What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Moose]

TC here. Some fairly large judgements in the comments above. I won't go defensive and address them all, but feel free to ask questions if you're actually curious. 

Where applicable, thanks for the feedback. Fly safe.

[ViperStud]

11 minutes ago, Moose said:

TC here. Some fairly large judgements in the comments above. I won't go defensive and address them all, but feel free to ask questions if you're actually curious. 

Where applicable, thanks for the feedback. Fly safe.

TC, for what it's worth I look at you the same way I look at Welsh's stint as CSAF. In the beginning, there was so much hope. As time went on, the hope never materialized. Welsh eventually sold out. You eventually stopped prioritizing the vendetta against shit leadership and, instead, started caring about website traffic and shitty writing for the sake of said traffic. 

 

What happened?  Did you go all-in with a new job and need to outsource JQP?  If so, realize that your brand would have been better served by stepping away rather than delegating it to people who don't quite get it. 

[Moose]

1 hour ago, ViperStud said:

TC, for what it's worth I look at you the same way I look at Welsh's stint as CSAF. In the beginning, there was so much hope. As time went on, the hope never materialized. Welsh eventually sold out. You eventually stopped prioritizing the vendetta against shit leadership and, instead, started caring about website traffic and shitty writing for the sake of said traffic. 

 

What happened?  Did you go all-in with a new job and need to outsource JQP?  If so, realize that your brand would have been better served by stepping away rather than delegating it to people who don't quite get it. 

I suppose that's a fair take, even if I don't see it that way. We got some huge wins and moved the needle consistently for three solid years. We continue to get wins occasionally, but two things have changed. The first is that I can't personally dedicate the time to the blog that I was able to commit from '13-'16 (because as you intuit, I went to work) and have therefore grown to rely on others. The second is that I believe the USAF is genuinely trying to turn things around. As opposed to the season of darkness, when I felt Welsh and James needed to be called out on every valid example that came around the bend because they didn't even have the right intent, I'm interested in giving Goldfein and Wilson a bit of space and time to pursue their valid objectives.

There was never a shift away from pursuing the vendetta against shit leadership. In fact, I caught hell for pursuing that vendetta further than many felt was wise or constructive. Likewise, I never shifted to making editorial decisions for the sake of generating clicks. Of course I want people to visit the blog, but it's because I want them to read what I'm writing. I don't get paid by the click and no one edits my work or decides what I will publish. I don't write click-bait headlines and I don't (purposely) bury leads. My writing is too clunky and complex to ever prevail in a click-for-cash environment. Honestly, if I wanted to get rich online, I'd roll with cat videos or a meme generator ... not a military affairs website only interesting to a tiny sliver of the population.

Entering into business to make the site self-sustaining was a tough call, but on balance the right one. The site is still doing good things and the USAF still has to keep it in the cross-check. If it tars my image with some of you guys for the time being, I can live with that.

Edit to add: meant to say that yes, there have been missteps and stories I wish I hadn't written or permitted others to publish. My response above shouldn't be taken as a claim that everything's been done perfectly. The intent has been right, but not always the execution.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Moose
Words

[Steve C]

3 hours ago, Moose said:

The site is still doing good things... 

The last straw for me was when you decided to shit on some random OSS CC for his PT policy. At that point it was obvious you had run out of interesting topics to bitch about.

[GlassEmpty]

5 hours ago, Steve C said:

The last straw for me was when you decided to shit on some random OSS CC for his PT policy. At that point it was obvious you had run out of interesting topics to bitch about.

 

Not only random, but that guy is actually an great dude from all the IP's I talked to there. Everyone was happy to work for him and he was friendly as $h!t. It's like TC hasn't gotten over the Laughlin drama from the previous regime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by GlassEmpty
I don't spell too good.

[Duck]

I thought the PT program was bullshit. But then again I am a fatty who only scores in the 80s. No wasted effort here!


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[xaarman]

A lot of things wouldn't have gotten done without JQP. Remember the mold problem at AUAB? Or the Laughlin IP issues? Those alone make me thankful for the JQP readership. While I don't always agree with the conclusions, I read the articles and will stay subscribed for a long time. 

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, Moose said:

I suppose that's a fair take, even if I don't see it that way. 

TC, that's a valid and thoughtful reply.  Thanks.

I don't agree with everything you write, but on the whole you've had a positive impact on the service by forcing some discussions into the light and making powerful folks uncomfortable for their foolish decisions.  

Some constructive criticism: stay away from articles villifying commanders based on a single email.  Those commanders might be wrong, or they might be right.  It's impossible to know without context, and articles lacking context diminish the credibility of your conclusions.  You do much better on stories like the Laughlin debacle where you've investigated both sides, or attacking the say-do gap at higher levels.

 

[Moose]

4 hours ago, Steve C said:

The last straw for me was when you decided to shit on some random OSS CC for his PT policy. At that point it was obvious you had run out of interesting topics to bitch about.

We just have a difference of opinion about the substance and importance of that article. Sorry you feel that way, but no apologies for the story itself. While I'm sure that CC has a fan club, his policy was punishing airmen who met the USAF fitness standard. It was worthy of a callout and was fact-driven. And the guy is a commander, not a random anonymous henchman who can expect zero scrutiny. It's OK to critique what he is doing with the authority he's been granted, and we don't have to agree about it.

My one regret on that piece was not using a few more words to make it clear many CCs were/are doing similar things. Shouldn't be up to Britt Warren to carry all of the burden for a practice that exists in many other locations.

[Moose]

4 hours ago, GlassEmpty said:

 

Not only random, but that guy is actually an great dude from all the IPs I talked to there. Everyone was happy to work for him and he was friendly as shit. It's like TV hasn't gotten over the Laughlin drama from the previous regime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Is "great dude" really the test you want to roll with? Mark Welsh was widely regarded as a great dude. James Post too. Brian Hastings -- great dude according to many people. Britt Warren can be a great dude overall and still be dead wrong to punish people for exceeding fitness standards but falling short of his pet standard.

As for Laughlin ... I don't think I'll ever be over Macho Grande.

[Moose]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Some constructive criticism: stay away from articles villifying commanders based on a single email.  Those commanders might be wrong, or they might be right.  It's impossible to know without context, and articles lacking context diminish the credibility of your conclusions.  You do much better on stories like the Laughlin debacle where you've investigated both sides, or attacking the say-do gap at higher levels.

 

This is totally fair. If I'm pushing stories that leave readers with the impression of inductive reasoning based on a single random email, I'm missing the mark. Appreciate the input.

[Duck]

I say keep it up. Thanks for being a voice for those that have been told for so long "you volunteered", as if by volunteering I waived my ability to use common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ViperStud]

3 hours ago, Moose said:

 James Post too.

I've never met a single person who thought this. He was my wing CC at Shaw and was universally hated. Enlisted would openly insult him in front of officers. I heard the same from bros up in AK as well. He pulled the same shenanigans, trying to get a light bar on his Wing CC cruiser so he could pull people over, trying to ruin careers of anyone who questioned him, etc.

I know my post earlier didn't make this clear TC, but I echo tac airlifter's sentiments. Despite my issues with some of your content, you've been a net positive and in some cases really made a difference. I'm glad someone established enough of a presence to get inside senior leadership's OODA loop. Keep it up. 

[Duck]

TC, any idea on what's going on with the 08 Majors Board results? Rumors are something about stripping school selects/candidates off the board results. Seems strange this would happen within the last two weeks of the board being released causing them to push back the public release date.

Could this possibly be in response to Capt Byrnes promotion article that you shared?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[SurelySerious]

TC, any idea on what's going on with the 08 Majors Board results? ...
Could this possibly be in response to Capt Byrnes promotion article that you shared?

It can't possibly be taking them that long to find his individual result and change it and line it out.

I kid. Good article.

[Guest]

TC, any idea on what's going on with the 08 Majors Board results? Rumors are something about stripping school selects/candidates off the board results. Seems strange this would happen within the last two weeks of the board being released causing them to push back the public release date.

Could this possibly be in response to Capt Byrnes promotion article that you shared?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Link to the article?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

While I am sorry my 08 bros have to wait, if they are indeed getting rid of "school selects" then me says that is a very positive change in terms of promotion and career progression.  It may eliminate the unnecessary box checking leading up to majors board (exec, moving jobs every 6-9 months) and otherwise polluting the time of a critical demographic in the squadrons.  Instead, hopefully we can spread out the "leadership selection" over several years and maybe find better leaders, possibly "late bloomers."  I'm for it!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

Link to the article?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/03/the-air-force-fumbles-a-post-mortem-on-the-recent-promotion-board-for-lt-colonels/amp/

 

[Guest nsplayr]

3 hours ago, dream big said:

While I am sorry my 08 bros have to wait, if they are indeed getting rid of "school selects" then me says that is a very positive change in terms of promotion and career progression.  It may eliminate the unnecessary box checking leading up to majors board (exec, moving jobs every 6-9 months) and otherwise polluting the time of a critical demographic in the squadrons.  Instead, hopefully we can spread out the "leadership selection" over several years and maybe find better leaders, possibly "late bloomers."  I'm for it!

That's the sad thing, to me decoupling school selection from the O-4 board could be a good development. The problem is that the AF has done a shitty job of explaining any potential change, selling their folks on why the new policy is better, and communicating a timeline for change which they intend to live by.

In other words, big surprise... /sarcasm

[Duck]

That's the sad thing, to me decoupling school selection from the O-4 board could be a good development. The problem is that the AF has done a shitty job of explaining any potential change, selling their folks on why the new policy is better, and communicating a timeline for change which they intend to live by.

In other words, big surprise... /sarcasm

Exactly. Talk about Fire, Aim, Ready. What a time to choose to do this after the release date has gone and passed.

 

My guess is the board came back with a disproportionate amount of school slots for non-rated.

 

In fact the word on the street is that the delay is due to coordination with PA on how to explain and sell this thing. GMAFB.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[dream big]

So for those in the know, will decoupling (love the prop reference btw) school selects be for the 08 board or start with 09?

[Duck]

So for those in the know, will decoupling (love the prop reference btw) school selects be for the 08 board or start with 09?

Word from the functionals is that it started after the 08 results came back from SecDef. So it will be this board. No school selects.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lord Ratner]

Maybe I'm skeptical, but I think this is just a way to keep the rank chasers "on the hook" until a little later down the road. So, instead of finding out if you're going to be a fast burner like 1 year before your commitment ends and bail, you stay in and find out once you've signed the bonus and they already own you.
Not that I'm sympathetic, since rank chasers can all go get ed. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened earlier.

Honestly I think it's genuine. He acts slowly, but the CSAF so far seems to legitimately want to push power down the chain. His squadron letter spelled it out, and this change is aligned with that spirit.

Will some wg/ccs use the HPO mindset with this new authority? Sure. But the old way did that to everyone, so at least now the good guys can now make a difference in their wings.

I think of it like States' rights. Some will abuse (CA, NY), but the system will benefit

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

Good riddance to a shit program (select via promotion board). Hopefully the new will be less shit.

Did anyone catch in Goldfein's text that it said all developmental education...does that mean O-5 and O-6 too?

[Guardian]

Honestly I think it's genuine. He acts slowly, but the CSAF so far seems to legitimately want to push power down the chain. His squadron letter spelled it out, and this change is aligned with that spirit.

Will some wg/ccs use the HPO mindset with this new authority? Sure. But the old way did that to everyone, so at least now the good guys can now make a difference in their wings.

I think of it like States' rights. Some will abuse (CA, NY), but the system will benefit

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Fingers goldfien doesn't give a crap about the individual or what goes on in the squadron. Unless he's in the squadron.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums