RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156225,00.html

I was amused to read the comment that most airmen were not used to being yelled at by a CSM. I remember one time in the missile field, an airman had screwed up and I was chewing him out. In the middle of the chewing out, he pulled out a card and told me that it was a time out card that he had from basic. I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry because it was just so unbelievable. And if you thought I was incredulous, you should have seen the look on the SP flight sergeant's face.

Interesting! I have no reservations whatsoever that the airmen can do a great job working with Marines or the Army. Although, personally speaking, I never thought that yelling and screaming was a good way to motivate the troops. Speak to me like a man, and I'll respect you a whole lot more. Yell at me like a dog...and I'll give you no respect whatsoever. End of story. If I make a mistake...let me know, I WILL correct it. If I don't...then maybe a little chewing out is in order, especially if the screw up was life threatening. I know that in BT some of the trainees need a "chewing out" to change bad civilian habits or "adjust" attitudes...but after that...NO. If you want respect...you better give respect...because in real life no one gives you a damn thing! Have a nice day folks. SSgt Dave

Sounds like yet another forced operation of Blue to Green. This time instead of forcing the people to get out of the AF and go to the USA we're just making the AF do the USA job. How convenient!
Why is the AF drawing down when the Army want us to do their jobs? Why???
I'll tell you why, because it'll look good for some General to say he's working with the Army instead of against it. This whole ILO was suppose to be temporary while the Army brought up it's reserves and guard troops then we'd be out of it. So much for that… It's like taxes; I've never seen a tax repealed but I've sure seen them increase!
Why don’t they just force them out of the AF and directly in the USA? They’d be getting the same damn thing without trying to BS the whole world in to believing we’re just helping the Army…???...!!!

The Air Force tried the same thing with having support AFSCs pull guard duty on the flightlines during the first Gulf War. Mine was mistakenly identified as a support AFSC and while I was pulling guard duty there was nobody capable of finding the cargo that routinely got lost every day. Take note Air Force, while you loan the troops to the Army and Marines you going to be cutting your own force below minimums.

quote:

Originally posted by oldriggerrs:
Take note Air Force, while you loan the troops to the Army and Marines you going to be cutting your own force below minimums.

Just think, they're doing this while doing a drawdown of 40K people. So if you think they're cutting below minimums then you're only half right; they're cutting their own throats and all of our's with them!

I remember the issues this created back around 2003-2004 when vehicle operators were first being tasked to go on convoy duty. These were airmen that has signed on for one type of duty only to find themselves perfomring an entirely different type of duty. Many of these airmen were not new recruits either, most had been for 10 or more years. Now we are sending even more airmen to do a mission they never signed up to do. Then the USAF will be SHOCKED when their retention numbers plummet!

quote:

Originally posted by UtChaz:

Sounds like yet another forced operation of Blue to Green. This time instead of forcing the people to get out of the AF and go to the USA we're just making the AF do the USA job. How convenient!

Why is the AF drawing down when the Army want us to do their jobs? Why???

I'll tell you why, because it'll look good for some General to say he's working with the Army instead of against it.

This whole ILO was suppose to be temporary while the Army brought up it's reserves and guard troops then we'd be out of it.

So much for that… It's like taxes; I've never seen a tax repealed but I've sure seen them increase!

Why don’t they just force them out of the AF and directly in the USA? They’d be getting the same damn thing without trying to BS the whole world in to believing we’re just helping the Army…???...!!!

Too Bad there UTchaz that you have no recollection of the size of the US Army at post-Desert Storm (1991).

Then shortly thereafter, good ole Slick Willy came on board and further downsized the Infantry and Armor Divisions for the coveted "PEACE DIVIDEND." It was beginning to look like 1977-1980 (ole Jimmy's tenure) all over again...

Had ole Slicky Boy Willy left the Army alone during his sex-capades (Clintoon Admin) the USAF, USN, and possibly USCG too, would not be tasked to conduct Infantry Related Tasks...

I realize of course that you are not one to be confused with the facts..., thus, your mind is made up... I bet you want to scream the Liberal Mantra..., "Its BUSH's FAULT" on mountain tops...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ELLIOTT1980,

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

I was amused to read the comment that most airmen were not used to being yelled at by a CSM. I remember one time in the missile field, an airman had screwed up and I was chewing him out. In the middle of the chewing out, he pulled out a card and told me that it was a time out card that he had from basic. I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry because it was just so unbelievable. And if you thought I was incredulous, you should have seen the look on the SP flight sergeant's face.

My daughter went through USAF basic fairly recently and I can guarantee you that there were no "time out cards."

.05

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_Munitions:
Interesting! I have no reservations whatsoever that the airmen can do a great job working with Marines or the Army. Although, personally speaking, I never thought that yelling and screaming was a good way to motivate the troops. Speak to me like a man, and I'll respect you a whole lot more. Yell at me like a dog...and I'll give you no respect whatsoever. End of story. If I make a mistake...let me know, I WILL correct it. If I don't...then maybe a little chewing out is in order, especially if the screw up was life threatening. I know that in BT some of the trainees need a "chewing out" to change bad civilian habits or "adjust" attitudes...but after that...NO. If you want respect...you better give respect...because in real life no one gives you a damn thing! Have a nice day folks. SSgt Dave

I had experience with an NCO who wanted "respect" at all times. He couldn't understand why he got a letter of reprimand for ignoring a Master Sergeant who was charging across the hangar yelling at him to quit smoking next to a jet that still had fuel in the tanks.

.05

Another 17000 personnel cuts in 2009.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-news_milupdate_...ov11,0,3220686.story

This is CSAF's way of telling congress that if it doesn't give the AF more money--it will cut people to save money to buy Hi-tech planes to kill a bunch of camel jockies. I have to say that the AF did find a creative way to convince some AF personnel to get out sooner--especially if they're being asked to do something that many professional soldiers have been doing for awhile. Yep--let's give that airmen a week or two of training and throw them out there.

Like someone said--some General is probably going to get a promotion at another person's expense.

Maybe the AF should think about closing shop and go back to the Army (Army Air Forces). We had about 750K personnel then.
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t3.htm

No more need for an AF.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

Too Bad there UTchaz that you have no recollection of the size of the US Army at post-Desert Storm (1991)

I do remember; do you think the Army was the only one cut during that time? The AF dropped 80,000 people during that time. So the Army wasn’t the only one with a mouth full of crap and told to smile.

quote:

Had ole Slicky Boy Willy left the Army alone during his sex-capades (Clintoon Admin) the USAF, USN, and possibly USCG too, would not be tasked to conduct Infantry Related Tasks...

If AF member’s had chosen to go Blue to Green and become Army members then sure send them to do those jobs but that isn’t what is going on. Why isn’t the Navy being selected to do any of these jobs? Are they so tight they can’t do it also? The Navy is the only force to not have their guts cut out of them in the last 10yrs.

quote:

I realize of course that you are not one to be confused with the facts..., thus, your mind is made up... I bet you want to scream the Liberal Mantra..., "Its BUSH's FAULT" on mountain tops...

I am the furthest thing from a Democrat you could get. But I’m fed up with the Generals being nothing more than an extension of a closed knit political group. They’ve forgotten how to tell the Politicians when things are wrong and then make it stick. Heaven forbid they tell them something is wrong and their precious job be put in jeopardy. They all seem to come to Jesus when they get out and their retirement checks are set though!

The military as a whole is SUFFERING while the rest of the country barely recognizes we’re even at WAR. OUR ELECTED LEADERS refuse to handle this as a War and still think balancing the budget is more important than getting this done and saving their own troops’ lives, not to mention those of the Iraqi and Afghanistan People.
This isn’t a Democrat or Republican problem, IT IS A POLITICIAN PROBLEM…!!!


as a side note:
If you feel like you should attack me try finding out who I am before you do it online. I know it is easy to talk the talk online because you never know who it is on the other side but hey I’m just as red blooded as you and I think after the time I’ve done in the military it means you should choose your words with less anger and keep to the facts.

Being Security Forces in the AF i know im going to deploy and "help" the army...I think its F-ing stupid that we are force shaping at the same time so we can afford the POS F-22. If they want us to deploy so much then offer some re-enlistment bonus, dont force shape and dont lie to our faces and say this is a temporary thing we all know damn well it will go on and on and on until we become the Army air corps again. I feel really bad for the guys that dont deploy and have to work 18hr shifts 7 days a week to cover all the work that needs to get done while their fellow airmen are off doing the armys job...way to go AF you can shove my re-enlistment papers up your a**

quote:

Originally posted by JNickel185748:

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

I was amused to read the comment that most airmen were not used to being yelled at by a CSM. I remember one time in the missile field, an airman had screwed up and I was chewing him out. In the middle of the chewing out, he pulled out a card and told me that it was a time out card that he had from basic. I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry because it was just so unbelievable. And if you thought I was incredulous, you should have seen the look on the SP flight sergeant's face.

My daughter went through USAF basic fairly recently and I can guarantee you that there were no "time out cards."

.05

this was back in 93 and they were present during that time.

quote:

Originally posted by Bearcat85:
I remember the issues this created back around 2003-2004 when vehicle operators were first being tasked to go on convoy duty. These were airmen that has signed on for one type of duty only to find themselves perfomring an entirely different type of duty. Many of these airmen were not new recruits either, most had been for 10 or more years. Now we are sending even more airmen to do a mission they never signed up to do. Then the USAF will be SHOCKED when their retention numbers plummet!

I don't know about you, but I don't recall anything in either my enlistment oath or my commissioning oath that said I will only do duties that are within the narrow scope of my AFSC/MOS and nothing more ever. I do remember swearing to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, and that doesn't just mean I will do my job and never anything else.

Do you really think the Air Force is the only ones doing duties outside of their job description. I am in theater as a commo PL, and I have spent maybe 5% of my time working in my field. I don't consider it a bad thing at all, I think doing something different and learning those additional skills can do nothing but help me be a better Soldier.

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by Bearcat85:
I remember the issues this created back around 2003-2004 when vehicle operators were first being tasked to go on convoy duty. These were airmen that has signed on for one type of duty only to find themselves perfomring an entirely different type of duty. Many of these airmen were not new recruits either, most had been for 10 or more years. Now we are sending even more airmen to do a mission they never signed up to do. Then the USAF will be SHOCKED when their retention numbers plummet!

I don't know about you, but I don't recall anything in either my enlistment oath or my commissioning oath that said I will only do duties that are within the narrow scope of my AFSC/MOS and nothing more ever. I do remember swearing to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, and that doesn't just mean I will do my job and never anything else.

Do you really think the Air Force is the only ones doing duties outside of their job description. I am in theater as a commo PL, and I have spent maybe 5% of my time working in my field. I don't consider it a bad thing at all, I think doing something different and learning those additional skills can do nothing but help me be a better Soldier.

As I understand it, aircraft maintainers are feeling a strain. How would having you work in an air force tool shop or whatever make you a better soldier?

I understand that the army and the marines are both stressed and overcommitted. The problem is that the army and marines are being given tasks which they aren't manned and equipped to accomplish. So they get help from the air force and the navy who are also busy with their own operations. As Rumsfeld famously said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want," or words to that effect. We need to either scale back the mission to something that can be accomplished with the army we have, or better yet scale up the army so they can accomplish the mission.

The US military today isn't postured for a long war of occupation. We're postured for a quick war to hurry up and stop the enemy from doing something with which we disagree. We need to keep this in mind when we get involved.

quote:

Originally posted by TaxmanJim:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by Bearcat85:
I remember the issues this created back around 2003-2004 when vehicle operators were first being tasked to go on convoy duty. These were airmen that has signed on for one type of duty only to find themselves perfomring an entirely different type of duty. Many of these airmen were not new recruits either, most had been for 10 or more years. Now we are sending even more airmen to do a mission they never signed up to do. Then the USAF will be SHOCKED when their retention numbers plummet!

I don't know about you, but I don't recall anything in either my enlistment oath or my commissioning oath that said I will only do duties that are within the narrow scope of my AFSC/MOS and nothing more ever. I do remember swearing to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, and that doesn't just mean I will do my job and never anything else.

Do you really think the Air Force is the only ones doing duties outside of their job description. I am in theater as a commo PL, and I have spent maybe 5% of my time working in my field. I don't consider it a bad thing at all, I think doing something different and learning those additional skills can do nothing but help me be a better Soldier.

As I understand it, aircraft maintainers are feeling a strain. How would having you work in an air force tool shop or whatever make you a better soldier?

I understand that the army and the marines are both stressed and overcommitted. The problem is that the army and marines are being given tasks which they aren't manned and equipped to accomplish. So they get help from the air force and the navy who are also busy with their own operations. As Rumsfeld famously said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want," or words to that effect. We need to either scale back the mission to something that can be accomplished with the army we have, or better yet scale up the army so they can accomplish the mission.

The US military today isn't postured for a long war of occupation. We're postured for a quick war to hurry up and stop the enemy from doing something with which we disagree. We need to keep this in mind when we get involved.

Rumsfeld was correct when he said that, it is sad but true. The Army is growing, but without a draft it won't grow quickly. The Air Force does have some of its own operations, but they are not nearly as busy as the Army and USMC right now. So using Airmen in ILO roles is a way to relieve some of that strain from the Army. We are all on the same team the last time I checked. If Airmen can fill support roles for the Army why not have them do it. We are at war and if I was still an Airmen I would have no issue with doing my duty and serving in whatever capacity I was needed.

Right now I am in a tent with several E-4s and E-5s that have spent more of their time in the Army in Iraq than they have in the US. Next to that it is hard to say any AFSC (besides some AFSOC jobs) is strained.

For Decades; modernization of the Armed Forces through "Base Realignment and Closure Commissions" (BRAC and "Defense Transformation Acts" have forced reduction and CHANGE on our Military.

EVEN, during a significant period of WAR, Congress still requires "Reducing the Costs of Defense."

This HURTS individual members of each of the Military Services. The "End Strengths" of the Air Force is being reduced. Dittos for the NAVY. The Army and Marines are "supposed" to increase "End Strengths."

Jointness of Military Operations WILL GROW. A tendency towards "Purple Suit Operations" (As it was referred to in the past) WILL GROW.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfelt was EFFECTIVE in "Satisfying Congress's Direction" of implementing "Transformation Actions." Like it or not, what we're seeing today -- is a continuation of what has been happening for decades:

-----------------------
Extract:

"Among the many, I met with an extraordinary group of men, the Special Forces who'd been involved in the attack on Mazar-e Sharif. Now I've said on a number of occasions that the war on terrorism would likely be unlike any war we had fought before. These men surprised us all with their early requests for supplies. They asked for boots, ammunition…and horse feed.

From the moment they landed in Afghanistan, they began adapting to the circumstances on the ground. They sported beards and traditional scarves. They rode horses -- horses that had been trained to run into machine-gun fire, atop saddles that had been fashioned from wood and saddle bags that had been crafted from Afghan carpets. They used pack mules to transport equipment along some of the roughest terrain in the world, riding at night, in darkness, often near mine fields and along narrow mountain trails with drops so sheer that, as one soldier put it, it took him a week to ease the death-grip on his saddle. Many had never been on horseback before.

Extract:

But really, this is precisely what transformation is about. Here we are in the year 2002, fighting the first war of the 21st century, and the horse cavalry was back and being used, but being used in previously unimaginable ways. It showed that a revolution in military affairs is about more than building new high tech weapons, though that is certainly part of it. It's also about new ways of thinking, and new ways of fighting.

Extract:

Preparing for the future will require us to think differently and develop the kinds of forces and capabilities that can adapt quickly to new challenges and to unexpected circumstances. An ability to adapt will be critical in a world where surprise and uncertainty are the defining characteristics of our new security environment. During the Cold War, we faced a fairly predictable set of threats. We came to know a great deal about our adversary, because it was the same one for a long period. We knew many of the capabilities they possessed, and we fashioned strategies and capabilities that we believed we needed to deter them. And they were successful. It worked.

For almost a half a century, that mix of strategy, forces and capabilities allowed us to keep the peace and to defend freedom. But the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is gone, and with it, the familiar security environment to which our nation had grown accustomed.

As we painfully learned on September 11th, the challenges of a new century are not nearly as predictable as they were during the Cold War. Who would have imagined only a few months ago that terrorists would take commercial airliners, turn them into missiles and use them to strike the Pentagon and the World Trade Towers, killing thousands? But it happened.


- Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2002

See:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=183

===========================

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

Good, they need able bodies in Iraq to support the mission. But a better idea would be to get our troops the hell out of there, out of a combat role, and let the Iraqi's sort their civil war out for themselves.

Time out cards. Thanks for the laugh.

Humorous story of the best man of my wedding. Standing guard duty in Korea when the Chinese trumpets blared and about two million came running towards him. Being well trained, he grab his M1 Carbine and ran like hell. With no moonlight he didn't get far and fell in a ditch. Stayed there all night long, wondering why none of his visitors hadn't checked him out. Come morning the friends from the north were repelled by the Marines and my buddy saw he was standing in a open pit latrine. Maybe he should have showed his time out cards to the Chinese.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

quote:

Originally posted by UtChaz:

Sounds like yet another forced operation of Blue to Green. This time instead of forcing the people to get out of the AF and go to the USA we're just making the AF do the USA job. How convenient!

Why is the AF drawing down when the Army want us to do their jobs? Why???

I'll tell you why, because it'll look good for some General to say he's working with the Army instead of against it.

This whole ILO was suppose to be temporary while the Army brought up it's reserves and guard troops then we'd be out of it.

So much for that… It's like taxes; I've never seen a tax repealed but I've sure seen them increase!

Why don’t they just force them out of the AF and directly in the USA? They’d be getting the same damn thing without trying to BS the whole world in to believing we’re just helping the Army…???...!!!

Too Bad there UTchaz that you have no recollection of the size of the US Army at post-Desert Storm (1991).

Then shortly thereafter, good ole Slick Willy came on board and further downsized the Infantry and Armor Divisions for the coveted "PEACE DIVIDEND." It was beginning to look like 1977-1980 (ole Jimmy's tenure) all over again...

Had ole Slicky Boy Willy left the Army alone during his sex-capades (Clintoon Admin) the USAF, USN, and possibly USCG too, would not be tasked to conduct Infantry Related Tasks...

I realize of course that you are not one to be confused with the facts..., thus, your mind is made up... I bet you want to scream the Liberal Mantra..., "Its BUSH's FAULT" on mountain tops...

LOL. pathetic. The conservative mantra of "its all Clinton's fault" doesn't hold water in the light of Republican dominance of the Congress in the '90s, who had to green light anything Clinton might have signed.
Very amusing to see the Bush water carriers try to lay everything at slick Willie's feet.

When President Bush 41 was in charge we had a Secretary of Defense who said, "I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Doesn't sound to me like they were too worried about what people certain political groups call "Islamo-Facists"

quote:

Cuts Began During Bush Administration
Funding for national defense declined by about 16.9 percent between the last Reagan Administration defense budget (FY 1989) and the last Bush Administration budget (FY 1993). These were the deepest cuts of the post-Cold War period. To be sure, the depth of these reductions owed much to the actions of the then Democratic-controlled Congress. However, the Democratic Congress was hardly acting alone: all but the very first of the Bush budget submissions called for cutting defense spending.

By comparison, under the Clinton Administration, funding for defense declined by about 13.1 percent between FY 1993 and FY 1998, when funding for defense bottomed out, and has risen 6-7 percent since then. The actions of the now Republican-controlled Congress have been partly responsible for the recent upswing in funding for defense. Like the cuts begun under the Bush Administration, the increases of the past several years owe something to the actions of both Congress and the Clinton Administration.

Source

Just to clarify - Both parties had a hand in cutting it.

I agree that we should have been a lot less eager to cut spending.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USAF_76_2_80,