What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Boomer6]

Sheppard SQ/CC?

[BashiChuni]

rumint is this is originating from wing king and above

[di1630]

This guy definitely cc’d the bosses on the email to show he’s a USAF indoctrinated leader. On the fast track for sure at SPS


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[disgruntledemployee]

3 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

I'll just leave this here...

Post name and unit with ph.  Maybe some ph calls from the Olds will cut this shit out.

[Inertia17]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

rumint is this is originating from wing king and above

Second that RUMINT. WG/CC.

[Lord Ratner]

Have any of you guys felt that the things we're/you're doing in the military, broadly, actually matter? It sure didn't feel that way when I got out in 2017. 

 

What type of leaders do you expect to rise in an organization that isn't doing anything meaningful. Who sticks around? Who sets themselves apart? 

[busdriver]

Unmask AADs, crack down on 36-2903, no friday shirts or patches, guess we're about due for no civilian clothes at the gym, reflective belts and Rescue back to AFSOC.

As the world turns, this too shall pass, and all that....

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Have any of you guys felt that the things we're/you're doing in the military, broadly, actually matter? It sure didn't feel that way when I got out in 2017. 

 

What type of leaders do you expect to rise in an organization that isn't doing anything meaningful. Who sticks around? Who sets themselves apart? 

I'd venture a guess that this varies widely by location, command and MDS.  I definitely didn't feel that way in MCs, either in the operational or FTU world.  I probably felt that way through quite a bit of my time on staff.

  I think there's a lot of leaders (more so at the Wg/CC level and up) that don't do a great job of articulating to their formations why what the base/wing/command is doing is important, or how it ties into higher level operational or strategic goals.  Especially for a lot of the support functions it's just another broken airplane, or another patient, or another customer at finance to deal with.  If you're at a place where the ops tempo is crazy high it gets harder to keep people motivated/morale up.  And if I'm being completely honest, some of the things the AF does probably doesn't matter.

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

I'd venture a guess that this varies widely by location, command and MDS.  I definitely didn't feel that way in MCs, either in the operational or FTU world.  I probably felt that way through quite a bit of my time on staff.

  I think there's a lot of leaders (more so at the Wg/CC level and up) that don't do a great job of articulating to their formations why what the base/wing/command is doing is important, or how it ties into higher level operational or strategic goals.  Especially for a lot of the support functions it's just another broken airplane, or another patient, or another customer at finance to deal with.  If you're at a place where the ops tempo is crazy high it gets harder to keep people motivated/morale up.  And if I'm being completely honest, some of the things the AF does probably doesn't matter.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think what you did matters. 

 

I mean that broadly. Your efforts were directed and used by an organization with no overall philosophy or objective. I joined in 2003 and left in 2017. I don't really see what the military did in that time that left us with a better world. Or even a different world.

 

Yes, that is the fault of the political class, not the military members. But it doesn't change the result. What I did was, effectively, for nothing.

 

I don't regret it one bit, but I also don't see it for what I wish it to be (useful), and rather see it as it ended up: driving in a big expensive circle to nowhere.

[di1630]

Have any of you guys felt that the things we're/you're doing in the military, broadly, actually matter?

After 20 years of the GWOT we got bogged and lost focus/motivation.

I think the USAF is a really exciting place right now as we face the emerging threats.

I’m not sure a lot of GWOT raised/indoctrinated leaders are the right people to inspire the masses to meet the challenge. Most of the good things I see are by young smart and intrinsically motivated pilots while leadership fumbles with meaningless qweep, DEI and inconsequential tasks.

I liken the modern fighter environment akin like it’s early 80s F-16s vs MiG 29s trying to figure out tactics with rapidly changing tech constantly emerging.

It’s not just an exciting time for fighters. Tankers, Bombers, anything logistic or space all should be psyched to be part of the changing era of warfare.

Leadership right now is really poor at conveying the excitement of it.

Truth is, I’ve talked to 2 star generals who are my bosses bosses and they have no clue the realities of the new environment at the “meaningful” tactical level.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[08Dawg]

4 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

Second that RUMINT. WG/CC.

That’s really piss poor if the wg/cc feels it necessary to go put their finger in the chest of some poor flt/cc because the big bad wing king saw Stan Student with his sun glasses on his head. 

[DirkDiggler]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I get what you're saying, but I don't think what you did matters. 

 

I mean that broadly. Your efforts were directed and used by an organization with no overall philosophy or objective. I joined in 2003 and left in 2017. I don't really see what the military did in that time that left us with a better world. Or even a different world.

 

Yes, that is the fault of the political class, not the military members. But it doesn't change the result. What I did was, effectively, for nothing.

 

I don't regret it one bit, but I also don't see it for what I wish it to be (useful), and rather see it as it ended up: driving in a big expensive circle to nowhere.

In my last assignment alone my sq was directly tasked with/involved in 3 ops to either rescue or recover Americans in harms way.  If you don't believe things like that "matter" we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

  I understand and partially agree with what you're saying writ large about whether OEF/OIF/OFS/OIR brought us a better peace/world.  I personally don't believe it was all for nothing but I definitely understand the viewpoint of those that do. 

[brabus]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

don't really see what the military did in that time that left us with a better world. Or even a different world.

I get your angst, and I’m right there with you bashing all the bullshit, but we sure as fuck have a better/different world than we would have if XYZ hadn’t been accomplished. It’s just that XYZ much of the time is purposely not well circulated knowledge. That’s not an excuse for all the idiocy and failures, but good stuff still happens and great things are accomplished at times. 

[Lord Ratner]

15 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

In my last assignment alone my sq was directly tasked with/involved in 3 ops to either rescue or recover Americans in harms way.  If you don't believe things like that "matter" we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

And that's great. But that's not really the threshold for "making a difference." Obviously everyone is glad you did that. But it didn't change the status quo, it didn't move the ball forward towards worldwide stability, and it certainly won't be considered as historically significant. 

18 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

I understand and partially agree with what you're saying writ large about whether OEF/OIF/OFS/OIR brought us a better peace/world.  I personally don't believe it was all for nothing but I definitely understand the viewpoint of those that do. 

Again, I'm glad I served. But the organization I served in, and the strategic objectives of that organization don't seem to have done... anything. Or with a more cynical perspective, made things worse. And I 100% blame the political leadership for that. It's not about blame, just results. And I'm not sure I see what was accomplished by OEF/OIF/OFS/OIR, other than the first few months of annihilating the Taliban as revenge. 

I enjoyed serving. But I didn't make the world a better/safer place in the long run because those in charge failed to use our efforts effectively (or with any particular goal in mind). Afghanistan is still run by the Taliban, with newer, better weapons and equipment. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is a bigger mess. Libya is a mess. Tunisia, meh. Iran is still exporting terror and chaos all over the Middle East. Pakistan is still a shitty ally. Syria is more of an enemy than before. Turkey is belligerent to any Western interests, but can fuck up NATO votes. Islamic extremism has spread through more of the West than when 9/11 happened. And all of that added to a catastrophic debt situation. 

13 minutes ago, brabus said:

I get your angst, and I’m right there with you bashing all the bullshit, but we sure as fuck have a better/different world than we would have if XYZ hadn’t been accomplished. It’s just that XYZ much of the time is purposely not well circulated knowledge. That’s not an excuse for all the idiocy and failures, but good stuff still happens and great things are accomplished at times.

Tactically, I agree. But a huge amount of the threats we neutralized were threats directly related to our presence. That's not to say we were at fault and caused the threats by being there, but it was still a self-fueling war. 

 

I'm not mad about it. I just see an organization that has resoundingly failed at every major endeavor (again, strategic level, not warfighter level) and yet those who led us through failure have never been held to account. It should surprise no one that an organization with no real goal, no real accountability, and no remaining identity (modern-day DOD) would create and attract the types of leaders we talk about here every day. 

This is not what successful organizations look like. 

[brabus]

I agree with you mostly, just saying there are things that have been, and will continue to be, accomplished that have prevented strategic/national level negative things from occurring. Again, not said in defense of all the shitheads (civ and mil) who are in charge, but just saying good accomplishments do occur at the strategic/national level - they’re just not advertised (and they’re the minority compared to all the dumbassery and failure). 

[Boomer6]

3 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

That’s really piss poor if the wg/cc feels it necessary to go put their finger in the chest of some poor flt/cc because the big bad wing king saw Stan Student with his sun glasses on his head. 

The word on the street is the bobs spent a significant amount of time discussing all the things mentioned in this email at a recent Bobathon. Apparently its a priority for the big Bob, and said wg/cc is obviously planning to be somebody.

No word yet on what we're doing about China..

 

[DirkDiggler]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And that's great. But that's not really the threshold for "making a difference." Obviously everyone is glad you did that. But it didn't change the status quo, it didn't move the ball forward towards worldwide stability, and it certainly won't be considered as historically significant. 

Again, I'm glad I served. But the organization I served in, and the strategic objectives of that organization don't seem to have done... anything. Or with a more cynical perspective, made things worse. And I 100% blame the political leadership for that. It's not about blame, just results. And I'm not sure I see what was accomplished by OEF/OIF/OFS/OIR, other than the first few months of annihilating the Taliban as revenge. 

I enjoyed serving. But I didn't make the world a better/safer place in the long run because those in charge failed to use our efforts effectively (or with any particular goal in mind). Afghanistan is still run by the Taliban, with newer, better weapons and equipment. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is a bigger mess. Libya is a mess. Tunisia, meh. Iran is still exporting terror and chaos all over the Middle East. Pakistan is still a shitty ally. Syria is more of an enemy than before. Turkey is belligerent to any Western interests, but can fuck up NATO votes. Islamic extremism has spread through more of the West than when 9/11 happened. And all of that added to a catastrophic debt situation. 

Tactically, I agree. But a huge amount of the threats we neutralized were threats directly related to our presence. That's not to say we were at fault and caused the threats by being there, but it was still a self-fueling war. 

 

I'm not mad about it. I just see an organization that has resoundingly failed at every major endeavor (again, strategic level, not warfighter level) and yet those who led us through failure have never been held to account. It should surprise no one that an organization with no real goal, no real accountability, and no remaining identity (modern-day DOD) would create and attract the types of leaders we talk about here every day. 

This is not what successful organizations look like. 

What’s your definition and or threshold for someone in the USAF to do things that matter or make a difference?

[raimius]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And that's great. But that's not really the threshold for "making a difference." Obviously everyone is glad you did that. But it didn't change the status quo, it didn't move the ball forward towards worldwide stability, and it certainly won't be considered as historically significant. 

That's something we really can't test until more history plays out.  A sub plucking an LT out of the ocean in WWII had little impact on the war, but that dude became President later.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

What’s your definition and or threshold for someone in the USAF to do things that matter or make a difference?

Did the operation you participated it result in an improved regional/global situation. A better world. For example:

• WWII - 80 years of global prosperity and relative peace
• Korean War (South Korea is undoubtedly better off)
• Civil War - End of slavery
• Revolutionary War - 'Merica, Fuck yeah!
• Second Barbary War - Regional stability and economic growth
• Mexican American War - Good for America at least
• Panama (minor, but Panama was better off after than before)
• Gulf War I - Regional/economic stability

I don't think it's our fault that our service was mostly background noise, I was just commenting on what type of leadership you get during these periods of irrelevance. 

[disgruntledemployee]

19 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

In my last assignment alone my sq was directly tasked with/involved in 3 ops to either rescue or recover Americans in harms way.  If you don't believe things like that "matter" we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

  I understand and partially agree with what you're saying writ large about whether OEF/OIF/OFS/OIR brought us a better peace/world.  I personally don't believe it was all for nothing but I definitely understand the viewpoint of those that do. 

I suppose a lot us fit into that role, that is, something done directly help our fellow military peeps, be it giving gas at a critical point to dropping something to the ground and so on.  Most us of didn't do the BIG thing that created victory, but maybe just helped save the day, 1 dude at a time.  That might enough when you think of the little successes.  Dwell too much on the losses and I understand that feeling of effort and sacrifice for nothing.  This was a topic me and my pops, a Nam Marine, discussed once and only once.

[Majestik Møøse]

22 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I enjoyed serving. But I didn't make the world a better/safer place in the long run because those in charge failed to use our efforts effectively (or with any particular goal in mind). Afghanistan is still run by the Taliban, with newer, better weapons and equipment. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is a bigger mess. Libya is a mess. Tunisia, meh. Iran is still exporting terror and chaos all over the Middle East. Pakistan is still a shitty ally. Syria is more of an enemy than before. Turkey is belligerent to any Western interests, but can fuck up NATO votes. Islamic extremism has spread through more of the West than when 9/11 happened. And all of that added to a catastrophic debt situation. 

Alright, I’ll take a crack.

Afghanistan: we went in to kill bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda as possible. Remember them? They’re all dead! Sweet! Did we bring democracy to Afghanistan? Hell no, and the mistake was to say that was an objective. The real goal was to kill terries, and we did. No Al Qaeda left. But we were too soft to dump the Afghans on their sympathizer asses immediately after Neptune Spear.

Iraq: not done yet, honestly. If we leave, they’ll fail. We need to stay and keep buying their oil. Unpopular opinion, I’m sure.

Libya: a mess? Yep, but that’s ok because we kicked ass with air power, lost almost no one, and left. Let them figure it out.

Iran: we never fought them. If we did, we’d ruin their ability to export terrorism to the rest of the ME just like we did with AQ and ISIS. Would we try to bring them democracy also? I sure hope not! Because fuck them, that’s why! Just destroy their military and means of Shahed/TBM production in a month and leave.

Syria: ISIS! Remember them? When all the murderous assholes from all around the world gathered in Syria to kill/rape the locals by the thousands. They were so bad even AQ was cringing at their videos. We gave them the apocalypse they were looking for and now they’re all fucking dead. Sweet!

In all, we did a shit ton of good work, but our national/military leadership is too inept to know it. Organizationally, the USG needs a lot of work.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Afghanistan: we went in to kill bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda as possible. Remember them? They’re all dead! Sweet! Did we bring democracy to Afghanistan? Hell no, and the mistake was to say that was an objective. The real goal was to kill terries, and we did. No Al Qaeda left. But we were too soft to dump the Afghans on their sympathizer asses immediately after Neptune Spear.

If the limited goal of killing some terries took 20 years, that's a failure in my book. And the fact that the Taliban won (and they did) makes it pretty hard to see Afghanistan as a win. I think it might be our Vietnam...

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Iraq: not done yet, honestly. If we leave, they’ll fail. We need to stay and keep buying their oil. Unpopular opinion, I’m sure.

And before we decided to kill Saddam, they were a key check on Iranian power in the region. So... why are we there in the first place? Bad intel. That's a loss...

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Libya: a mess? Yep, but that’s ok because we kicked ass with air power, lost almost no one, and left. Let them figure it out.

Like Saddam, Gaddafi kept Libya under relative control. Now? How has "let them figure it out" worked for us so far? It was figured out, then "we came, we saw, he died." Is that better?

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

ran: we never fought them. If we did, we’d ruin their ability to export terrorism to the rest of the ME just like we did with AQ and ISIS. Would we try to bring them democracy also? I sure hope not! Because fuck them, that’s why! Just destroy their military and means of Shahed/TBM production in a month and leave.

I know what we could do. We could have won in Afghanistan too. The question is what actually happened/happens. 

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Syria: ISIS! Remember them? When all the murderous assholes from all around the world gathered in Syria to kill/rape the locals by the thousands. They were so bad even AQ was cringing at their videos. We gave them the apocalypse they were looking for and now they’re all fucking dead. Sweet!

Yes, Isis, the Islamist psychodrama that was only possible because we destabilized the region by removing or attempting to remove the strongmen in charge of their countries. There is no ISIS if we didn't kill Saddam. That's the best example of "we created that problem."  

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

In all, we did a shit ton of good work, but our national/military leadership is too inept to know it. Organizationally, the USG needs a lot of work.

We did excellent work at the tactical level in all of your examples. But all of your examples are exactly what I'm referring to. The pre-US-involvement status quo was better than how we left it. We did a lot of good work for ultimately worthless (or in some cases counter-productive) endeavors. 

 

I do appreciate the dialog. 

[SocialD]

Reverend!  

 

I can't say it felt like #winning as we watched a bunch of ANA/ANP getting overrun by the Taliban because of ROE and chicken shit civilian and military leaders.  Felt like a metaphor for our time in Afghanistan.  The few employments we had were probably just killing the kids of the guys we killed when I was there a decade earlier.  We didn't have any semblance of a gameplan or objective when I was there in 2011...2021 was way worse.  If we had taken out OBL at Tora Bora and subsequently pulled out (or left when we finally got him), I might have considered Afghanistan a win.   Did we stop a possible terrorist attack on US soil during that time...maybe.   Did we create more people who want to repeat 9/11 down the road...absolutely.  We did find ourselves with aged jets,  a few trillion in debt and more dead/broken soldiers, so we got that going for us...

 

 

[herkbier]

Sounds like a win for the military industrial complex! 

[di1630]

Reverend!  
 
I can't say it felt like #winning as we watched a bunch of ANA/ANP getting overrun by the Taliban because of ROE and chicken shit civilian and military leaders.  Felt like a metaphor for our time in Afghanistan.  The few employments we had were probably just killing the kids of the guys we killed when I was there a decade earlier.  We didn't have any semblance of a gameplan or objective when I was there in 2011...2021 was way worse.  If we had taken out OBL at Tora Bora and subsequently pulled out (or left when we finally got him), I might have considered Afghanistan a win.   Did we stop a possible terrorist attack on US soil during that time...maybe.   Did we create more people who want to repeat 9/11 down the road...absolutely.  We did find ourselves with aged jets,  a few trillion in debt and more dead/broken soldiers, so we got that going for us...
 
 

I remember clearly the sortie I was on in Early 2006, my second deployment, thinking “WTF are we doing here?” when chiefs were on a reflective belt kick and the ROE was rediculous.

I like to think maybe I helped someone make it home but in big picture look back, what a waste of time and resources.

And everyone at the Maj level and below knew it while leadership just padded stats to get ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app