Leadership at the 'Deid

[Guest REMF]

With all due respect, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. When is it ok for an NCO to physically rip a tray out of a commissioned officer's hands? If you're familiar with the case, what was done to "correct the behavior" of the NCO?

There is a lot of cherry picking of comments and misconstruing of what people write on this board.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that grabbing anything out of anyones hands to be ok. That post was in response about denying entry. No where in there did I say or imply that: "And at the commissary, if you don't have your CAC, we grab the cart out of your hand and throw all your produce into the aisle." I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges...or any other kind of fruit.

Did you read this post that I recently made?: "Regarding enlisted troops correcting officers. Again, I've been corrected...while in uniform. So, I know what you are talking about. And, all I can tell you is that I've absolutely instructed my Airmen to do what they need to do in a polite, courteous manner. I continously tell them that I never want to have thier unprofessional conduct become the issue. And, if I run across a situation where my troops are disrespectful while correcting someone, I consider that to be a seperate issue altogether. Just because someone is being unprofessional does not give my troops, or any of them for that matter, cause to lose their professionalism. What I would ask of everyone is if someone is being rude or disrespectful, get their name and unit. And then call their First Sgt or Sq CC. And, I will tell you that all the Sq CCs feel the same way. You guys are absolutely correct that customs and courtesies don't stop because you aren't wearing a reflective belt."

Does that post sound like a person trying to say it is ok to physically assault someone because they aren't wearing a RB? I think I've been farily consistent in my statements so far. Not that I won't go off track in the future.

Haven't got a clue on that one particular instance regarding the SNCOs conduct. As always, disciplinary actions are at the discretion of the Sq CC and he/she will take whatever action they deem necessary. If the Group/Wing doesn't agree with the approach being taken by the Sq CC, those commanders can always "pull up" the action to their level. Again, all I can do is reiterate my post above...if someone does something, regardless of the circumstances, that you feel is inapproriate, disrespectful, or violates customs/courtesies, your best bet is to keep your cool and professionalism, get their name/unit, and contact that unit's leadership. I can only speak for my squadron, but I immediately investigate any and all complaints and I take it all very seriously. And, I have faith that my fellow Sq CCs do as well (not a party line...I know all of them, some better than others, but we're all in agreement on this).

REMF

[Herk Driver]

First, several years ago? Really? How many folks where here then? A lot less, let me tell you. Also, there are several organizations and rather senior leaders here today than several years ago. You can scream all you want that that shouldn't make a difference and has nothing to do with anything but I can only tell you that it does. This has become an HQ base not unlike a lot of other high-profile bases. The expectations placed upon the wing are much greater than at Camp ### in a forward area. Again, none of us has to like it...we just have to do it.

To address your second point, exactly where did I say 'how great AUAB is?' Nowhere have I said that. In the post you reference, I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of positive things, done under current leadership, to counter a claim that leadership is trying to make things miserable. I sit in on a lot of meetings with the Group and Wing leadership and everything is about making it better here...and I gave some examples. I have been deployed living in a tent with absolutely nothing except my MREs and maybe one hot a day, so I feel somewhat qualified to spell out that while the 'Deid might not be 'great', it really isn't all that bad either. And for every person you find that says what you write above, I can find another as they rotate back through here who cannot believe how 'great' we have it. I even bring up the reflective belt thing and they laugh at it...in a "I can live with that" manner...and yes, its both officers and enlisted alike whom I talk to about this. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything...all I'm trying to do is balance the discussion out and give a different perspective.

Finally, RBs in the chow hall is a myth that needs to die off if we will allow the truth to replace it. There was NEVER a requirement to have RBs on in the DFAC, DEL, or any other location. There was an enforcement push over a month ago and some folks had stationed themselves inside a couple of the buildings vice being on the outside. They would then ask the folks once they were inside whether or not they had an RB...logic being, you just came in through that door without a RB on, hence, you probably don't have an RB. Because of that and some very limited incidents where people in line were also asked about having an RB, we have this myth flying around that you have to wear RBs inside buildings. Simply not true and it never was.

First, "a couple of years ago" was probably a bad choice of words. How about I put a timeframe on that? The Wing/CC that left in July 08. So, 1.5 years ago. Not that much has changed so much so that we can't use common sense since then. There were about 10K people back then too, so scoff if you want, but all I hear is you stirring the Kool-aid and pouring it into the glass for me to drink.

I hear everytime this topic comes up that with so many commanders, etc here, blah, blah. When I was deployed there in 2003, that was the same BS excuse people used then. In the end, who does the Wing/CC work for? AFCENT/CC? Funny that the AFCENT/CC visits all his bases in the AOR, so I don't think he is the driving force behind these local policies. If he were, then we would have policies that come and go with the AFCENT/CC. They don't. He doesn't force these policies on any other location that fall under his command. And while we're at it, no one is talking about some small forward location. We're talking other major bases in the AOR. Locations that see nearly every significant DV movement into/out of theater, so let's not be fooled here. This is not about pressure from above.

"I have been deployed living in a tent with absolutely nothing except my MREs and maybe one hot a day, so I feel somewhat qualified to spell out that while the 'Deid might not be 'great', it really isn't all that bad either." Thanks for your service. We will agree to disagree on the final part of your statement. I could have written all of that except the last line about the Deid and it not being so bad. This ain't my first rodeo, either.

You wrote earlier about being a commander and not wanting to have to worry about all the qweep. I would suggest that we don't have this level of qweep where I am and more times than not, people are wearing their uniforms IAW. Do we still have a few "confrontations"? Sure, but nothing like you see at AUAB. Why? Probably, because most people see that the rules are more along the lines of common sense and they can see a reason for most of them. Reflective belts get worn outside of the area where we live and inside the ECP for the flightline ONLY. It's much easier to comply here so you don't have such a problem with enforcement. Funny how that works. Make it easy to comply and you don't have to work as hard enforcing.

BTW, you wrote Yesterday, 2:39, "As you think through your climate survey answers, I hope you remember a couple of things. Kid Rock, Carlos Mencia, Jessie James, Harlem Globetrotters, 3 drinks a night, free internet, ITT trips downtown, relaxed restrictions on downtown travel, building new, larger trailers, renovating the cadillacs, etc. Not trying to convince you that everything is perfect over here but I think a lot of folks focus on the couple of things that upset them and forget that there is a lot going on with constant push towards big improvements vice "that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible. With all that we have and all that is constantly being done, I find it hard to square your statement with the objective reality."

That sounds a lot like you are trying to say that AUAB is a great place to live so shut up and color. Maybe, it's just me. I'm just sayin...

Edited December 11, 2009 by Herk Driver

[FireMission]

I think if the Airmen at the bottom of the chain COMPLETELY understood the mission and its importance, then all the ranks in between would too. It's a failure of leadership that makes some people think that rule enforcement is their primary reason for being deployed.

You can't say that it is communicated well.... a typical commander's party line is that everyone is important. When Airmen hear that kind of thing it just sounds like straight up rhetoric! That's it. Many commanders come across like a politician covering his/her bases, and are managers... not leaders. Leadership needs to be more involved in letting everyone know EXACTLY why what they do is important to the war.

They also need to realize that while all are important, some may be more important than others --- just a hard truth. For example: while the NCO working the DFAC to superivise TCNs is important to getting troops fed, thus keeping the flight line operating, thus killing bad guys. However, if he or the DFAC went away, lifestyle would only be harder, but the war wouldn't stop. We'd all eat MREs, etc.

[Guest REMF]

I think if the Airmen at the bottom of the chain COMPLETELY understood the mission and its importance, then all the ranks in between would too. It's a failure of leadership that makes some people think that rule enforcement is their primary reason for being deployed.

You can't say that it is communicated well.... a typical commander's party line is that everyone is important. When Airmen hear that kind of thing it just sounds like straight up rhetoric! That's it. Many commanders come across like a politician covering his/her bases, and are managers... not leaders. Leadership needs to be more involved in letting everyone know EXACTLY why what they do is important to the war.

They also need to realize that while all are important, some may be more important than others --- just a hard truth. For example: while the NCO working the DFAC to superivise TCNs is important to getting troops fed, thus keeping the flight line operating, thus killing bad guys. However, if he or the DFAC went away, lifestyle would only be harder, but the war wouldn't stop. We'd all eat MREs, etc.

Well, you'd love the sessions I have with my officers. They'll complain about something the AF is "doing to them" and I flat out tell them: "Your biggest problem is you think you are, no kidding, important to the AF. I'm a Lt Col and the AF barely cares about me. Stop thinking you are important, buckle down, and do your duty." My biggest point to my officers, and my troops, is you are important to the mission of the Air Force. Which is out there on the flight line, up in space, and in the nascent world of cyberspace (blatant AF mission plug). If you aren't helping that to occur, then you are wasting perfectly good oxygen. Now, I do care about my Airmen, officers and enlisted alike, but I do get tired of the constant praise that just becomes empty words because we all hear it too often. What ever happened to taking quiet pride in doing your duty better than anyone else and being the best? Anyone that needs constant affirmation in my book is a pretty weak link.

And, you are right. I never pass up an opportunity to tie my squadron's mission to the flight line or other combat activities. It is sometimes hard but I can always find a way to make that linkage. And, if I couldn't, we probably are doing something that is blue suit that doesn't need to be...contract it out!

I think I said this before in a different post that I think the base has settled into an equilibrium where enforcement is more even handed. I know that the SQ CCs aren't doing checks and to be honest, I only correct the most blatant offenders. Pretty much if you shove it into my face, then I have to say something to you about it.

REMF

[Guest REMF]

Sir,

I have to say I REALLY respect the way you've decided to address the problems and talk with the troops. I must say I'm not sure other commanders feel the same way. I truly feel that my commander in my current assignment understands our problems, issues with leadership,lets us blow off steam, his open door policy is truly an open door to talk about ANYTHING. I can also say that this hasn't been the case with every commander I've had, so props to you.

Let's give a little perspective on the subject from my point of view. I spent 2 tours at the Deid. Once, I worked in the J6 at an entity on base. The second time I served as the Exec for a Wing on Base. I've seen both the lower levels of leadership and the staff issues. Sometimes it is hard for those mid-level leaders to grasp the problems of their subordinates. However, you seem to grasp the issues better than most and I hope you can pass along our concerns...

...I also think that it is in poor taste for someone to bring a superior a problem without making a reasonable attempt to find a solution, so I will also attempt to address those subjects.

"...why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday..."

The sortie requirement is EXTREMELY important. If you weren't hitting the sortie requirements, the 'deid would be a place where careers would go to die...however, my point was that safety isn't job #1 with the military and it never should be (apparently leadership above both of us feel otherwise). The mission comes first, but the morale killers are actively detracting from that rightly achieved success.

BTW, I will ALWAYS respect leadership and follow their orders. The creative resistance you see is an attempt to show leadership how poorly they've implemented their ideas...of course, some are also sophomoric/juvenile antics that aren't productive.

I agree you cannot have separate rules, but perhaps that point should be brought to leadership. When I was there, alcohol was permitted in the quarters of those there longer than 180 days. At the CAOC, they had an unlimited bar. This is simply one example of notable inequities. You don't need separate rules, but you do need to recognize different needs. Flyers wear flightsuits and ground troops wear ABUs. Women are allowed longer hair than men. Some religions are permitted extra time off to engage in religious ceremonies. We treat people unequally, but it is not always unreasonable.

I too have been corrected, but if it is done in an appropriate manner (even from a subordinate) it need not be unpleasant. I've corrected O-6s on uniform wear. I've been corrected by E-2s. I've also been corrected by peers, subordinates, and superiors in significantly inappropriate ways (such as in front of peers and in a condescending manner). While I certainly don't enjoy being corrected, I've come to appreciate an odd sort of philosophy: I don't mind being wrong as long as someone on my team is right. Why? Because, as a team, we have the right answer.

I also agree that the AF PT gear isn't completely reflective and, if you are going around dark places, being safe is appropriate. The problem is the all around use and its enforcement as being overbearing. It truly should be as simple as "I order you to do XYZ". If someone doesn't do it, politely reminding them would be appropriate. Next appropriately asking them to comply or face consequences. If they still don't, they should be appropriately reported to their chain of command and dealt with there. If we did things that way, commanders would be held accountable any subordinate's behavior that wasn't corrected. Instead, the appearance is that leadership is requiring people to go around and narc on their peers.

Some hasty decisions by the base commander (such as refusing food to those not wearing reflective belts...apparently including Marines who are required to not wear reflective belts) have left subordinates questioning their leadership abilities. I deployed to a joint unit and I am well aware of the varying kinds of thoughts from subordinates in different services; some are quite interesting...

The ease of enforcement is the problem. It should be something that benefits the safety of our troops, not because it is easy to enforce. Some genius running without any reflective gear? That kind of idiocy should be brought up to his commander, but you raise an interesting point. Why is the base so poorly lit? Adding more lighting could make things far safer.

"Shoeclerkishness"... glad I coined the term. It seems to be catching on! :-)

But what is a shoeclerk? I tried to explain it to someone today. A "shoeclerk" is someone who is more interested in enforcing the rules than getting the mission accomplished, a person more interested in keeping the shoes in their supply in perfect order than making sure people have proper footwear.

I will NEVER, EVER knowingly fail to follow a lawful order. However, if I can point out the absurdity of some orders while still following the orders, it can serve to let leadership understand the problem and at the same time boosting morale.

I also concur that the base has settled into an equilibrium, but it seems to be an uneasy peace; not a lasting one.

Respect is a street that runs both ways. Sir, I would be happy to buy you a beer anytime, any place. If you're ever up in Minot or we're going to be in the same locale, drop me a line and the first round is on me. This respect is not lost on myself nor many others on this board.

Shacked! First time I've heard a commander express that opinion. Glad to hear it. Please continue to enforce that policy.

Tried to send you a PM...got denied. Open it up.

[BQZip01]

Tried to send you a PM...got denied. Open it up.

Not sure why? I still have plenty of space, but I deleted some just to be sure. Please try again.

[Butters]

Does anyone at the Deid know why the 17th sucks and needs to be rescued by McChord? Seems the 17th can't do their damn job and needs a few crews from McChord to bail them out. Guess they do not have enough reflective belt monitors.

[addict]

Does anyone at the Deid know why the 17th sucks and needs to be rescued by McChord? Seems the 17th can't do their damn job and needs a few crews from McChord to bail them out. Guess they do not have enough reflective belt monitors.

maybe they all hit their 90-day time

[GearMonkey]

McChord to the rescue? Quite the turn of events since usually we have to hold their hand at Ali.

I'm just glad Dover isn't out there anymore. We had EAS dudes flying YT missions during their trip to OTBH. I guess fighting a war is harder than flying limos and USO tours around.

Ah, rivalry. Such fun.

[Tizzle]

Does anyone at the Deid know why the 17th sucks and needs to be rescued by McChord? Seems the 17th can't do their damn job and needs a few crews from McChord to bail them out. Guess they do not have enough reflective belt monitors.

It prob has something to do with the fact that they are getting ready to head home. The 17th had to go "rescue" your boys in Turkey 2 months ago when they were doing the same thing. But, we have also head rumors of TACC sending more crews to "Augment" the EAS's due to the expected "Surge" of troops into OEF.

Hope you like Chopped Chicken..

[ChkHandleDn]

Would anybody be interested in some of these Anti-Shoe tabs? I have a few extras laying around.

[capt4fans]

Finally, RBs in the chow hall is a myth that needs to die off if we will allow the truth to replace it. There was NEVER a requirement to have RBs on in the DFAC, DEL, or any other location. There was an enforcement push over a month ago and some folks had stationed themselves inside a couple of the buildings vice being on the outside. They would then ask the folks once they were inside whether or not they had an RB...logic being, you just came in through that door without a RB on, hence, you probably don't have an RB. Because of that and some very limited incidents where people in line were also asked about having an RB, we have this myth flying around that you have to wear RBs inside buildings. Simply not true and it never was.

Sir I understand what you're saying about RB in the chow hall. If that really was the case, can you explain this one to us that aren't there anymore?

Thanks.

Edited December 18, 2009 by capt4fans

[Guest REMF]

Sir I understand what you're saying about RB in the chow hall. If that really was the case, can you explain this one to us that aren't there anymore?

Thanks.

Do you know when and in which DFAC that pic was taken? I'll check and see if it is still up.

Even if it is still up, the rule is still valid and no one is saying you have to wear it indoors (and as it points out, during daylight hours).

Hope you guys all have a Merry Christmas.

REMF

[nsplayr]

Even if it is still up, the rule is still valid and no one is saying you have to wear it indoors (and as it points out, during daylight hours).

Cannot respond to claims that they are required indooors, but...

I think the point here with the sign is that they were turning people away if they did not have a belt if they showed up at night (correct?) If this were a safety issue to the core, you would let those people eat, and make them stay in the safe area until a buddy brings them a spare or provide them one to use on the walk back to wherever they came from.

But if you turn them away, you just sent a person away from a well-lit indoor area out walking through the potentially dangerous Deid environment when you knew they didn't have a belt. That is not the correct decision from a strictly safety standpoint. If that person got run over on their way from the chow hall back to their tent to retrieve their belt, how would that look when, with a different policy, they could have stayed, eaten, and had a buddy bring them an extra belt or borrowed a loner one from the chow hall itself?

It's these types of what if's that make the safety argument illogical. This is all besides the point that many areas of the Deid between living quarters and the chow hall are well lit (I defer to someone who's been there on this one but this is what people have written in the past), and the fact that we're all adults, in a deployed location, many of whom bear arms and execute missions to kill the enemy but cannot be trusted to walk down the street without being hit by a slow moving vehicle.

To me, from a crew dog perspective, the loss of readiness caused by denying tired and hungry troops timely access to food is not worth the CYA of avoiding a car-on-pedestrian incident. These policies reflect the overall loss of mission focus and that's what so many articles on this topic miss...it about the belts but it's not really all about the belts. If mission support starts supporting the base population with as much effort and excellence as operations put into each and every sortie that supports the war, I would wear my belt with pride when the safety situation warrants such action.

In the meantime I will do as told begrudgingly.

[Guest REMF]

Cannot respond to claims that they are required indooors, but...

I think the point here with the sign is that they were turning people away if they did not have a belt if they showed up at night (correct?) If this were a safety issue to the core, you would let those people eat, and make them stay in the safe area until a buddy brings them a spare or provide them one to use on the walk back to wherever they came from.

But if you turn them away, you just sent a person away from a well-lit indoor area out walking through the potentially dangerous Deid environment when you knew they didn't have a belt. That is not the correct decision from a strictly safety standpoint. If that person got run over on their way from the chow hall back to their tent to retrieve their belt, how would that look when, with a different policy, they could have stayed, eaten, and had a buddy bring them an extra belt or borrowed a loner one from the chow hall itself?

It's these types of what if's that make the safety argument illogical. This is all besides the point that many areas of the Deid between living quarters and the chow hall are well lit (I defer to someone who's been there on this one but this is what people have written in the past), and the fact that we're all adults, in a deployed location, many of whom bear arms and execute missions to kill the enemy but cannot be trusted to walk down the street without being hit by a slow moving vehicle.

To me, from a crew dog perspective, the loss of readiness caused by denying tired and hungry troops timely access to food is not worth the CYA of avoiding a car-on-pedestrian incident. These policies reflect the overall loss of mission focus and that's what so many articles on this topic miss...it about the belts but it's not really all about the belts. If mission support starts supporting the base population with as much effort and excellence as operations put into each and every sortie that supports the war, I would wear my belt with pride when the safety situation warrants such action.

In the meantime I will do as told begrudgingly.

Cool, a new topic...we've really run the RB thing into the ground.

So, mission support doesn't support the base "with as much effort and excellence as operations put into each and every sortie."

As I sit here typing away on my 20th plus hour awake not supporting the base, please...enlighten me...

REMF

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Do you know when and in which DFAC that pic was taken? I'll check and see if it is still up.

Even if it is still up, the rule is still valid and no one is saying you have to wear it indoors (and as it points out, during daylight hours).

Hope you guys all have a Merry Christmas.

REMF

To answer your question sir, that was on the door of the Indy DFAC on or around the 15th of Oct 09 It had a matching cousin posted on the other door. I saw it with my own eyes. Once inside, the markerboard that normally displays the menu instead said something to the effect of "you will not be served unless you are wearing a reflective belt". Whether it was the policy or not, I know for an absolute FACT that people were being denied food by both USAF personnel and TCNs unless they were actually WEARING a reflective belt, not just demonstrating possession. If that was not the policy and it was simply being improperly enforced I do not know, but I do know that it sent shock waves through at least my squadron and I would assume the rest of the base. The impression was that leadership had finally gone off the deep end. That sign and the enforcement behind it are what I believe started the October rebellion leading to the now famous facebook group, article in AF times and other places. For many people, that sign became a tangible symbol of everything that is wrong with Al Udeid.

If nothing else, it serves to demonstrate the disastrous effect on both morale and good order and discipline one errant policy, or worse, improper enforcement of a policy can have. I wouldn't say that Al Udeid is on the verge of mutiny or anything that extreme, but it should be pretty telling when some hack comedian gets on stage and shouts "###### THE VICE COMMANDER!" and the crowd erupts in applause and cheering.

[Guest REMF]

To answer your question sir, that was on the door of the Indy DFAC on or around the 15th of Oct 09 It had a matching cousin posted on the other door. I saw it with my own eyes. Once inside, the markerboard that normally displays the menu instead said something to the effect of "you will not be served unless you are wearing a reflective belt". Whether it was the policy or not, I know for an absolute FACT that people were being denied food by both USAF personnel and TCNs unless they were actually WEARING a reflective belt, not just demonstrating possession. If that was not the policy and it was simply being improperly enforced I do not know, but I do know that it sent shock waves through at least my squadron and I would assume the rest of the base. The impression was that leadership had finally gone off the deep end. That sign and the enforcement behind it are what I believe started the October rebellion leading to the now famous facebook group, article in AF times and other places. For many people, that sign became a tangible symbol of everything that is wrong with Al Udeid.

If nothing else, it serves to demonstrate the disastrous effect on both morale and good order and discipline one errant policy, or worse, improper enforcement of a policy can have. I wouldn't say that Al Udeid is on the verge of mutiny or anything that extreme, but it should be pretty telling when some hack comedian gets on stage and shouts "###### THE VICE COMMANDER!" and the crowd erupts in applause and cheering.

Ok...seriously, I'm hearing you guys. I promise you that I will bring this up in the most opportune forum I can...and it will probably be whenever the lights are finally done in the BPC parking lots...timing is everything. And, I'd have to say that you guys have pretty much made your point, leadership has made theirs, and I still maintain that life has settled into a pretty decent balance. All the things I'm hearing of late date back to Oct or so...and I'm not trying to invite an argument...there will always be "that guy" that takes enforcement to a ridiculous level.

Regarding the F*#k the VICE CV Mencia comments, a few points...

1. Carlos Mencia is hardly a hack comedian. Hate his comedy all you want...he's a very popular and successful comedian. Not making a judgment call...he's just not a "hack." I'm a hack comedian...trust me, I know.

2. The video of him trashing the Wing CV is currently available on the media web...which is 100% owned and run by the 379th ECS...which is commanded by a Lt Col.

3. The Lt Col, I'm sure, hasn't been told to take it down. And, since the video has been reproduced onto YouTube, senior leadership is aware the video is out there. Seeing as how its been brought up at staff meetings.

4. You guys do know the CV is a bag wearer, right? Not some EMXG or EMSG puke. This is one of your own. That doesn't count for anything? I'm just curious at which point 20+ years of ops experience turns into irrelevance and these guys, whose replacements will come from your ranks, turn into the raging assholes you all accuse them of being.

5. And no, it's not indifference that causes them to look the other way. They understand that people are going to disagree with them and that the criticism and laughter is a natural reaction.

What an ass he would be to crack down just because people disagreed with an unpopular policy. The fact the Wing/CV allows this video to stay available, absorb the abuse, and still remain steadfast in his policies is admirable in my opinion. Not pig headed stubborn...just he is convinced that he is right, he is ready to absorb the hits and still go on.

Keep 'em coming...especially the hits on EMSG and EMXG.

And, oh yeah, Merry Christmas!

REMF

Edited December 18, 2009 by REMF

[BQZip01]

Would anybody be interested in some of these Anti-Shoe tabs? I have a few extras laying around.

I'll take one

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Ok...seriously, I'm hearing you guys. I promise you that I will bring this up in the most opportune forum I can...and it will probably be whenever the lights are finally done in the BPC parking lots...timing is everything. And, I'd have to say that you guys have pretty much made your point, leadership has made theirs, and I still maintain that life has settled into a pretty decent balance. All the things I'm hearing of late date back to Oct or so...and I'm not trying to invite an argument...there will always be "that guy" that takes enforcement to a ridiculous level.

Regarding the F*#k the VICE CV Mencia comments, a few points...

1. Carlos Mencia is hardly a hack comedian. Hate his comedy all you want...he's a very popular and successful comedian. Not making a judgment call...he's just not a "hack." I'm a hack comedian...trust me, I know.

2. The video of him trashing the Wing CV is currently available on the media web...which is 100% owned and run by the 379th ECS...which is commanded by a Lt Col.

3. The Lt Col, I'm sure, hasn't been told to take it down. And, since the video has been reproduced onto YouTube, senior leadership is aware the video is out there. Seeing as how its been brought up at staff meetings.

4. You guys do know the CV is a bag wearer, right? Not some EMXG or EMSG puke. This is one of your own. That doesn't count for anything? I'm just curious at which point 20+ years of ops experience turns into irrelevance and these guys, whose replacements will come from your ranks, turn into the raging assholes you all accuse them of being.

5. And no, it's not indifference that causes them to look the other way. They understand that people are going to disagree with them and that the criticism and laughter is a natural reaction.

What an ass he would be to crack down just because people disagreed with an unpopular policy. The fact the Wing/CV allows this video to stay available, absorb the abuse, and still remain steadfast in his policies is admirable in my opinion. Not pig headed stubborn...just he is convinced that he is right, he is ready to absorb the hits and still go on.

Keep 'em coming...especially the hits on EMSG and EMXG.

And, oh yeah, Merry Christmas!

REMF

I'm not advocating that he take it down, and if he did, he would be in an even worse position. The main point that I'm getting at is that it is pretty telling that "the crowd goes wild" when their leadership is publicly insulted like that. I can tell you that at my home station unit if someone said the same kind of things against our leadership they'd be greeted with silence, boos or an outright ass whipping. That's because we actually respect our leadership and an outsider coming in and publicly insulting them like that would simplt not be tolerated, forget cheered.

Being a bag wearer does nothing for him. Poor leadership is poor leadership, regardless of what uniform is worn, or even what you did in a prior life. I know guys who went to pilot training when BG Wilson was the WG/CC at KCBM. They generally liked what the guy did there, and when he was announced to be taking over at AUAB, people were hoping and expecting a change for the better from the previous leadership there. Instead, things have only gotten worse and more queepy.

[MKopack]

...there will always be "that guy" that takes enforcement to a ridiculous level.

"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." - Winston Churchill

All of us who serve and have served, and have deployed downrange are adults - enlisted and officer - despite how we might occasionally act (if we're not, that's an entirely different problem...) We've got to give people some freedom to be adults, or they'll act, well, as they're treated. That's where we need "leadership" versus "management". Leadership builds pride, management builds contempt - or at least a lack of respect... I'm now in the corporate world and I see it every day.

When Robin Olds grew his mustache as the 8th TFW Commander, it made a purposeful statement to all those in his command that he was willing to "let some of the small stuff" slide in order to keep everyone's eye, and their 'buy-in', on the real mission - to draw everyone together, to build a team. I've been fortunate enough to know quite a few people who served at Ubon at that time - from Phantom pilots, and flightline maintainers, to SP's and base support personnel - and to a person, I think they would have followed him anywhere without even a question. That's a big reason that the Wolfpack was the most successful unit in the theater at the time.

Where would he have fallen on the reflective belts and the other questions here in this thread? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that if he directed his people to wear reflective belts in the shower, there wouldn't have been much of an argument. That is leadership and that is respect. Is there anyone in leadership at the 'Deid willing to grow a mustache to build that kind of pride and teamwork today?

[nsplayr]

Cool, a new topic...we've really run the RB thing into the ground.

So, mission support doesn't support the base "with as much effort and excellence as operations put into each and every sortie."

As I sit here typing away on my 20th plus hour awake not supporting the base, please...enlighten me...

REMF

Sir,

Not meant as a personal attack. There are many support folks that work very hard, no doubt. The deployed organic support and MX personal from my squadron I'm working with right now are some of the best in the AF and they work more hours than I do to make sure we are prepared to take off for any mission at any time. On the other hand, I have for my argument example A:

I'm not currently at Balad where this picture was taken, nor do I know the story behind it (i.e. exercises impacting normal hours, etc. etc.) On the other hand, how is it even within the realm of acceptable for a customer service center that all troops rely on to be open for 10.5 out of 168 hours in a week. That's 6.25% of the time. 6.25%?? I'm not a finance guy and I don't how how they run their shop, but if your primary job is to process base customer's financial transactions and help them ensure they get paid correctly (because it's every service member's responsibility to ensure...etc), how can you only be open 6.25% of the time?!? It is easily possible that, I don't know, customers work in their own shops or are flying sorties during each and every single one of those 10.5 hours and then where does that leave them?

My thought in bringing up the ops mindset vs. the support mindset was not to set off a flame war or stir the pot of rivalry. There are plenty of support troops who bend over backwards to get the mission done and support the base (not just ops people, but MSG troops supporting MX, Med, other MSG, etc.). In my limited time in the ops world I have yet to see an example of when we failed to get the mission done one way or another, weather, MX status, manning issues be damned. Yes, I can get my finance question answered tomorrow but we can also drop ordnance on that cave tomorrow too. It's just a mindset that IMHO needs to change, and I know there are about 6.9 million pieces of anecdotal evidence running around out there that confirm that this phenomenon of support not actually supporting anyone is not limited to the example I provided.

Finally, I don't actually blame the support shops as much as I blame the leaders, who are overwhelmingly bag-wearers. Why they don't get it together enough to man a critical customer support shop so they can stay open more than a few hours as week I don't understand. Why they're not out there, with the troops, experiencing these problems and using the power of their birds and stars to fix things, I don't understand. Last time we had a general officer come through our squadron the place looked immaculate, everyone was working in their shops, planes were taking off, and we were running on all cylinders, and this was 6pm in the evening at home station. Why more generals don't happen to visit these deployed support shops to spark similar reaction, again, I don't understand.

[Guest Cptmorgan4me]

This site was just sent to me from a friend - WOW! What is the problem with you all on this forum, did you not volunteer for military service? Do you complain thise much on teh 1st and 15th when you deposit your pay? Spend more of your time thinking about real warriors in Afg getting killed by IED's and snipers then having to wear your flip flops or gay reflective belts.

Robin Olds would have kicked your ass and told you to stop crying.

[loadsmith]

This site was just sent to me from a friend - WOW! What is the problem with you all on this forum, did you not volunteer for military service? Do you complain thise much on teh 1st and 15th when you deposit your pay? Spend more of your time thinking about real warriors in Afg getting killed by IED's and snipers then having to wear your flip flops or gay reflective belts.

Robin Olds would have kicked your ass and told you to stop crying.

First off welcome to the discussion, Secondly, spell check is your friend. If you want to come on here and gain any sort of credibility with your "shut up and color" rhetoric then I suggest you start reading this thread from the beginning. No one throughout this discussion has for one second ever discounted the sacrifices of those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. I guarantee most if not all of us would rather be at one of the numerous bases in those 2 countries then here at the Deid. This thread is not about bitching, its about folks(leadership) losing focus when they should be figuring out how to better support and prevent the real warriors from being killed by snipers and IEDs. Spelling has been triple checked (thanks Jughead)

Edited December 19, 2009 by loadsmith

[Jughead]

spell check is your friend.

and

it’s about folks(leadership) loosing focus

If you're gonna make a spelling/grammar flame, may I suggest triple-checking your own work...?

PS: Oh, yeah--I actually agree w/ your point, though I wrote off Cptmorgan4me's post as flamebait....

[Guest Cptmorgan4me]

and

If you're gonna make a spelling/grammar flame, may I suggest triple-checking your own work...?

PS: Oh, yeah--I actually agree w/ your point, though I wrote off Cptmorgan4me's post as flamebait....

Hey Loadsmith - only responded b/c this topic is so stupid. Sorry for mis-spells, I've got a job to do here and no time qc my work. You talk about leadership, i doubt you could lead your buddy to the dfac w/o getting lost. So before question the folks that have served longer, deployed more and commanded squadrons, groups and wings - think about what you want to say, say it to yourself and then shut the F--k up.