tac airlifter

Gross, but accurate.

You alright bro?

Sooooo, are you taking my bet?

Not meant that way at all bro. Just a bit of common ground between folks on this forum who disagree.

I think you missed the point bro. If the AF worked, there wouldn't be a need for a bonus. It doesn't, so there is. Your hypothetical "we've won so let's return the money" scenario is not what I intended by that comment.

So you didn't take the bonus but have an opinion on my rationale for taking the bonus? And you think my opinion is crazy? Thanks for your service.

Totally agree RAM. I want to be part of a winning organization and if the USAF was one, we would not have a retention problem. But I also understand we've been tasked with "unwinnable" missions. How to reconcile these seemingly incompatible factors? First, a winning organization means one built, soup to nuts, with winning wars as a clear and obvious function. That means rewarding people who are good at the mission, not assuming we're all equal and using non mission factors (party planning, masters, etc.) as delineators. In an ops squadron, my entire day should be focused on refining my lethality, and base agencies should be rated on their ability to support us. For example.... If a short notice deployment pops up and I need a guy to get CATM, CATM should jump through their ass to make it happen and be happy they found a way to enable our mission. That's what a winning organization looks like. One that is focused on successful prosecution of combat, not all the distractions we talk about. Second, if we're given impossible tasks whose pursuit hurt our readiness, I expect LEADERSHIP from the senior ranks to say so. Don't say morale is pretty darn good, say morale is terrible because our political masters have sent us on fools errands without an end state. Have some balls. Risk your career to speak the truth. If the ROE won't let us win, say that too. That is what a winning organization looks like. It's structurally built to incentivize combat success, and it's led by people who care about maintaining that organizational focus. I don't need a bonus, and I'd give up the one I have to work in a winning organization.

JPME2 was the single stupidest course of any type I've ever taken.

Ok? WRT guard/reserve: in my platform, they don't. So that world wasn't part of my calculus.

I bet 1 bottle of whiskey that he will not. Takers?

Valid. For those on the fence as I was a few years ago: I took the money because I weighed the pros and cons of my first decade and decided I wanted more of what I'd done. However, they sent me to school and staff with no return path to the fight. Basically, I rolled the dice and lost. For now. If I could do it over, fully grasping that AD ultimately is a dice roll no matter your strats or checked boxes, I probably would still roll. Maybe you'll get lucky and land a cool job if you stay AD. Maybe your timing is good. But if you're a fence-sitter don't be deceived into thinking there is a "plan" other than feed human flesh into the assignment grinder and spread it wherever seems good at the moment to whoever happens to be spreading that day. Buyer beware; stay long enough and you'll roll snake eyes. On the other hand, if you have a combat itch that can only be scratched in AD, roll those dice and good luck to you!

Never had any issues with PACWIND......

That's not this discussion, I didn't say that, and no idea how he'd respond but SECDEF can't give money he doesn't have. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to solve problems, one of the first steps is separating facts from assumptions. Is it a fact that "falling on their sword" would accomplish nothing and be futile? How do you know that if it hasn't been done? as to your first question above: if I were a service chief looking for money and willing to be fired for speaking truth, I would "fall on my sword" over the issue of BRAC. There's your wasted billions.

That is an unproven assumption you are treating as fact.

Awesome post by you & beerman. Now that I'm on staff, I can see the truth of this situation from a perspective I didn't previously understand. However, I still don't get why we haven't seen a GO do as you state above. We are facing a crisis. Either our leaders disagree and think our force can continue stumbling through it, or they're unwilling to make the level of stink required to fix it. Either way: WTF? The worst part is these discussions aren't happening with any depth or introspection in my office..... only on an internet chat board.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/3-special-operations-airmen-killed-in-plane-crash-while-training-in-new-mexico

Fair enough. I'm not there, thankfully. However, I've endured several mass punishments and never knew exactly why, how I was supposed to make it better, what the end state was, why I was responsible, etc.

Herc I understand the calculations of this commander. But since a line IP has no idea exactly what happened to precipitate his edict, how are the masses to make a connection? What is the average IP supposed to do differently to fix this? If leadership can't tell you how to fix it, then we are left to simply endure. That isn't leadership. Your point that this calculation is common in the AF, combined with my point that this behavior isn't actually leadership at all proves exactly why the AF is so completely fucked as an organization right now.

So the question was: where do you draw the line? Implied in the question was that past some threshold of events, mass punishments are acceptable. My reply was the threshold is not a number, but rather an obvious connection between cause & effect. Mass punishments don't work unless I can be convinced your fuck up is my fault. I guess your reply is there is no threshold? Anything goes WRT behavior so long as you fly a good mission? well, it's the Internet so, enjoy whatever opinion you'd like. However, in the real world there is a zero percent chance of that COA being adopted by anyone. BTW, re-read your own statement. What do you think a suspension is, if not proof that management has linked your personal failings to potential risk during a game? It's the sports equivalent of my third point.

Good question, and this is the only reason I come to the forum: to discuss ideas and improve myself. Not for the latest gossip at an AETC base. what would I do? 1. Make the rules clear: drinking until you get an ARI is unsat. 2. Explain why the rules relate to the mission, and aren't just rules for rules sake. ARIs mean you have shitty judgement. Shitty judgement means I don't want to sign orders with you as the A code because I can't trust you. Importantly, this logic won't work with every rule. "You can't wear a reflective belt, you can't hack a combat mission" is bullshit because there's no correlation between the two. However "you can't handle your liquor or know you own limits or plan a backup plan, therefore I can't trust your mission judgement" is completely plausible. 3. Once you do those two, which most commanders already are doing, crush violators. Explain in public what happened and why you gave that punishment. Thats it. I don't think this is cosmic. The vagueness surrounding details of mass punishments dilute their utility. People need an obvious connection between what happened and the consequences. It needs to make sense. For example "To all IPs: 5 IPs got hammered at drop night and, with the full knowledge of their peers, drove home. That's unsat and drinking is curtailed in my facilities on my time until I'm given your plan to take care of each other and prevent this threat to our mission." Totally valid. But this lacks detail required to connect cause and effect and is consequently being mocked. Mass punishment is almost never a good idea. The occasions are incredibly rare. The only way it could ever achieve the intended outcome is with clarity. I need a lot of details before I'm going to buy-in to the idea that what someone else did was my fault. Sure it's possible. Prove it first.

Every time a commander does something foolish, someone comes to their defense. I understand, humans aren't one dimensional. Everyone is a combination of good and bad qualities. However, we are also responsible for our actions and this is terrible leadership. I don't care that he went to bat for your bro, he's using mass punishment while exempting his peers. Foul.

Man, in retrospect the juice was really not worth the squeeze on that one. I wonder if the idiot who thought of TAMI21 understands how much long term chaos was wrought for such short term gain.