Prozac

Maybe. Or maybe we'll find ourselves in a conflict in the South China Sea. Seriously, the stakes are extremely high here. That's why many are so concerned.

Don't put words in my mouth bro. It's entirely possible to think the Dems are a bunch of pussified apologists AND be extremely weary of a Donald Trump presidency.

The point is Obama is no longer president. The election is over and Hillary is back to giving speeches, probably at exorbitant rates. Yet Republicans continue to lash out against them. For fucks sake, the POTUS thinks the only way he could've possibly lost the popular vote is because the largest voter fraud conspiracy in the history of the U.S. has taken place. It seems the only coherent conservative strategy these days is to be against whatever liberals are for. That is pathetic. This used to be a party run by statesmen with real, achievable policy goals, and the intention of constructively governing. Now it's put a president in power who'd rather listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly than his daily intelligence brief. Just step back and think about that for a minute. The man would rather be consumed by outlandish conspiracy theories than deal with the real day to day crises that regularly come up. And the most outlandish conspiracy theorist of them all now sits at the head of the NSC. Quit whining about Obama. His term is up. Forget Hillary. She lost. Trump won and we should all be watching him like hawks. It may not be end times, but if you are not at least slightly disturbed by a man with Trump's disposition and character in the White House then you are looking in the wrong direction.

David Frum, the author of the Atlantic article is a well known and respected conservative thinker. He was no friend to the Obama administration and has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton. Neither of those two individuals is president right now though. I find it curious how those who defend the Trump administration are so quick to point out that Trumps actions are simply an extension of the precedent set by the previous administration. Obama was highly criticised for what his critics described as an overreach of executive power. A lot of that criticism had merit. So why are Republicans suddenly ok with their guy doing the same thing? Is this the new Republican party? Abandon your principals to put a man who is a Republican only in name into office and hopefully advance your congressional agenda on his coattails? That seems to me to be a potentially treacherous strategy. Isn't it more consistent to be equally critical of the Trump administration for committing the same transgressions as his predecessors, regardless of party affiliation? Democrats could be equally chided for their (unsurprising) adoption of an obstructionist strategy after bashing Republicans for doing the same thing for the past eight years.

I think you make some good points but you are off in your assessment that it should no longer fall on the United States to promote freedom around the world. Yes, the last two decades of open ended conflict has been ill conceived and is unsustainable. However, there are avenues other than military force to promote our values worldwide. When we do use force, it has to be with a well defined endgame and we must resist the temptation to expand on the goals of the original mission. None of this means that we should back away from a preeminent role in world affairs. Quite the contrary. China and Russia are licking their chops right now. There was news recently that the two countries have been holding high level meetings. What do you suppose they are discussing? This is their Yalta moment. They are planning what they'd like the post Pax Americana world to look like. My fear is that we have been slowly compromising our position in the world since shortly after the wall fell. Rather than reversing that trend, Trump looks to be accelerating it. To those who say our strategy has been less than successful in the post war world I have a question: Do you think major global conflict (probably nuclear) would have been more likely or less likely in the last 70 years without American leadership?

The Atlantic has some excellent in depth reporting. It does tend to lean left at times, but what gets reported is usually spot on. They most definitely plan to hold this administration's feet to the fire. The Economist is usually also balanced, good reading. For newspapers, I like the Wash. Post, and before I get flamed, I like the WSJ for a conservative counterpoint.

Is anyone in congress talking about the incessant use of the military as a foreign policy tool in recent decades? There are a great many potential problems with this practice, many of which are no longer hypothetical. We are using up an aging fleet at rates that were never anticipated and we cannot hope to recapitalize in a timely manner, even if the military budget is greatly increased (I have my doubts whether Increased defense spending is really in the cards). Perhaps more ominously, we are doing the same with personnel. Most of the operators in recent conflicts whether they be spec ops, aircrew, maintainers, etc, are simply burnt out and taking their experience elsewhere. Yet the only plan seems to be to continue to attempt to squeeze water out of the rock. How about the monetary cost of these conflicts? I'm a big proponent of a strong military, but the fact is we have spent an astonishing amount of money with very little to show for it. It amazes me that we've laid out the cash we have while actually shrinking personnel and aging the fleet. I don't care if you lean left or right, everyone in this country ought to be demanding more accountability when it comes to military spending. Don't expect me to support increased military budgets without telling me EXACTLY how that money will be spent. So, what's the plan? Throwing money at the problem is not sufficient. I expect my elected officials and my military leadership to work together to come up with a sustainable defense strategy. Forgive me if I have little confidence in either group to deliver.

The pay to bullshit ratio is orders of magnitude in the airlines' favor.

Ding ding ding! It is now imbedded in the culture that you should be far more concerned about your next promotion, assignment, and/or decoration than you should be about the mission. If you aren't, you will fall behind. The "speech" from one's CC these days almost always consists of something like: "You're a good pilot. So are Bob and Sally and Billy. In fact, when it comes to the actual job, you're all pretty much the same in the eyes of the people who matter. So, let's talk about your roadmap to the vaunted SQ/CC position and beyond. To get ahead, check box X, then Y, then Z (nevermind that none of those are mission related. The mission will take care of itself.) If you do this, you must be a good officer and will be rewarded for your stalwart dedication to the self licking ice cream cone." I have heard this speech or something very close to it from the majority of my SQ/CCs and above and every time I hear it my heart sinks a little more. I'm convinced that the majority of the leadership thinks in this manner and this is why no one seems to be able to take a wholistic view of how to get the USAF where it needs to be. They simply aren't motivated to think beyond the next three years because that's the way we're all told we're supposed to think. Until there is a dramatic shift in this way of thinking, I surely would not recommend the AF to my children.

One of the saddest things about this whole debacle is that there are good dudes who are Majors and Lt Cols right now who will be left holding bag when the train finally does come off the rails. The managers Chang represents will have their retirements and their well-paying consulting jobs and it's likely none of them will be held accountable for the Royal cluster they made out of a once great organization. Hats off to those of you who choose or are forced to stick around and clean up the mess.

F-35s are more important than people. Got it. How's that saying go? "Lockheed first, people sometimes" -- or something like that?

USAF pilot shortage/retention problem SOLVED.

Not if stop loss gets here first.

All of these letters put a 6 month stipulation on separating/retiring. The latest one states: "Therefore, voluntary and involuntary reassignments to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), retirements, and voluntary and involuntary discharges from the Selected Reserve approved between 1 Feb 16 – 30 Sep 16 must have an effective loss date no earlier than 1 Nov 16.” 1Feb - 1 Nov = 9 months. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't there always been guidance requiring a 6 month lead for retirements/separations? Is there a legal basis to extend that requirement by three months? Also, these letters also state something to the effect that they are needed to ensure separations are appropriately staggered throughout the year. But by forcing a backlog of people waiting to retire/separate, aren't we accomplishing the exact opposite?

If you're a Tanker dude/ette then no. I'm sure there's some Services Airmen who are more deserving. Besides, you know you'd miss the cadillac graffiti too much.

Please god tell me that he likes to see flight suits "zipped most of the way up" and hasn't really made a statement regarding the exact number of teeth that he wants showing. If this is true, I'm afraid the USAF is officially doomed. The ship is sinking around them and this is what senior leadership concerns itself with. The level of disconnect with the real world is nothing short of astonishing with some of these people.

No arguments from me. If, in fact, Turkish airspace was violated (as all credible accounts indicate), then they were well within their rights to take action. What isn't up for debate is that the incident has the potential to severely complicate an already muddled situation. What's the proper stance for the U.S. and NATO here? Who knows. My guess is the current admin will be somewhat less than decisive and we'll become further entwined in this shit show with no foreseeable end game.

While I agree arguing that NATO is supporting the deliberate targeting of Russian forces is a stretch, I don't think it's out of line to speculate on just how much support some of these groups are receiving from the Turks. Turkey has not been happy about Russian air strikes on these Turkmen rebels. Perhaps they were just waiting for any incursion, no matter how slight, as an excuse to provide some counter air for these folks. The guy in the jeans launching the TOW may not have been a Turkish citizen, but I'd be willing to bet he enjoys some semblance of support from Ankara. As has been mentioned already, this situation is beyond a clusterfuck.

That might be a more legitimate question than it seems.

Some sports are games. Not all games are sports.

What a joke. Wonder what we have paid said contractor so far. There are some people responsible for overseeing projects like this that probably need to be fired or even in jail.

Based on what I've been told, once your name is placed against a deployment, you won't be able to retire or separate until after completing it. As far as I know, there is no 3 day option for ARC members in cases like these (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). As far as the long term implications of this policy, there is no apparent evidence that "leaders" in the ARC (and across the AF) care about anything other than filling near term requirements.

Disagree. Having seen both sides of the fence, I think advising someone to go to the Guard/Reserve route over AD is fantastic advice. Are there some good times to be had on Active Duty? Of course. Hell, I had a couple of outstanding assignments. The problem is, you have far to little control over that process, and you just might spend the better part of a seemingly great assignment deployed to some shithole. It was bad enough with a ten year commitment. I can't imagine advising someone to sign on the dotted line for thirteen or more.

The stranger?