Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.Originally Posted by TWC
Good Point...
Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
Last edited by Tom Odom; 02-06-2007 at 09:20 PM.
I'm not sure where they go either.Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
There are a number of smart, visionary officers in the AF. It's a shame they get crushed by the Mitchell Mafia in all too many cases. I think many of them settle into specific communities within the AF or get out.
Conspiracy on Missing Maxwell Researchers?
HmmmmSome of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
I figure somewhere in the desert near Nellis AFB there is a mysterious circle of smoke stained rocks and bone fragments where dissidents are sacrificed to to preserve the purity of the clan. Those sacrificed probably had to light the fire with their own research papers...
Just pulling your leg, TWC. One of my best buddies is now an AF 1-Star (maybe 2) and I even let my Momma know it. He did, however, (or at least his squadron did) try to pancake me in Goma with pallets.
best
Tom
Tom,I figure somewhere in the desert near Nellis AFB there is a mysterious circle of smoke stained rocks and bone fragments where dissidents are sacrificed to to preserve the purity of the clan. Those sacrificed probably had to light the fire with their own research papers
Don't tell that I told you, but you are right about the Nellis-based sacrifices, but you left out the part that death is caused a F-22 in full afterburner
Why are those men in black standing at my door........OH NO!
Give 'em a break...
C'mon, guys. Really, they're almost like a military organization: they dress the same, wear spiffy badges, and a few of them are even trusted with weapons.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
According to my Air Force friends, being "trusted" with weapons is not the same as being "issued" weapons. NONE of the Air Force guys I know are "trusted" with a weapon.
I bet they're trusted more with a reflector belt on, though.
You could say the same thing about United Airlines...
I provide the following insights from a fellow member of another discussion group to which I subscribe. The author is Edward M. Van Court, MAJ, MI, USAR
Reflections based on more than a decade of continuous first-hand observation of the Air Force by an Army Officer. Hopefully, this will help Army folks who are working with the USAF to understand some of the (to a Soldier) confusing behaviors. Bear with me, these observations do not apply to every Air Force person you'll meet, but describe common patterns of behavior in the Air Force.
Special thanks to a fellow Army Major currently in a joint assignment and collocated with the Air Force for reviewing this piece
1. From the Air Force perspective - Flying is leadership (I have heard this *exact* statement from a newly comissioned Air Force officer, yes he was rated and an Academy graduate); the smaller the crew of the aircraft, the greater the leadership. Hence; any pilot is defined as being a better leader than any non-rated officer, never mind that the civil engineer or communication captain commands a 100+ member unit and the rated Captain might be in charge of one other person. Note also that an F-16 pilot who flies by himself is a better leader than a C-17 pilot who has a crew of a half dozen or so. This is a serious point of contention between rated and non-rated officers.
2. The Air Force does not understand the Officer/NCO relationship. AF doctrine is written/approved by fighter pilots and fighter pilots seldom work closely with NCOs before they are promoted to field grades. The idea of a LT going to an E-7 or a CPT going to an E-8 for advice or as a sounding board for ideas is utterly alien to them. In the Army, we pretty much take it for granted that we, as officers, will have an experienced NCO working closely with us throughout our career. There are exceptional individuals in the AF who break this mold, but they are just that, the exception and very rarely from the fighter or bomber communities.
3. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the Air Force is technology riven rather than people oriented, but give them a break. Since the creation of the independent Air Force in 1947, the Air Force, as an organization, has never had ten consecutive years (seldom had 5 consecutive years) without a radical change in basic technologies. Go back further, and you could argue that this extends all the way back to 1914 with the first Army air elements.
When your organization is being routinely radically changed by technology, when you are trying to cope with technology that feels like it changes hourly, it is easy to get in the habit of focusing on technological solutions rather than human ones.
4. What is an Airman? A Soldier is fundementally a rifleman, regardless of other specialization. A Marine is a rifleman of the littorals. A Sailor is a maritime vessel crewman. An Airman... well, there is no one definition that includes every uniformed member of the Air Force, and this is a profound cohesion issue.
Now here is the bitter pill for Soldiers. Before you complain about your Air Force counterpart, read Air Force history (and refrain from wisecracks about how this is easy as there is so little of it). The Air Force of today is a direct result of policy and doctrine decisions by the Army for the Army Air Corps in the 1930s and '40s. These decisions were necessary, and many of them were driven by the needs of WWII, but they had far reaching consequences.
Don't get me wrong; I respect the Air Force and the capabilities it brings to the fight. Learn the lesson of an Army officer who insisted that he didn't need to worry about that space stuff the Air Force does as long as he had his rifle and his GPS. Our capabilities compliment each other. (BTW; the "as long as I have my rifle and GPS" story has taken on mythic proportions in the Air Force).
It's possibly more correct to note that the AF treats the majority of its NCOs (outside of certain AFSCs) as technicians without any leadership ability until they are promoted to MSgt. At that point they're expected to transform into leaders. And in many ways AF NCOs are technicians. There's nothing wrong with that. But the disconnect between everything below E-6 and everything above it is rather disconcerting to many of them.
Although the AF does worship technology, it's also correct to observe that they are a product of a myriad of systems and checklists (a relic of their SAC and LeMay heritage) which result in a very rigid way of looking at things aside from technological advances. I would also contend that the basic AF culture has remained unchanged by technology. They are still very much addicted at higher levels to the ideal of the fighter pilot and the manned bomber - both fixtures in their organization since the beginning.3. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the Air Force is technology riven rather than people oriented, but give them a break. Since the creation of the independent Air Force in 1947, the Air Force, as an organization, has never had ten consecutive years (seldom had 5 consecutive years) without a radical change in basic technologies. Go back further, and you could argue that this extends all the way back to 1914 with the first Army air elements.
When your organization is being routinely radically changed by technology, when you are trying to cope with technology that feels like it changes hourly, it is easy to get in the habit of focusing on technological solutions rather than human ones.
This goes back to the separation of the enlisted force as technicians and the split between pilots and all other AF officers. There is so little common ground between the flying and non-flying segments of the AF that the term 'Airman' is meaningless aside from rank (E-1 through E-3 or so).4. What is an Airman? A Soldier is fundementally a rifleman, regardless of other specialization. A Marine is a rifleman of the littorals. A Sailor is a maritime vessel crewman. An Airman... well, there is no one definition that includes every uniformed member of the Air Force, and this is a profound cohesion issue.
I grew up around the AF, and work with them every day, so I've seen most of this stuff up close and personal. I've also worked with the Army, and seen their ups and downs. The AF can be very flexible when it comes to adapting and implementing technology, but they tend to stumble in many other areas. They will have the most to overcome in the culture area if they are to adapt to the new realities we face in the military sphere.
Steve,
As the author of the comments quoted by WM (and new SWJ member), I wanted to briefly address your reply and the underlying assumption of the thread.
Re: your reply - I agree with you. I don't see any contradictions between what you said and what I said, just different perspectives. Please note that my remarks were originally authored for a different audience as part of a different discussion. The only thing I would add at this point is that the Air Force is not monolithic (hence the "what is an Airman?"). Even within the rated community there is intense factionalization between fighter, bomber, airlift, helicopter etc. communities. When you try to look for common trends across the entire Air Force including civil engineers, security forces, communications, space operations etc. a small brain like mine starts to hurt.
Re: the underlying assumption of the thread - Airpower Versus Groundpower. "Versus"? I am as well aware as any that the discussion is usually couched this way, but isn't this the pinnacle of foolishness? Look at an Armored Cavalry Regiment or a MEF, air and ground forces compliment each other and to try to drive a wedge between them is doing the opponent's work for them. Ahhh yes, the challenge of a military in a democratic society; services have to compete for budget... As a citizen and a taxpayer, it is profoundly disturbing when the service cultures are so caught up in the great budget game that they fail to see that each element is only a part of the whole.
"You should not have a favorite weapon." Miyamoto Musashi in Go Rin No Sho
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks