shut the fuck up while the adults talk.

Consistently prove that I have very limited knowledge? Where? If you think I'm wrong on something, feel free to argue the point. If anything, you've demonstrated a complete inability to argue a point, and instead go after the person arguing the point. Which tells me you're either incapable of reasoning, or you want to disagree because you don't like me, but can't manage to do it in an intelligent way. So you're dying to know my AFSC, so that you can launch even more ad hominems.

And I didn't call anyone out, in fact I was defending the ability of Eagle and Raptor drivers to have tactical prowess yet not be deployed, at least to the desert. Do you guys even read shit or do you just skim and jump to wild conclusions?

Spoken like someone whose never been down range, under the leadership of someone whose never been down range.

Again, if you disagree with something I say, argue the point. Whether I've been downrange or not is irrelevant, either I'm correct or I'm not correct.

As for the F-15C/F-22 question, what is their back ground? If they did one tour, and the next 20 years of their career on a staff, going to grad school, planning retirement and Christmas parties, then no. If we're talking a guy that spent his entire career in the cockpit, is a patch wearer, and has gone from flying tour to flying tour, whose number was just never called to go down range then ya I'd say they still get the big picture.

So, it sounds like what you're saying is...it depends on the person and not any one key, defining factor. Because that's what I'm saying.

You'd be wrong and the entirety of military history would be against you. Generals leading wars need not be current tactical experts, however, having that background is essential in knowing what can and cannot be done. Business comparisons sometimes work on a micro scale but always fall short on the macro. Besides that, you're entirely sidestepping the point: with current unofficial requirements for specific academic pedigrees we're rendering unqualified a large mass of people who have already proven themselves in combat, while simultaneously allowing only those with hardly any tactical experience through. There hasn't been a single successful military managed this way in all of history, and we seem to have stumbled into this practice rather than methodically reasoning our way here. Your whole discussion is tangential.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to offer something about your qualifications other than "it doesn't mater, I'm an officer."

So, every successful general, or even an overwhelming majority, was once an absolute master of tactics at some point, throughout the entirety of military history ever ever? There's a difference between attaining understanding, attaining proficiency, and attaining mastery. I can know can and can't be done with a MWS without being a tactical master at it. If I'm a general, I don't need to have been a tactical expert at my airframe 20 years ago to understand how to employ it in the broadest, most high level strategic sense. Thats why I have a staff to bring that expertise. What I do need to know is how I can utilize the joint force to win a war. And you're saying all of history disagrees with me on that?

And knowing what can and can't be done (your stated reason for tactical badassery) as a prerequisite implies that you must know this to successfully employ whatever is in your command. Therefore, when a general is not working with their singular background, but a massive orchestration of moving parts that is also under their command, they cannot be successful in employing said assets, because they don't know what can or can't be done with them on a tactical mastery level. However, it makes sense that the general knows what can and can't be done on a strategic level, with advisors and liaisons that can help them out on a tactical level.

I'm just finding a lot of holes in your statement. If you disagree, please feel free to let me know why.

P.S., you don't need to post your life story to argue a valid point.

[brewskis]

And I didn't call anyone out, in fact I was defending the ability of Eagle and Raptor drivers to have tactical prowess yet not be deployed, at least to the desert. Do you guys even read shit or do you just skim and jump to wild conclusions?

Your comment was tongue-in-cheek, and you know it.

[HeloDude]

P.S., you don't need to post your life story to argue a valid point.

Now when I went to IP school years ago, one of the many things the old graybeards taught me was 'to be an effective instructor, you have to establish credibility'. If you don't, people will question your techniques, abilities, philosophy, etc. You do this by holding the correct qualification (ie IP), by sharing with your students what you have done in the past, and most importantly, by knowing your shit and being able to effectively teach what you know. I definitely learned this early on when teaching/advising the Iraqis as a relatively young guy instructing Iraqi pilots who were much older, who had been flying much longer than I have, and in quite a few instances, had more hours than I did at the time. Fortunately, I was able to establish some credibility early on, humble myself around those guys, and soon enough was able to see some positive results. Hell, a quick 6.9 second google search shows that the Weapons School even states "Taking the mantra, "humble, approachable and credible"..."

Just because I am knowledgable about different airframes, can speak somewhat intelligibly about their ops, etc doesn't mean that I have credibility in that community. That being said, if I'm an aircrew member in that community (especially an instructor/evaluator), then I'll have some credibility in what I'm saying. Here at BO, a bunch of rated guys talk about rated ops--if it's a specific bomber issue, a Bone/Buff guy will have a lot more credibility than me. If it's an overall airmanship issue, then I think all seasoned rated guys here can adequately add to the discussion.

So right now, when you add your opinion on flying/ops matters, I give you low credibility and thus don't give much weight to your opinion...after all how do I know if it's informed or not? And before somebody mentions 'well, we can pretend to be whoever we want online'...people have been sniffed out before for posing.

Don't worry dude, it's cool--I'm sure there's plenty of other folks out there who would be interested in hearing your thoughts. But for me, there's a reason I'm not cool with a student in med tech assistant school diagnosing me with an illness.

[Fuzz]

For thousands of years tactical prowess (or frontline experience) was the only way for a soldier to progress through the ranks, to eventually work on the strategic level. This doesn't always have to be the case, in fact of all the Four and Five star generals that commanded our forces during WWII only Marshall, MacArthur, Nimitz and Spaatz ever saw frontline combat during WWI or the Phillipinnes. However, those are rare exceptions to the model. Julius Ceaser didn't expand the Roman Empire without first cutting his teeth in Gual, and George Washington didnt earn his reputation from giving lectures at Army War College.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Fuzz

[slackline]

For thousands of years tactical prowess (or frontline experience) was the only way for a soldier to progress through the ranks, to eventually work on the strategic level. This doesn't always have to be the case, in fact of all the Four and Five star generals that commanded our forces during WWII only Marshall, MacArthur, Nimitz and Spaatz ever saw frontline combat during WWI or the Phillipinnes. However, those are rare exceptions to the model. Julius Ceaser didn't expand the Roman Empire without first cutting his teeth in Gual, and George Washington didnt earn his reputation from giving lectures at Army War College.

Ohh, hold on. I agree in general, but George Washington is a horrible example as he was a horrible "battle" general. Great logistician, but absolutely horrible battle general who got lucky once or twice. Read his bio, or 1776, or any book worth its salt on that era. He absolutely earned his rep from books.

[matmacwc]

You still dodged the motherfucking question, I award you no points.

[Fuzz]

Ohh, hold on. I agree in general, but George Washington is a horrible example as he was a horrible "battle" general. Great logistician, but absolutely horrible battle general who got lucky once or twice. Read his bio, or 1776, or any book worth its salt on that era. He absolutely earned his rep from books.

Ok valid, it was 2am when I wrote that, and he was one of the first that came to mind. However, he did earn a lot of his reputation leading the VA militia during the French and Indian War, and in all reality the man still (with the help of the French) mananged to hold an army of farmers together and beat the most powerful country in the world, maybe not the best Tactician but that still counts for something in my book.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Fuzz

[joe1234]

Your comment was tongue-in-cheek, and you know it.

Um, it wasn't. I really don't know any other way to get that across.

So right now, when you add your opinion on flying/ops matters, I give you low credibility and thus don't give much weight to your opinion...after all how do I know if it's informed or not? And before somebody mentions 'well, we can pretend to be whoever we want online'...people have been sniffed out before for posing.

Don't worry dude, it's cool--I'm sure there's plenty of other folks out there who would be interested in hearing your thoughts. But for me, there's a reason I'm not cool with a student in med tech assistant school diagnosing me with an illness.

Here's the thing, when it comes to flying/ops matters, I don't care whether you agree with me or trust me. I'm not arguing to convince you or change your mind, so how much credibilty is attached, means absolutely nothing. Either the argument is sound, or it isn't. If it's not, then bring on the spears and let's hash it out. The problem is that people here seem to go insane when they can't size you up, and can only address words on a screen. Either you can make a point or back it up, or you can't. If you're such a tactical expert, then it should be easy to prove me wrong. It's bullshit to coast by on reputation and the halo effect on an Internet message board.

----

Anyway, back to the arguments, you can add Hap Arnold, who was a staff officer in WW1 and a staff general in WW2. Prior to that, he was mostly known for crashing planes. And these are the two guys cited as the foundation of the entire damn service. So yeah, except for almost the entire leadership of American forces on WW2 and the father of the American Air Force, you might be right Fuzz. That's a pretty massive fucking caveat. You're citing dudes from antiquity as supporting examples. How the hell does Hannibal riding in on his elephant cavalry in Carthage in any way even remotely related to a discussion about modern air generals?

When you hear about famous airmen, there's plenty of stories about aces and guys like Rickenbacker and Olds being a tactical legends. But they sure as hell didn't make it to the top of the food chain. Then you hear about guys like Chennault and Lemay who was solid on the front lines and as a senior commander. And then there's guys like all those people mentioned that didn't have that tactical background.

Also, Erwin Rommel is a very famous example of a guy who was a badass tactician but a terrible strategist. Tactical prowess and combat experience is not a prerequisite to being a successful general. I think the evidence bears that out.

P.S., rounding up farmers and defeating Britain is strategy, not tactics.

[tac airlifter]

Here's the thing, when it comes to flying/ops matters, I don't care whether you agree with me or trust me. I'm not arguing to convince you or change your mind, so how much credibilty is attached, means absolutely nothing. Either the argument is sound, or it isn't. If it's not, then bring on the spears and let's hash it out. The problem is that people here seem to go insane when they can't size you up, and can only address words on a screen.

You've got it all wrong bro. I'm busy. I come to BO to have interesting discussions with people whose opinions I value. You think its all anonymous internet posting, it isn't; these communities are small. I don't care what you fly or if you fly, but why waste my time talking with random people? You say it's all about the logical value of the points themselves; I recall being like that myself as a college student. But nowadays I'm uninterested in summoning the energy to debate unqualified opinions.

Your tautological approach to debate tires me. Nsplayr was also pleonastic, but at least he is personally credible and is down range now doing great shit as we speak. Until I hear more about you, I'm uninterested in discussing the numerous flaws in your rationale.

Edited August 22, 2013 by tac airlifter

[Ram]

Not really. You consistently prove that you have very limited knowledge (beyond perhaps a few ROTC or ASBC courses) of how the Air Force works from an operator level. You avoid the question every time it's asked, but yet you call out MWS's (like the Eagle and Raptor) while having no credibility.

So either post up what you fly or sit down and shut the fuck up while the adults talk.

This.

[slackline]

You still dodged the mother######ing question, I award you no points.

Me? What question?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[joe1234]

You've got it all wrong bro. I'm busy. I come to BO to have interesting discussions with people whose opinions I value. You think its all anonymous internet posting, it isn't; these communities are small. I don't care what you fly or if you fly, but why waste my time talking with random people? You say it's all about the logical value of the points themselves; I recall being like that myself as a college student. But nowadays I'm uninterested in summoning the energy to debate unqualified opinions.

Your tautological approach to debate tires me. Nsplayr was also pleonastic, but at least he is personally credible and is down range now doing great shit as we speak. Until I hear more about you, I'm uninterested in discussing the numerous flaws in your rationale.

You sure do spend a lot of time, effort, and words trying to convince others how much you don't care. If you don't want to debate, then don't.

[Fuzz]

You sure do spend a lot of time, effort, and words trying to convince others how much you don't care. If you don't want to debate, then don't.

Deal! How do I hide people again?

[busdriver]

I'm pretty sure joe1234 takes perverse pleasure in riling everyone up by not telling his back ground.

[Buddy Spike]

I'm pretty sure joe1234 takes perverse pleasure in riling everyone up by not telling his back ground.

Or he's just a poser hiding behind a keyboard.

[busdriver]

Or he's just a poser hiding behind a keyboard.

Either way just ignore and he'll either go away or reveal his back ground eventually.

[joe1234]

I'm pretty sure joe1234 takes perverse pleasure in riling everyone up by not telling his back ground.

Hey, I'm the one here who's actually trying to get people to move on with their lives wrt a non issue.

[Danger41]

So which MWS's are allowed to post? And do Non-flyers get an opinion?

Joe is annoying and but he also has a point. The E-dick measuring contest is ridiculous.

[matmacwc]

Wasn't for you slack, it was for joe1234

And I get what the rest of you are saying, why care about his AFSC?

He talks about tactics, or not needing a flight background to know them (if I read that correctly). Sounds good if we were the DOT, but the word Air is in our Force. Fuck.......and stop #### my posts, it makes me puke a little bit.

Edited August 23, 2013 by matmacwc

[albertschu]

I cannot imagine any Generals in the next 5 years that do not have multiple deployments. Maybe a couple years ago there were still some floating around, but not anymore.

These GOs appear to have a paucity of campaign ribbons...

(disclaimer: I did not cross check the photos w/ every campaign ribbon. There may be a few I didn't recognize.)

[ram02]

These GOs appear to have a paucity of campaign ribbons...

(disclaimer: I did not cross check the photos w/ every campaign ribbon. There may be a few I didn't recognize.)

And what exactly were all these space/missile/cyber/acquisition GOs supposed to do in the AOR?

Edit: I see multiple AFESRs with gold borders. They may not have made it to Afghanistan or Iraq, but at least they've deployed.

Edited August 23, 2013 by ram02