Leaderboard

Big surprise: She has multiple cats.

That's why I'm already here!

At the rate America is going, I may have to join Texas as well.

I wrote that assuming that TSP and Roth were already maxed out leaving you with no tax-free/deferred options. Regardless, if you want some income in your 50's from investments, by definition they have to be in taxable accounts. Remember dividends are taxed at capital gains, not your income tax rate so the "bite" isn't all that bad.

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.

Even better, patches being passed over for Maj because they lack a master degree. Nobody is safe from getting run over by the full retard train these days.

That and I mean be honest, my ERAU online masters is WAY harder than WIC... My guess is that WIC is seen as an intense, challenging and worthwhile training program. And therefore not worthy of IDE credit. Very cynical.

So if Big Blue wants to get creative with IDE credit, why shouldn't Weapons School graduates receive it?

Almost 20 years to the day of the Battle of Mogadishu. Cap-10

In 1969 during the height of the war in Vietnam, a sergeant in the Army warded off an untold number of Viet Cong with an automatic rifle and a tattered sniper rifle in order to protect his platoon and a major that was pinned under their downed helicopter. When the rescue birds came, Sergeant Eaton stayed with Major Perkins because he didn't want his brother-in-arms to die alone. As a direct result of Sergeant Eaton's badassery, both him and his major eventually made it out alive. Link to the whole story: https://halloftheblac...incible-sniper/

What a retarded answer. First, there is zero point, but if you're going to go, you should not go to get DG, go to have an 8 week vacation and work less than you did at Restaurant X in high school. That whole program is such a colossal waste of taxpayer money and your time; but hell, I'll admit it was kind of nice to work the least I ever have in my life and have tons of free time to do a multitude of things. People who got wrapped up in DG were compete douches and had lost touch with reality as much as the leadership above them who tell them they should go to get DG.

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: 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.

This is an epically great discussion. Liquid, on a slightly different topic -- why don't more flag-level leaders get down in the trenches and talk with the troops like this? I feel that this is a bit like when -- albeit 15 years ago -- the Wing CC used to actually come to my sq Roll Call (which was sometimes even a weekly event, so not exactly rare), drink with the boys and submit to the Mayor's wrath and hijinx, and talk on a bro level with guys about anything and everything. It wasn't some scheduled event that was obviously forced as part of some plan to intentionally go have a talk in the trenches; the Exec or protocol officer didn't show up beforehand and make sure the bar was stocked with his favorite drink or to ensure that the squadron was cleaned up before he arrived...he just wandered in to the bar 5 minutes before roll call and started interacting like a normal warrior. Plenty of discussions like in this thread took place, and their replies were similar in nature to what you are giving here: slamming down a half-full beer mug and telling us to fuck off right back at us because our limited CGO view of whatever the topic was, was way off base, and then taking the next 10 minutes to explain the view from the front office and in the offices above him. Sometimes we left the discussions in agreement, and sometimes we made fun of him behind his back after he left the bar, but the interactions were key in having most of us feel like he actually wanted to lead us rather than simply be a military dictator to us. There are two or three one-stars that I can think of who were perfectly comfortable "solving the world's problems from a barstool", and such interactions with them, for me as a young Captain, just gave me tremendous respect for them. It was fantastic. I'd still go follow those guys anywhere to this day. In the last 6 years, though, the only time I've seen the WG/CC come to the bar was to give us a pep talk for the latest MAJCOM-level inspection, and he was out the door within seconds of his transmit-only, no-receive message. I'm sure there's an AWC or SAASS-taught, "you lose respect for your office and position if you casually go socialize with the boys" mantra that is behind it, but as someone who was a junior officer when it took place it NEVER eroded my respect for their position and leadership, even when I did not agree with their viewpoint or decision. In fact, it had quite the opposite effect. That's the same way I see this discussion. I'm not in AFSOC, and I have no idea who the flag officers in AFSOC are, and thus aren't trying to figure out who Liquid is...but I sure as hell love that he's here duking it out with the boys, taking his lumps, and pushing back trying to actually have a discussion. Not just sitting in his office and writing memos about how he wants shit to be under his command and in Big Blue. I don't buy all of it, but fuckin-A it is great to see you here trying. I wish others would do the same. I think all parties involved would find it very enlightening and valuable.

Pilsung.