What's wrong with the Air Force?

[uhhello]

2 hours ago, M2 said:

The Army figured it out before the Air Force!

Army's Top Enlisted Leader Removed Diversity Consideration for Top Enlisted Roles

The Army's top enlisted leader has removed key guidance that required diversity to be considered when selecting individuals to serve in upper-level noncommissioned officer positions, according to a memo reviewed by Military.com.

Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer, the top enlisted leader of the force, recently issued new guidance on selecting command sergeants major that was essentially copy-and-pasted from his predecessor -- with one exception. It removes a line directing that a command sergeant major candidate's diversity be considered...

(full article at title link)

Their recruitment commercials have changed quite a bit too.

[bfargin]

6 hours ago, M2 said:

The Army figured it out before the Air Force!

Army's Top Enlisted Leader Removed Diversity Consideration for Top Enlisted Roles

 

What the hell are they thinking? We need that black lesbian non-binary general to lead us where no man has gone before. Now we're really screwed.

[dream big]

3 hours ago, bfargin said:

What the hell are they thinking? We need that black lesbian non-binary general to lead us where no man has gone before. Now we're really screwed.

It’s time for the Air Force to follow suite. I’ve had strat lists thrown back at my face by a female commander because “not enough females,” I’ve had Wing leadership specifically ask for specific minority groups for certain positions or developmental opportunities; best qualified was seldom the criteria. 

[Biff_T]

18 hours ago, dream big said:

... I’ve had strat lists thrown back at my face by a female commander because “not enough females,” I’ve had Wing leadership specifically ask for specific minority groups for certain positions or developmental opportunities; best qualified was seldom the criteria. 

Gay.  

 

That is all. 

Edited September 25, 2024 by Biff_T

[Inertia17]

I'll just leave this here...

[brabus]

The old “if you wear sunglasses on your head, how can I trust you to fly an airplane” form of “leadership.” Bottom line, this guy is a complete non-mission oriented pussy. He’ll go far in this AF.

[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.