ViperMan

I consider myself to be a generally smart guy, but can anyone else, as a rule, make it through an Atlantic article and discern anything that comes close to a coherent theme? I try, but always find myself struggling to maintain any amount of real focus as they (generally) wander through what approaches 10,000 words of soup. Maybe someone has a technique for making it through one, but to this day, I have not.

War has always been about money.

Don't think for 2 seconds you've seen the last of the Clintons - there's still Chelsea. I predict you'll see her begin to move around the chess board here shortly.

Over the past couple of days, A3 has hosted a webinar called the "Fighter Enterprise Redesign." I've been unable to attend. Can anyone provide a summary of what information was passed out? Thanks, V-man

They fly F-16s in AFSOC?

MOAs around Willie are already used nearly to capacity. Adding basic pilot training there? Yeah, right.

One quick fix I'd like to see goes like this: Say you live in a state that has 55 electoral votes, but only 44% of the eligible electorate turns out, well you get 44% of 55 electoral votes counted. Live in a state that doesn't give an F about voting or what's going on, or one that is so lopsided lots of voters don't turn out? Cool. You just get a proportionally moderated voice in the national election.

Maybe, maybe not. That time we saved the world and conquered evil was barely 20 years old when we became involved in Vietnam. In some sense, the country was still riding high on the idea that Vietnam, like WWII, was a moral war as well. I wasn't alive, but our guard may not have been as sensitive as it should have been - in a manner of speaking. I really don't know. I agree with Karl's sentiment though, which is that a major side-effect of the draft is that you have a more engaged public than you would otherwise - which is surely beneficial, and at least leads to more discussion on the importance/relevance of a war than otherwise. Vietnam certainly existed in the minds of the American public as a "war," and while Karl called Afghanistan a war, our effort there also consists to a large degree of what could be considered nation building, which is a term that a surely colors the American public's idea of what has gone (goes) on in Afghanistan and distinguishes it from our perception of Vietnam. Point being, it is more difficult to draft people to nation build than it is to send them to war. A draft raises the cost to the country's citizens - and it should. The position I take is that if the DOD is going to implement stop-loss, it should only exist in the context of a much larger draft that has been authorized by the appropriate national authority. That action forces our society to have the necessary debate on whether or not we "should" do something. Whether or not we would enter irrelevant wars is up for debate, but in my opinion, the point is part of the larger moral question of what groups of people can be forced to go to "war" and which ones can't be. Right now, the country gets to have its cake and eat it too.

How is it even possible to "scam" BAH besides something obvious, like misrepresenting your dependent status or something like that. You either live on base and get BAH which goes to a contractor, or live off base, and get BAH which goes into your bank account, right? Doesn't seem to me to be a system that is ripe for abuse.

So is the idea basically +up everyone's basic pay by like 80% of the 'average' BAH out on the street and then give you a 'kicker' to make those individuals in high cost of living areas able to make ends meet? If that's the case, I'll take the extra "BAH" as part of my salary cause it'll be nice having the extra amount increase my retirement check. Always thought the idea of BAH/BAS was a way for the DOD to get around having to pay larger retirements, under the guise of "look, you get to pay less taxes!". I'm sure I'm misreading something though.

Nothing can solve that!

IMO the root problem is that we assume there needs to be a "track" or "path" in the first place and built our model career progression on that assumption. Leadership (IMO) is not a characteristic that is forged in the halls of PME schools, or one that is necessarily identifiable in people that are young Captains. Why, again, are we choosing people to be Generals when they are in their mid 20s? A (likely) better model for achieving the rank of General is a sustained level of performance over the course of a (continuing) career - not what we currently have, which is where those who show some potential during their first assignment are strapped to a rocket ship and ride that early performance for years. It has to be O-5 because HYT/MSD for Majors is 18 years, and you can't have people gambling on getting to 20 when all it takes is a whim of the AF to say "thanks for your service," on your way out the door at 18 years and 0 days of service.

Hill was the best time I've had in the AF, and was probably the one assignment that I would have jumped at to repeat. I lived in SLC when I was stationed there, and it is a great city IMO. If you want < 20 minutes though, well that's definitely out of reach. When I was moving there, I was after the same things you were, and unfortunately, there's just not much in the way of that between Hill and the city. As for Ogden, that's your best bet if you want "things to do," but it's still not as good as SLC, but I never hung out there so can't really comment too much. As far as outdoors activities, it really doesn't matter where you live, you'll have it available to you. If I was you, I'd suck it up and take the 40 minute commute and live in the city - it was worth it. I'd look around the Liberty Park area (and Sugarhouse) so I could get on the highway quick and still be able to access downtown with ease. You'd have a lot of work to do to find a place with a large yard around that area, but it can be done. Also, the houses look a lot smaller than they are, because many have large basements. Easy 40 minutes because it's all interstate, and you're going against the flow of traffic - the most frustrating part of my drive started at the front gate when it became a contest to see how many civilians could try and dive in front of my car.

IMHO, if we are executing CAS in a high-threat environment, we are misapplying airpower.

Legal answer? Because the JTR says so. It's literally that simple...and that's my only beef. The studs (IMO) are picking a straw man battle. Philosophically? I totally agree. There is basically, qualitatively, no difference whatsoever. Difference? Students should be pissed at what the JTR says, not that the base leadership is following it (appropriately so). Or alternatively, that the AF puts them there in TDY status vs PCS status.

Ok, but the the government's "should" beats your "want to" every time. Probably not, honestly. I would be upset if I was forced to live (for > 1/2 year) in some of the sub-standard billeting I've stayed in. However, my point is that it is not always the CCs in charge of the base that make decisions like these. Everyone has a boss (including wing/CCs), and when I first became aware of this "issue" at Holloman, I was a little surprised because my reaction was "it's not within the Wing/CCs authority to override the JTR, what are these people complaining about?" (then again, that's only my "thought"...who knows, maybe they can override it and do what they want...). I sport bitch all the time about stuff that is annoying and irritating about the Air Force - and I agree that this is one of those things...buuuuutttt, I don't start Facebook groups and letters petitioning for O-6s to change policies over which they have (I think...) little to no control. To me it just seems like this group is highlighting that they are completely out of touch with how the military operates and who and what it reports to. I like that leadership angle, but I'd rather have the guy tell me "hey I hear you and it is BS, but that's not in my power to control. When you get out at the end of your commitment, cite the JTR as your reason for separating, and maybe it'll change for the next guy...see ya."

From defensetravel.dod.mil: "Uniformed Members 3. Is a uniformed member required to check availability/use Gov’t Qtrs? A DoD member ordered to a U.S. installation (as opposed a geographic location like a town or city) is required to check Gov’t Qtrs availability (e.g., through the CTO/TMC) at the U.S. installation to which assigned TDY. The AO may direct adequate available Gov’t Qtrs use for a DoD uniformed member on a U.S. installation only if the DoD uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. installation. The DoD member should use adequate Gov’t Qtrs on the U.S. installation at which assigned TDY. FOR COAST GUARD, NOAA, and PHS PERSONNEL ONLY: Gov’t Qtrs are available only if use is directed in the travel order, per JTR, par. 2550 . The DoD member is not required to seek/check for Gov’t Qtrs when TDY to a U.S. Installation/ Reservation after non-availability documentation has been initially provided (JTR, par. 2560 )." Don't feel like diving into a 1000+ page pub right now, but I'm pretty sure the JTR will say the same thing. I don't disagree with people being upset about being forced into a housing situation, but I do struggle to understand why they're making the base leadership out to be in the "wrong" somehow, when it is clearly the government's policy that TDY members should use base billeting...

How is forcing 18Xers to live on base different from forcing 92T0s from living on base? I went through pilot training and had to live in quarters (mandatory) until it reached a certain level of occupancy.

Exactly 0.00% (repeating, of course) to do with anything.

Like this:

Do you have to be airdrop qualified?

I think the BAH rates are broken down into something called MHA, which are further sub-divided into zip codes. The most expensive currently (for those with dependents, because they're not exactly the same as for those without) is "CA019," which includes more than 50 zip codes...which is San Fran. Here's your top 10: CA019, 5310 NY219, 4704 NY349, 4602 CA044, 4170 NY218, 3981 MA377, 3909 HI408, 3786 MA120, 3744 CA037, 3630 CA018, 3627

F bombs...

^^^This x 1000. IMO, enlisted drone operators will only serve to worsen the USAF's manpower problems especially considering the limited throughput of the training pipeline. What in the world is going to keep an E-5 in who's doing the same job as an O-4, but who is paid 1/3 of the salary? Said person, who could command the same salary as the O-4 on the outside from "name-your-contract-drone-operator"? What, are we going to make QOL so much better for the Enlisted drone corps that they wouldn't dream of getting out? Fat chance, $hit still rolls downhill. The basic problem that is causing our manpower issues hasn't been solved. Just simply throwing different meat into the grinder isn't going to be this magical panacea the AF is hoping for. I'm sure, though, that volunteers will be clamor to the entry gates, and this volume will serve to reinforce the narrative that "wow, that was a great idea!", until the 1st ADSCs start to expire...

As a pile-on / slightly different perspective to this, I'll say that the debate isn't really over whether someone who is enlisted could perform the task - of course they could, and maybe they should. I do disagree that having enlisted drone operators is the panacea that internet message board comments abound would have us believe, though. The notion that they "couldn't hack" the mission is a red-herring. The real issue is that enlisted drone operators would have an even greater incentive for getting out than the currently fielded solution does (i.e. the officer core). The reason for this is because the work is the same, but the pay differential for the same skill set on the outside is even larger for TSgt Joe Schmo than it is for Maj Umpdenuts. Hence, in what universe does a TSgt S (who's being paid $42K/yr) look at that contract drone salary and decide he's going to stick it out for the long haul, but Maj U (who's paid > $100K/yr) decides the stress is just too great, and jumps out to increase his pay and QOL to a lesser extent than the TSgt? If anything, having enlisted drone pilots (may) would only exacerbate the current retention issues facing the drone fleet. If it was simply a matter of throwing flesh at the solution then the AF could send these motivated Es through OTS (for what, like $12K?), and probably have to deal with less "institutional" upheaval than "plan B"...