What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Herk Driver]

Seemed like JQP was trying to draw light to the email from the over zealous "Director of Student Affairs" I can't even believe that's a real thing


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Maybe...or maybe he tried to sensationalize a "nothing to see here moment" when he wrote that a major single-handedly repealed the 21st amendment and reinstated prohibition.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, bluedevil said:

Seemed like JQP was trying to draw light to the email from the over zealous "Director of Student Affairs" I can't even believe that's a real thing


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

It's a fancy way of saying "Student Flight Commander" in a FTU TRS.

[Fuzz]

6 hours ago, Azimuth said:

No they didn't. The TRS/CC banned alcohol in Non-Prior Service Airman's dorms.

Looks like the TRS/CC banned it in the NPS dorms, but this major included all dorms under the TRS's supervision. Which may be irrelevant if the only people in the TRS dorms are NPS, however, if the dorms have non-NPS studs than I can see the issue.

[fox two]

Recent policy has required all RPA IQT students to stay on base in the dorms.  These are students of the 16th (to which the email is addressed).

Edited November 6, 2016 by fox two

[Slick]

I'm surprised I haven't heard much discussion on here about the possibility of AD life improving under President Trump.  Retired General Mattis will now be the Secretary of Defense and from what I've heard there is not yet an incoming Secretary of the Air Force.

Part of Trump's campaign rhetoric was addressing the epidemic of incompetent, clueless leadership in this country.  Although he mostly meant this in reference to the politicians, it is a direct parallel to the sentiment on this forum regarding AF leadership.

But now that Trump is in office the political leadership at the top of the country has drastically changed.  And with Mattis especially, as the Secretary of Defense, I would think there will be a direct and profound effect on AF leadership and subsequently AF culture.  Mattis even send out a very promising letter throughout the DoD right after swearing in yesterday.  

Sound like these two guys are exactly what the AF needed.  So things about to get better, right?

Edited January 22, 2017 by Slick

[SurelySerious]

 

Sound like these two guys are exactly what the AF needed.  So things about to get better, right?

As much as I trust Mattis to take a great vector for war fighters, more direct effects would promulgate from Fingers and the new Secretary. I like the initiatives that Fingers has started regarding focusing on the squadron and additional duty changes...but there's the middle management problem.

There are a multitude of qweep empires that have been built that will be defended between the Major level and Fingers.

One place Mattis and/or Trump could wreck shop is acquisitions. Edit: and the GS system.

[SurelySerious]

Yesterday Trump pledged to "completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth."

I'll leave it to you to decide what impact a statement like that might have on your QoL.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Baseops Network Forums mobile app

Any worse than the unprecedented expansion of counter terror operations under the Obama doctrine? Probably not.

[Clark Griswold]

35 minutes ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Yesterday Trump pledged to "completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth."
I'll leave it to you to decide what impact a statement like that might have on your QoL.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Baseops Network Forums mobile app

I winced when I heard that too but I think T is somewhat like Duff-Man...

I take some of what he says with a healthy grain of salt and I am pretty sure he understands that saying that is like saying we're going to get rid of all bad people everywhere on earth forever.  

My hunch / hope is that what will be directly called "radical Islamic terrorism" will be a bit restricted and his administration will just accept the idea that the ME, HOA and in general parts of the Islamic world just work differently shall we say and only involve the US when our interests are at stake or it makes sense to nip a growing problem in the bud.

Buy oil, sell them stuff, intervene when necessary, keep your expectations realistic and don't think it is your job to change them.

[pawnman]

45 minutes ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Yesterday Trump pledged to "completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth."

I'll leave it to you to decide what impact a statement like that might have on your QoL.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Baseops Network Forums mobile app
 

I'm not disgruntled with my job because of the deployments where I got to kill ISIL assholes on every sortie...

[tac airlifter]

2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'm not disgruntled with my job because of the deployments where I got to kill ISIL assholes on every sortie...

Exactly.  

[sqwatch]

I would almost go back for the free go-pills alone. A guaranteed nine-line on every sortie only ads to the job satisfaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

14 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Yesterday Trump pledged to "completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth."

I'll leave it to you to decide what impact a statement like that might have on your QoL.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Baseops Network Forums mobile app
 

Maybe pertinent to this idea.

https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/01/20/donald_trump_has_a_coherent_radical_foreign_policy_doctrine_112180.html

[VMFA187]

20 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'm not disgruntled with my job because of the deployments where I got to kill ISIL assholes on every sortie...

Concur.

[Disco_Nav963]

On 1/21/2017 at 6:29 PM, Slick said:

Part of Trump's campaign rhetoric was addressing the epidemic of incompetent, clueless leadership in this country.  Although he mostly meant this in reference to the politicians, it is a direct parallel to the sentiment on this forum regarding AF leadership.

But now that Trump is in office the political leadership at the top of the country has drastically changed.  And with Mattis especially, as the Secretary of Defense, I would think there will be a direct and profound effect on AF leadership and subsequently AF culture.  Mattis even send out a very promising letter throughout the DoD right after swearing in yesterday.  

Sound like these two guys are exactly what the AF needed.  So things about to get better, right?

By enthroning an incompetent, clueless leader in the Oval Office? I do see your point in part. IF Trump's approach to the military is one of benign neglect, I think we can count on solid leadership from Secretary Mattis and 'mo money from Congress (for at least the next two years). If Trump tries to actually be substantively involved in defense policy (with the psychopath General Flynn whispering in his ear) I fear for our future.

I don't know you, and I don't know how long you've been in, so please don't take this as patronizing: I've seen a lot of young guys in the squadron the last few years that, because they commissioned midway through the Obama years, believe all the incompetence and all the PC bullshit in the Air Force stems from the Obama administration and Obama appointees. Not true. I came in when Rumsfeld was SecDef and "Buzz" Moseley was CSAF. Guess when Masters degrees came back, CSSs went away, Finance got centralized at Ellsworth, and E-9s were already rampaging? The latter part of the Bush years. It was probably happening earlier. Hell, it was probably happening from the days of He Who Shall Not Be Named on. In my adult life I've cast my four presidential votes for Bush 43, McCain, Romney, and, well, not the new guy. By far the lowest my morale has ever been in my career was the first 6 months of it when Rumsfeld was SecDef and the professional military advice of the generals—that our strategy in Iraq was clearly not working—was considered seditious.

I say all of that to say, (a) PC bullshit/E-9s gone wild is an AF cultural problem we brought on ourselves, not one imposed by the political branches of government (**caveat that holy shit Debbie James encouraged it, thank God she's gone**, and (b) with the political people, it's not Republican vs. Democrat you have to worry about, it's "People who understand and respect the professional culture and political independence of the military" vs. "Those who don't." Among the former in my time we've had Gates (Republican... although holy shit he hated the Air Force... who pissed in his Cheerios during his two years as an Lt at Whiteman in the 60s?), Panetta, and Ash Carter; among the latter we've had Rumsfeld and Obama/Biden themselves, all of whom treated the generals and admirals as a suspect Fifth Column loyal to their partisan opponents, who would try to steamroll the president's agenda by... offering their professional military advice, and who had to be beaten in the bureaucratic war.

So I am one the one hand buoyed by everything about Mattis, and most recently the letter you alluded to. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned by the new POTUS's CIA HQ visit, because it suggests the president falls into the latter camp, viewing us in partisan rather than professional terms.

I'm not saying that partisan differences on military issues don't matter; clearly they do. I like 3% pay raises better than 1.69% pay raises. But I care more that we avoid situations such as '02-'03 when the Chief of Staff of the Army got canned for questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq with >50% fewer people than the OPLAN called for, or 2009-10 when the office of the Vice President leaked like crazy to the press to attack Gen McChrystal for essentially saying "These are the forces required to achieve the objectives the White House set in its own Spring '09 Afghan policy review."

What we've seen so far does not have me optimistic at all. It has me very worried. But I do see Mattis and the esteem the public has for him as a potential BS filter, and for that I am grateful.

[brickhistory]

Political leaders using the military as an instrument for political purposes on the world stage.

Huh, who'da thought?

Wasn't there some crazy German who wrote a long time ago something about war and politics?

[SurelySerious]

Political leaders using the military as an instrument for political purposes on the world stage.
Huh, who'da thought?
Wasn't there some crazy German who wrote a long time ago something about war and politics?

This is an internet argument, so clearly you're talking about Hitler.

Kidding.

[brickhistory]

7 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

This is an internet argument, so clearly you're talking about Hitler.

Kidding.

That'd be a crazy Austrian.

But I quibble...

[snoopyeast]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

This is an internet argument, so clearly you're talking about Hitler.

Kidding.

Godwin's Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[SurelySerious]

Godwin's Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

That's what I was fulfilling; just figured I'd go ugly early!

[Slick]

18 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

By enthroning an incompetent, clueless leader in the Oval Office? I do see your point in part. IF Trump's approach to the military is one of benign neglect, I think we can count on solid leadership from Secretary Mattis and 'mo money from Congress (for at least the next two years). If Trump tries to actually be substantively involved in defense policy (with the psychopath General Flynn whispering in his ear) I fear for our future.

I don't know you, and I don't know how long you've been in, so please don't take this as patronizing: I've seen a lot of young guys in the squadron the last few years that, because they commissioned midway through the Obama years, believe all the incompetence and all the PC bullshit in the Air Force stems from the Obama administration and Obama appointees. Not true. I came in when Rumsfeld was SecDef and "Buzz" Moseley was CSAF. Guess when Masters degrees came back, CSSs went away, Finance got centralized at Ellsworth, and E-9s were already rampaging? The latter part of the Bush years. It was probably happening earlier. Hell, it was probably happening from the days of He Who Shall Not Be Named on. In my adult life I've cast my four presidential votes for Bush 43, McCain, Romney, and, well, not the new guy. By far the lowest my morale has ever been in my career was the first 6 months of it when Rumsfeld was SecDef and the professional military advice of the generals—that our strategy in Iraq was clearly not working—was considered seditious.

I say all of that to say, (a) PC bullshit/E-9s gone wild is an AF cultural problem we brought on ourselves, not one imposed by the political branches of government (**caveat that holy shit Debbie James encouraged it, thank God she's gone**, and (b) with the political people, it's not Republican vs. Democrat you have to worry about, it's "People who understand and respect the professional culture and political independence of the military" vs. "Those who don't." Among the former in my time we've had Gates (Republican... although holy shit he hated the Air Force... who pissed in his Cheerios during his two years as an Lt at Whiteman in the 60s?), Panetta, and Ash Carter; among the latter we've had Rumsfeld and Obama/Biden themselves, all of whom treated the generals and admirals as a suspect Fifth Column loyal to their partisan opponents, who would try to steamroll the president's agenda by... offering their professional military advice, and who had to be beaten in the bureaucratic war.

So I am one the one hand buoyed by everything about Mattis, and most recently the letter you alluded to. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned by the new POTUS's CIA HQ visit, because it suggests the president falls into the latter camp, viewing us in partisan rather than professional terms.

I'm not saying that partisan differences on military issues don't matter; clearly they do. I like 3% pay raises better than 1.69% pay raises. But I care more that we avoid situations such as '02-'03 when the Chief of Staff of the Army got canned for questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq with >50% fewer people than the OPLAN called for, or 2009-10 when the office of the Vice President leaked like crazy to the press to attack Gen McChrystal for essentially saying "These are the forces required to achieve the objectives the White House set in its own Spring '09 Afghan policy review."

What we've seen so far does not have me optimistic at all. It has me very worried. But I do see Mattis and the esteem the public has for him as a potential BS filter, and for that I am grateful.

Thanks for the informative write-up; definitely appreciated.  FYI, I'm still in the applicant phase for UPT and have been applying to guard/reserve units.  However, I am now very strongly considering AD since I am getting near the age limit and have been following this thread for a few years.  So, I wanted to pose the question given my situation and the rather unprecedented change in leadership for our country.  

To add to the discussion, a new secretary of the Air Force has just been selected.  All I'll say is that I guess I spoke too soon.

[Disco_Nav963]

42 minutes ago, Slick said:

Thanks for the informative write-up; definitely appreciated.  FYI, I'm still in the applicant phase for UPT and have been applying to guard/reserve units.  However, I am now very strongly considering AD since I am getting near the age limit and have been following this thread for a few years.  So, I wanted to pose the question given my situation and the rather unprecedented change in leadership for our country.  

To add to the discussion, a new secretary of the Air Force has just been selected.  All I'll say is that I guess I spoke too soon.

That being the case... Even in the most asinine of times, the AF has been worth it for the people you get to serve with. I'd still try to go Guard/Reserve if at all possible. I'm a CSO, came in knowing there would be a 6 year commitment, and have stayed for 11 (punching for the Reserves at end of the year). I would not sign up for a de facto 12 year commitment in the current environment. Even if President Trump made fixing the Air Force a top 10 priority and dumped a crap ton of money into the project, it would take many many years for the changes to materialize because of limited production capacity for new pilots. On AD you'll be entering a world that is chronically undermanned and can expect to spend 12 years chasing your own tail in terms of ops tempo. But if you have to choose between AD and no slot at all, by all means go AD.

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Valid.  But again, he vowed to completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.  Unfortunately, that means a hell of a lot more people, in a hell of a lot more places, than ISIL.  As you know, there are many other formidable terrorists networks, both Sunni and Shi'a, throughout the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia, and the subcontinent.  

Thus, it's a patently idiotic and dishonest statement.  We're not going to completely eradicate anything, and he knows it.  And you should know it too.  It's tough-guy rhetoric and bluster that sells well to his base.  And yet it could really shape our national security landscape for many years to come.

Additionally, Spicer and Tillerson have just commented that US forces will defend islands in the SCS and block China's access to the Spratly and Paracels via massive naval blockades.  Awesome.  That should work out well for us.  From an article on the subject: "The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."

And wait, there's more.  Trump continues to mention "taking the oil" from Iraq.  Absolutely absurd, and in addition to being logistically impossible and entirely immoral, it's a proposal that I'm hoping everyone here understands is illegal.  It's against US and international law, and it would establish the worst possible precedent - that the global leader goes to war for economic gain.  Do you guys want to live in a world where it's cool for countries to wage war for financial profit?  Where one country recognizes value in the resources of another and goes to war to steal them?  I don't.  In fact, I seem to recall us going to war in 1991 for exactly that purpose - to stop a large country with a powerful military from stealing the oil from a smaller country.

Dude I'm the first to admit that Hillary is a corrupt liar and a scum bag.  But it's not about Hillary anymore.  (And it's not about Obama either, for those tempted to draw comparisons to his foreign policy blunders).  It's about Trump.  And the things he's said, both during the campaign and now as President, have serious implications for people in the military.  I understand the hatred and distrust towards Hillary and the left-wing, but it seems like that hatred has morphed into blind allegiance to a guy who has, and continues to say really shortsighted, naïve, conflicting, crazy, dangerous shit.

War has always been about money.

[Jaded]

5 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Stuff.

Really well said. I have trouble converting my feelings on some of this into words, and this post communicates my unease very well. Any recommended reading on this subject? Non-partisan analysis is challenging to find.

[pawnman]

It seems like a lot of people already think we went to war in Irag and Afghanistan for oil (even though Afghanistan doesn't even have appreciable amounts of oil).  I wouldn't be for taking over all their oil wholesale...but I would be for some agreements that actually benefit us, like forcing Iraq to pay for all the equipment they keep turning over to ISIL.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Ho Lee Fuk said:

Valid.  But again, he vowed to completely eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.  Unfortunately, that means a hell of a lot more people, in a hell of a lot more places, than ISIL.  As you know, there are many other formidable terrorists networks, both Sunni and Shi'a, throughout the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia, and the subcontinent.  

Thus, it's a patently idiotic and dishonest statement.  We're not going to completely eradicate anything, and he knows it.  And you should know it too.  It's tough-guy rhetoric and bluster that sells well to his base.  And yet it could really shape our national security landscape for many years to come.

Additionally, Spicer and Tillerson have just commented that US forces will defend islands in the SCS and block China's access to the Spratly and Paracels via massive naval blockades.  Awesome.  That should work out well for us.  From an article on the subject: "The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."

And wait, there's more.  Trump continues to mention "taking the oil" from Iraq.  Absolutely absurd, and in addition to being logistically impossible and entirely immoral, it's a proposal that I'm hoping everyone here understands is illegal.  It's against US and international law, and it would establish the worst possible precedent - that the global leader goes to war for economic gain.  Do you guys want to live in a world where it's cool for countries to wage war for financial profit?  Where one country recognizes value in the resources of another and goes to war to steal them?  I don't.  In fact, I seem to recall us going to war in 1991 for exactly that purpose - to stop a large country with a powerful military from stealing the oil from a smaller country.

Dude I'm the first to admit that Hillary is a corrupt liar and a scum bag.  But it's not about Hillary anymore.  (And it's not about Obama either, for those tempted to draw comparisons to his foreign policy blunders).  It's about Trump.  And the things he's said, both during the campaign and now as President, have serious implications for people in the military.  I understand the hatred and distrust towards Hillary and the left-wing, but it seems like that hatred has morphed into blind allegiance to a guy who has, and continues to say really shortsighted, naïve, conflicting, crazy, dangerous shit.

This is how I feel about our present situation ^! I admire this site for what it does for years, in terms of the clarity of a situation members are able to express ever one in awhile without the he said/she said noise. Had to join to say, Dude thanks, spot on x100!