US Military -v- Internal blogging & Access to WWW

[Cliff]

I can appreciate your response but I didn't have any bad experience with the Air Force other than Desktops getting in the way of learning how to survive. I just know how the organization operates using its own brand of company language.

It's hard for me to understand what you are saying here... who are Desktops (is it like a REMF?), and how did they get in the way of learning how to survive? What did you do in the Air Force (sounds like TACP or JTAC but I don't want to assume...)

Listen, there has always been a lot of criticism about other branches in this current conflict; i.e. mistakes et al. But very little about the Air Force in general. Why should [they] be any different?

I think there's been plenty on the AFs mistakes... which is good. I'd note that the AF has pretty much been in a supporting role since the end of OIF I, so it stands to reason that they're not the focus of this particular forum, which focuses on the supported Small Wars fight.

Like I intimated earlier, this story about blogs is just a symptom of the overall ineffective decision making on the part of the Air Force. The Air Force has made its share of mistakes since 911 and gets a bye because of what? The Air Force even gets a bye for their culpability on losing the Vietnam Conflict. Desktop officers in the Air Force make sure of that by keeping all their dirty little secrets in the box. Thinking or communicating outside the box under any circumstance is heresy.

What examples do you have? I don't think the AF has a bye at all since 9-11, or for Vietnam... in fact, the PME course I'm in right now just had an entire lesson about how we screwed up Vietnam by drifting away from our doctrine... doesn't seem like hiding it to me if you put it in the class that everyone has to take.

Do you have examples other than this blocking of the blogs?

Trust me, no small part of the USAF decided that blogs were bad for airmen. That is is a fairy tale and just an example of the compartmentalization of the organization as a whole. It has been structured since its inception to protect itself and a select few, which it does an excellent job. Thus, it is probably the most dysfunctional branch of the military. Why do you think so many Air Force people that do the work believe the Air Force eats its young?

I personally haven't heard of/seen/talked to many people who think the AF eats its young... if anything, the opposite - the AF is too soft is a common complaint.

Next time you are replying to someone that is criticizing the Army or the Marines for mistakes or policy try to avoid assuming that a "bad experience" or resentment is the motivator. That is not part of the company language of the forums.

Your tone was what made me ask about bad experiences... please provide examples of what you're referring to so I can understand your arguement. Otherwise I'm simply left with the emotion you're conveying, which make it hard for me to learn much! I don't think the AF is perfect at all, but I am curious as to what specific mistakes/problems need fixing.

Again, my point is simply that a Comm Squadron or even the AF NOSC deciding to block "blogs" doesn't neccessarily indicate that the AF is trying to hide mistakes or supress dissent...

I know plenty of folks who have come up with bright new ideas and had them turned into TTPs, doctrine, or actual hardware... happens more than you would think. A buddy of mine was an ALO that came up with a lot of cool stuff, and he has more generals asking him what he thinks than you would believe.

Looking forward to your reply.

V/R,

Cliff

[Steve Blair]

What examples do you have? I don't think the AF has a bye at all since 9-11, or for Vietnam... in fact, the PME course I'm in right now just had an entire lesson about how we screwed up Vietnam by drifting away from our doctrine... doesn't seem like hiding it to me if you put it in the class that everyone has to take.

Cliff

I'd be interested in seeing their spin here. Given the structure of the NVN effort, AF doctrine as it existed in the 1960s couldn't have worked. But then again if the Marines have Stalin's PR team (to paraphrase Truman), I've always felt that the AF has his command historians....

Which of course is semi-hijacking this thread. Apologies to all.

[Cliff]

Although I guess I am talking about Info War - the AF's info war on it's own folks thru PME? Just kidding.

I'd be interested in seeing their spin here. Given the structure of the NVN effort, AF doctrine as it existed in the 1960s couldn't have worked. But then again if the Marines have Stalin's PR team (to paraphrase Truman), I've always felt that the AF has his command historians....

Which of course is semi-hijacking this thread. Apologies to all.

Quick summary: The gist of it was that the doctrine in Vietnam was so far skewed towards strategic bombing - which had morphed into meaning solely a general nuclear war. It ignored the more balanced traditional air doctrine in conventional war in favor of SAC and the SIOP. That got us away from interdiction, CAS, etc. They also talked a lot about the focus on nukes meaning we spent too little money on the tech for conventional war - true when you consider that the first guided bombs were used in WWII, but then it took us till the 70's to make them useable...

Anyway, my point in bringing it up is that the AF does indeed acknowledge and air its mistakes... blocking blogs, agree with it or not, is for security reasons and not for managing dissent.

The art/culture of the debrief has been taken to a high level by the USAF Weapons School, and it is routine for a young LT to openly point out and critique a superior's mistakes in the debrief... even if the superior is the General or Colonel. Not something that could happen a lot if the culture was to repress dissent or critique... and it is definitely why in spite of not having the edge in machines we used to have we still have the best Air Force in the world (not that I am biased!).

V/R,

Cliff

[Steve Blair]

But all that does is indicate that they were following their doctrine at the time. And as I pointed out, the general consensus is that their 1960s doctrine could not really work in that setting. Granted, is a big step for the AF to look back and admit that something didn't work, but it is a touch disingenuous to look at it through current doctrine.

USAF Weapons School debriefs are one thing...moving forward with doctrine is another. And I would tend to put blocking blogs down to some sort of routine cluster**** on the part of some sysadmin. We see more than a few of those out here.

[Cliff]

But all that does is indicate that they were following their doctrine at the time. And as I pointed out, the general consensus is that their 1960s doctrine could not really work in that setting. Granted, is a big step for the AF to look back and admit that something didn't work, but it is a touch disingenuous to look at it through current doctrine.

USAF Weapons School debriefs are one thing...moving forward with doctrine is another. And I would tend to put blocking blogs down to some sort of routine cluster**** on the part of some sysadmin. We see more than a few of those out here.

They were comparing it to the ACTS, doctrine during WWII, etc. The point was that between the end of WWII and 1986 or so (GW-N) the AF drifted away from its founding doctrine to become a "strategic-nuclear" focused force... the lesson talked about how the Army did a better job articulating AF doctrine in AirLand battle than the AF did.

As for the USAFWS debriefs, they set the culture of the combat air forces, and are starting to do so for the mobility folks as well. Culture begets doctrine, IMHO - if your culture is one of a no-holds-barred, no-rank debrief, then that's what your doctrine will come to support in time. In spite of what the folks at CADRE and Maxwell would have you believe, the operators do get a say, not just the folks at Air University!

V/R,

Cliff

[Culpeper]

Cliff

We can go back and forth. But the debate ended when I thought we would continue to disagree. I've learned the hard way to avoid that. I do appreciate you responses and will leave you with the last word.