120mm: I found your last three sentences quite humorous in their rather sophomoric attempt at framing the rules of a debate. Let me see if I get this straight. I read criticism of my branch of the service and by rising in its defense I validate it? I guess I should saying nothing? But then this simply validates it as well. Silence is acquiescence. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Of course, those three sentences could simply make you feel better about your argument. In my experience, statements such as these come from a position backed by emotion and feeling rather than facts. It's akin to the argument in political circles right now that if you criticize anything about the war, you're unpatriotic or somehow providing aid and comfort to the enemy. My comments are based in fact and from having spent a number of years on active duty in two different branches of the service.
Actually, LawVol, I don't know a soldier who will get his hackles up if you criticize the Army. In fact, he'd probably throw out a few of his own in good humor. I can criticize the Navy and Marines, and I get back either good-humored repartee or a throw-away line. In my experience, though, if you criticize the Air Force, Airmen will come out of the walls with a response similar to yours. It wasn't meant to be a "sophomoric attempt" at anything, I was stating it as a "fact". And I am serious about suggesting it has to do with the criticism being to close for comfort. Speaking of sophomoric, you only have to be in a locker room for about 30 seconds before you learn that the guy who takes offense the quickest has something to hide.
To address your "criticisms" specifically:
1) You are absolutely right. I have never seen an officer's club or golf course on an Army base. But what is this? (
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/news...on/204061.html) Brace yourself, it seems like the Army has established a golf course in Mosul. I wonder where the money came from? I think all branches waste money. Sure, I'd like to stop it and if you have a solution, let's hear it. It would certainly be more constructive than picking and choosing the facts.
The problem being, the Air Force has done it from it's inception, and as a modus operandi. Hell, some pretty senior AF officers have gone on record joking about it. I would be willing to bet that the "golf course" was done by soldiers on their own spare time and for little or no funds expended.
2) Ahh, leadership, the sin qua non for any argument disparaging the USAF. I find it remarkable when I hear this argument from people who haven’t actually served in the USAF. Just as my time as an Army-brat doesn't give me any special insight into the leadership qualities within the Army, neither does the fact that you have an uncle retired from the USAF give you any special insight on the USAF as a whole. I've never actually heard the flying is leadership comment (perhaps it has the same mythic qualities as the GPS comment from the same post). However, I would say two things. First, it apparently came from a new lieutenant. Enough said I think. Second, there are leadership roles within a flying squadron and those pilots are responsible for their plane and others. Every mission has a lead. Maybe it’s similar with tanks? I don't know, I wouldn't presume to make such an unequivocal statement since I've never driven a tank (I assume you've never flown an F16?).
I work with the victims of AF "leadership" every day. The AF enlisted men I know are of two flavors. Those that are completely pissed off by some stupid #### that their "leadership" has done to them, and those who aren't very bright.
3) I'm not a personnel guy but I do know that some of these volunteers are trying to get in to career fields that are already overmanned or in danger of being so. Besides this is driven by funding issues (or maybe we built an extra golf course).
These are two sets of personnel trying to get into the same "shortage" career field. One guy WANTS to be a widget gobber, but cannot (though he is perfectly qualified) and the other guy DOESN'T WANT to be a widget gobber, but is being FORCED to become one. And for some insane reason, they just can't swap....
4) There is a deference to the checklist, I'll give you that (see I can admit problematic issues with the USAF; I don't see my branch as perfect like some apparently think theirs is). However, it isn't as prevalent as some think. We're working it. We're being forced to because the current threat isn't what we're normally geared to.
5) There is some truth here. USAF leadership (read pilots) views the world through an airpower-centric lens. It's what they know and what they are comfortable with. Other branches are just as guilty. The older guys see airpower as solely lethal and try to make the fight fit the capability rather than adapting your capabilities (or uses of those capabilities) to the fight. Some of the younger generation are moving away from this (I've actually written on this (January issue of Armed Force Journal)). The over-reliance on lethal power, however, isn't confined to the USAF. I've read a little about the perceived over-reliance on lethal power by the 4th ID in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. I wasn't there, but I've read it is several places (I think Fiasco mentions this if memory serves). Most of us that frequent this site realize the hearts and minds aspect of COIN, but that is not shared by a great number of people in all branches of the US military. So I guess some house cleaning is due everywhere.
Bookmarks