Leaderboard

I don't dispute legit masters degrees are important once you get to a certain level and are working on strategy/policy/doctrine type things. But we already have an IDE/SDE pipeline specifically designed to get people masters degrees and prep them for high level policy making so why the fuck do we need people to have a miscellaneous masters beforehand?? A degree mill masters doesn't do anything for anyone. It doesn't make you a better leader, tactician, or strategist. And it robs time from your primary duty and family life. But it does give the Air Force one invaluable data point. It helps big AF identify the individuals willing to jump through their ass for a better chance of promotion. And that's their favorite kind of person because they're more likely to stick around no matter how bad the treatment.

1. Our culture of "safety" and "equity" will stop a lot of progress. 2. Unless a politician can get rich off of it, it ain't got a chance. The people in charge are the ones who lived in the glory of what their parents built. They don't understand America or the world in their most fundamental sense. Hence, we're complacent and have allowed ourselves to become preoccupied with feeling good vs doing good.

Loyalty. They want to see who's loyal to the organization, and who isn't. Loyal people don't question the absurdities and the nonsense. They just salute smartly and do whatever the boss says.

Did you know in the private sector they have AI driven software that can automatically scan and classify all documents in your companies IT spaces. But we are still stuck filling out a 6 question questionnaire every time we hit send on an e-mail because the DoD can't get onboard 2022 and as a result we have far more leakages and mislabled classifications that endanger our national security.

Trains are more comfortable to be in, and easier to disembark from. Those are the only advantages over air travel I can think of. As usual, the market does a good job assessing value

We promote peacetime managers who make organizations numbers look good, for the most part. Sometimes we get lucky and those managers are also good leaders. This isn’t new. There is a reason we fire a bunch of our senior leaders every time we have a major war. Luckily we haven’t had a major war in a long time. That also means we forgot what we want in a wartime leader.

My 2c is the AF has always had an identity crises balancing between the technical proficiency of it's flyers and the officership, a casualty when we deposed of warrants and enlisted flyers. We want our front line fighters to be policy experts, strategist, leaders, and technical experts. You can't simply ask people to be everything. When I'm doing my own travel vouchers and personnel actions as well why even have other careers? Why not just make everyone pilots? 😂

I have a hard time believing Russia can do better in the winter than they have in the warm months. It appears the Ukrainians will fight for as long as we fund them, and we will fund them for as long as it keeps weakening Russia.

Reportedly about 600 Russians met Señor HIMARS just after midnight, during a Putin speech. That probably would tip the scales here, but I doubt it moves the needle much in Russia.

If Peter Zeihan is to be believed (the first bullet is his point, he has explicitly said what follows is what he's heard from some folks), here's the calculus at the strategic level: -Russia will not stop with Ukraine, they will continue expanding till they have secured defensible borders. They view it as an existential problem. -The Russian military has proven to be awful and would get monkey stomped by the western/NATO coalition that would meet them. Which means there is almost no way to avoid a nuclear exchange. -So the Russian military needs to be attritted in Ukraine. Win, lose, or draw, what remains needs to be incapable of continued offense. If that is actually what is going on in the head-shed. I'd imagine this is a blank check.

*690