Somebody Call an Ambulance, the Air Force Should be in Shock!

Dispatch: "This is AFPC Dispatch, go ahead please."

Caller: "I need an ambulance to the Air Force wing of the Pentagon. I've found the Air Force face down, hemorrhaging blood, signs of heat stroke, pale and malnourished with severe exhaustion, and what appears to be brain damage. Please send medics immediately!"

Dispatch: "I'm sorry, I did not recognize your choice selection. For force management, please press or say one..."

The Air Force and commanders could learn a great deal from the human body at both the unit and higher levels. It is no secret the service is tired, fatigued, exhausted. That analogy has been used for at least the last ten years and is as tired as the issue it describes. But the analogy needs an update. How pale is our air arm? People will debate that. Those who actually serve in the institution see a lack of blood in the corpse-like service. They live the undermanned reality, they know they and their families are nearly tapped out or already have been. On the other hand, those who look at PowerPoint slides where numbers and metrics are doctored like Enron accounting sheets, might get the impression that the service has beautiful bright red rosy cheeks, or at least that it is manned normally. That perspective or simple budget realities, or a combination, have introduced Force Shaping measures and the pronouncement that we're overmanned and we have to RIF our life blood. If true, we should accept that a little blood splatter is just part of the gruesome business of war. The VSP allowed for some of that blood to voluntarily leave, yet turned out to be little more than a small vial's worth while the needle used caused quite the bruise. Now enter the latest Maj-Lt Col promotion board, where those Officers who have carried the Air Force for the last ten to fifteen years are told whether or not those efforts, and their time away from family, have allowed them to continue in the service. They have spent nearly their entire careers at war, including in Afghanistan, the longest war in the history of the United States. One would think their experience would be valuable. Instead, it appears they are being shown the door in record numbers. While Majors twice passed over for Lt Col have traditionally been allowed to continue their service until retirement, it has never been guaranteed. Consider an Air Force Times article discussing the need for force reduction in the Air Force, and the resulting reduction of those granted "selective continuation":

Faced with a need to reduce the size of the Air Force by 13,000 people, officials are returning to the days when selective continuation was offered only to officers in a few undermanned and overworked career fields.

The article above was published nearly eight years ago and was referencing Captains twice passed over for Major. But the question any rational person would ask after reading this article is, why not take the people you are going to kick out, who have invested all this time into the service, and simply transfer them to the areas that are "undermanned and overworked?" Just like the body in shock that sends the blood from areas of the body that are not critical to places that are. The critical organ is the mission, the heart, the center of what we do. The body does not elect to simply pump that blood overboard figuring it can grow more; it's smart enough to know that it costs more energy to create new blood than to send existing blood to where it is needed. This is one reason the body takes great pains to guard against the loss of blood through clotting. The Air Force needs to break out the packs of EZ-CLOT. Unfortunately for the Air Force body, a lot of blood is being spilled on the ground. But these are unusual circumstances. As per DoDD 1320.8:

Commissioned officers on the Active Duty List who hold the grade O-4, who are subject to discharge under Section 632 of reference (b), shall normally be selected for continuation by selection boards convened for that purpose if the officer will qualify for retirement under Section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of reference (b) within six years of the date of such continuation. The Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned may, in unusual circumstances, discharge involuntarily such officers...

We're not just discussing Captains to be given the pink slip at the ten year point these days. We're talking about Officers who have served for fifteen years. Normally all the Majors who met the previous board would be continued despite not being promoted. It makes sense that Officers who have given so much of themselves, have sacrificed time with their families, have lived in less than ideal places, and most importantly have gained so much experience, be allowed to continue to serve. That is normally what is required by law. Normal of course means exactly that. As the law states, there is a caveat for "unusual circumstances." But what happens when the unusual becomes the usual? We don't serve in normal times and haven't for at least a decade. The body of the Air Force is corpse-like, and one must consider the warnings published more than a decade ago by Dr. Grant Hammond. The Secretary of the Air Force, realizing normality is not in the cards, issued these non-normal standards for boards to decide if Officers who have checked all the boxes expected of them, and yet were not promoted to the next grade, would be shown the door after fifteen to sixteen years of serving their country:

As there is no quota applied, you may select up to 100% of eligible, fully qualified officers; but you must also consider the following guidance... It will normally be in the interest of the Air Force to continue officers with critical skills. I have determined that the following skills are critical to the Air Force. RPA Operators...Fighter Pilots...Bomber Pilots...Special Operations CSOs...Combat Rescue Officers/Special Tactics Officers...Catholic Chaplains...Clinical Psychologists...Flight Nurses...and Mental Health Nurses...

In order to keep with this analogy, it is noteworthy that chaplains, psychologists and mental health nurses are critical to the Air Force. Despite the guidance from the SecAF, the Air Force could have continued every single Officer on that board. They could have done so and then funneled that expertise to the RPA community at a minimum. They could have enlarged the pipelines as required, like the arteries and veins. They could have, but they apparently chose not to. The problem is the Air Force does not yet realize how deeply injured it is, or has not chosen to take necessary action to protect its mission. It doesn't matter what injured the institution, it only matters that it realize it and take proper action. Like the body, it must go into shock. That means it must stop spilling its life blood and must instead direct that blood to the vital organs. Those vital organs are identified by the SecAF and include RPA Operators, Fighter/Bomber Pilots, etc. We need to pump that blood back into the organs that sustain life for the Air Force, that is those that do the actual critical wartime mission. While some career fields might not make for an easy transition, some are certainly doable including the first on the list....RPA Operators. A career field people shun and do not volunteer for, but that is vital nonetheless. Force the blood there as the heart does when it is concerned with living. But it's not just about pumping blood to those vital organs, it's about letting the other sections of the body die so that life can be sustained. Needless OPRs that take up dozens if not hundreds of man hours simply to put a nice polish on a decision that is made in ten seconds. We can't afford to do that anymore. Office jobs that take away from the vital mission that meet needless regulations but don't actually produce anything vital if even useful. We have to eliminate those processes so we can allow our airman to do the actual mission and keep their sanity. Then we won't need so many Mental Health Nurses, and we can let them go too. Base agencies that nobody ever really visits, golf courses, all of that should be on the table. Empires and fiefdoms will crumble, but that is necessary to support the mission. The Air Force is in a state of serious injury, it must go into shock just as the human body would, to sustain the vital mission and it needs to stop forcing the blood spill. On top of that, it needs to discover a blood transfusion. If the Air Force is to live.

A Major Victory - Pardon the Pun

I'm hesitant to bring up such a career oriented post, because I believe the focus on career should be the last thing to go through an officer's mind and should not weigh into the decisions we make. That being said, many younger officers from my previous command have witnessed my leadership style, and have heard the prognostications of careerists. The message is clear, challenging leadership and saying no, when no is the right answer, results in career destruction. These warnings are not without merit.

I made some powerful enemies in my previous assignment. I have previously blogged about a completely fabricated (and provably so) LOR given to me and a two-star insulted by my assessment of Air Force leadership under the fighter mafia. This reprimand was handed to me several months after being charged with "failing to signal a lane change," a charge later dismissed, so that the LOR entered into my Officer Selection Record (OSR) just in time to be considered by my next two promotion boards, including one that would determine if I would be able to continue in the service.

The leadership then cancelled my assignment to fly RPAs, an assignment I had volunteered for many months earlier and had already been matched to. An assignment few volunteer for. I was told by my functional that he was no longer handling my assignment, and that I had to talk to an O-6 in my chain of command. The O-6 told me I had only two choices, both ACC staff jobs including one to Tuscon, Arizona. Very nice location and my wife and I would have loved to have lived there. But it wasn't the mission the Air Force needed, it was not my command, and I insisted on my RPA assignment. I was ultimately given back my RPA assignment and I returned to my command. A command with a vital wartime mission that produces quality leadership as a result of doing things that truly matter.

Thanks to this leadership, my fabricated LOR was removed from my record before the board would decide if I was to be sent packing after more than fifteen years of service, or if I would be able to continue until twenty years and retire. Today I was offered this opportunity, and I accepted it. I will be able to continue to provide airpower to brave Americans who need it and to help shape the culture around me. If and when I retire, I will be able to convert a very generous retirement package into purely pro bono legal work to continue the fight against the unprincipled who are weakening this amazing country. Should I retire, I will never monetarily profit from my future legal career. Money will never factor into my principled decisions and I will take on clients based only on two questions...are they being truthful, and are they right.

I have posted this for the younger guys, who have wondered how it would turn out for me after the warnings from careerists. Factor my experience as you see fit. You can be principled and not only survive, but even prosper. Don't count on it. Don't expect it. Save your money, invest wisely and realize nothing is guaranteed. But know that it is certainly possible, especially when you serve in a superior community, led by superior leaders, that does superior things each and every day.

Who Interprets the Constitution for You?

Are military officers required to interpret the Constitution in order to fulfill their oath, or are they instead required to interpret judicial decisions? Are they expected, as educated men and women, to perform the intellectual grunt work of understanding the document, or are they instead given their government marching orders explaining what the text says and means? What does the Constitution itself say regarding this question?

Justice Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court (1811-1845)

Before we seek out the Constitution itself (a fitting source for the question at hand), consider the words of Justice Story in his, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, published in 1833. In a chapter entitled, "Who is the final Judge or Interpreter in Constitutional Controversies," this James Madison appointed SCOTUS Justice writes:

The constitution, contemplating the grant of limited powers, and distributing them among various functionaries, and the state governments, and their functionaries, being also clothed with limited powers, subordinate to those granted to the general government, whenever any question arises, as to the exercise of any power by any of these functionaries under the state, or federal government, it is of necessity, that such functionaries must, in the first instance, decide upon the constitutionality of the exercise of such power. It may arise in the course of the discharge of the functions of any one, or of all, of the great departments of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The officers of each of these departments are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it. Whenever, therefore, they are required to act in a case, not hitherto settled by any proper authority, these functionaries must, in the first instance, decide, each for himself, whether, consistently with the constitution, the act can be done.

Justice Story says that military officers are equally bound to their oaths, as are the government entities themselves. He suggests that interpretation is an individual affair that is equal to the interpretation of the government branch they are employed with. He also suggests that if a Constitutional interpretation on an issue has already been rendered by a "proper authority," that this may not be the case.

I agree with the Justice on the whole. Military officers are required to interpret the Constitution themselves to inform their actions, and that requirement is equally as important as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches binding their actions by the document. He makes it clear that if the Constitutionality of a proposed government action has not yet been ruled on by a "proper authority," that individual government actors must use their own understanding of the document. There are no other options. To simply trust the order to be legal, or to have faith in the government body issuing it, would make the oaths we take to the Constitution utterly worthless. Consider the potential order to assassinate an American citizen without the citizen being tried for any crime. This is clearly not a case that has been resolved by the Supreme Court, and anybody with any understanding of the Constitution knows this will eventually be struck down as perhaps the most unconstitutional overreach of power ever taken by our government. But the SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue. So individual public servants must make the interpretation themselves as Justice Story explains. The Justice does, however, suggest that this does not apply once a "proper authority" has provided its interpretation. I disagree with him here.

The reason I disagree on this finer detail is because the Constitution itself states otherwise. In Article VI it requires an oath (or affirmation) by both judicial and executive (military) officers to the Constitution itself. It binds judicial officers to the text, and it binds executive officers to the text. It does not bind the judicial to the text, and the executive to the interpretation of the judicial (or vice versa).

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Of course, any military officer serious about understanding the document will naturally seek the reasoning of the judiciary who spend their time pondering these issues. Clear reasoning from a judge or Justice is invaluable in our professional military duty to understand the limits set upon us. That being said, we did not swear an oath to the judicial interpretation, just as they did not swear an oath to our particular executive officer interpretations. We are responsible for knowing our Constitution and acting accordingly.

It makes sense. Requiring government actors to swear an oath before God to the supreme law of the land, rather than the government this law intends to limit, provides a fail safe should the government attempt to stray from the Constitutional line in the sand.

What a great responsibility for us in the military. Not only do we have to fight our nation's wars, but should an unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) order be issued from the government, we are required to be knowledgeable of the Constitution enough to detect it, and courageous enough to refuse to follow it. It's noteworthy that Article VI did not include an exception for inconvenience as a result.

Constitutional Question of the Day - Representation

Did the Constitution speak to the People as represented by their States, or to the People directly? That's my latest conundrum as I try to understand the document better. Were rights guaranteed to the People separately from any government representation, or was it understood that the People would be represented by their individual States?

If rights were granted to the People separately, how would they go about exercising these rights when challenged by both State and Federal government? Did the Constitution provide machinery for them, and if so what kind?

Were the delegates to the Constitutional Convention representing their individual States (which in turn represented their People), or this third group of the People directly? What about the delegates at the individual Ratifying Conventions? Who exactly did they represent when they gave a yay or nay to ratify the Constitution? I find it highly unlikely these delegates were, across all the colonies, free of the influence of their State governments. Did they represent their States, or did they represent the People directly? Or did they represent both simultaneously?

And how does this situation, whatever it may be, inform the understanding of the Constitution's granting of powers? I don't know yet but studying this is in the queue.

Memorial Day Salute to a Dead Marine

Jose Manuel Guerena (November 23, 1984 - May 5, 2011)
RIP Marine

This Memorial Day, as we remember those who have risked and given their lives for our freedom, let's remember that a great deal of work still needs to be done to make the "land of the free" a reality. We can best honor them at home by valuing our rights codified in our sacred Constitution and remembering the words of Thomas Paine, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."

We may not all have the opportunity to charge a hill or storm the beaches of Normandy. But we all have the opportunity to risk some small measure of our comfort to slow or halt grave threats to our country and our way of life. It starts with caring about something above yourself and truly appreciating the sacrifices of great Americans who before us labored for the freedom so many of us now take for granted.

Happy Memorial Day.

Stars and Stripes Interested in Your Thoughts

I was recently contacted by a reporter from Stars and Stripes. Here is the relevant portion of her inquiry.

My name is Jennifer Svan and I’m a reporter with Stars and Stripes in Kaiserslautern, Germany, and I cover Air Force/USAFE issues. I’m doing a story about the projected shortage of Air Force fighter pilots, per Gen. Welsh’s email asking for feedback from pilots as to why they’re getting out of the Air Force.

I’m trying to find some current and/or retired pilots to ask them about their personal experiences in the Air Force: What is/was the job like, what are their future plans or why did they choose to get out, why do they think the Air Force may be losing so many pilots, etc. I’m also wondering what sorts of job opportunities are out there for fighter pilots. What will they do when they get out, and is it a difficult decision to give up flying a fighter jet in exchange for a civilian job?

If you're interested in providing your thoughts, she can be contacted at svanj@estripes.osd.mil and I'm sure would appreciate your input. Hopefully this is another way in which leadership can take a temperature reading. If she gets responses from those who are choosing to continue their service, along with those who have decided to pull chocks, this might prove valuable.

The Constitution and Assassinating Americans

In at outstanding article, Reason magazine recently interviewed Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers. In this article, entitled Constitutional Refuseniks, Mr. Rhodes made some important observations. Full disclosure, I am a member of Oath Keepers (ETA: I used to be a member of Oath Keepers). When asked the purpose of the Oath Keepers, Mr. Rhodes responded:

The mission of Oath Keepers is to persuade the guys with the guns not to violate the Constitution. I look at it as constitutional triage. I worked for a congressman; I've worked with judges. And it seems clear to me that judges and politicians don't really care about our rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect. So I'm focusing on the guys with the guns, the ones who ultimately enforce the laws, on educating them about the Constitution. I think most of them are honorable people, but there's an ethos, especially in the officer corps in the military, that focuses on following orders. It's almost as if they're taking the oath to uphold the Constitution to mean that you should categorically defer to the president. Now I think civilian authority is important, but if the president asks the military to do something that isn't constitutional, their loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president.

The oath Mr. Rhodes refers to is required by the very Constitution itself. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states, "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." The oath established is the one military officers today take, right hand raised, when they swear before God:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The oath of a military officer differs slightly from the oath taken by enlisted members of the armed services. While both take oaths to support the Constitution, the enlisted oath also contains an oath to obey the President of the United States, "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Notably, the oath of the commissioned officer contains only the oath to the Constitution, and makes no mention of obedience to the President.

All military serviceman, however, are required by Article 92 of the UCMJ to obey the lawful orders of those appointed above them, which most certainly includes the President. The key here is the word "lawful." Likewise, they are required to disobey all unlawful orders and may be punished if they comply with illegal orders. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It trumps all other laws made throughout the nation. While its text is certainly debatable in many areas, in other sections it is quite clear. If Stewart Rhodes' view on the ethos of the military officer corps is to be believed, military officers may tend to place obeying orders over their duty to support and defend the document that anchors the character of America to day to day reality.

Marjorie Cohn, professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, has the following to offer in the introduction to her book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent:

When the government at the highest levels ignores these rules, when the conduct of a war and the war itself violate the law...soldiers are forced into a legal and ethical dilemma. They must decide whether to abide by law and conscience--knowing the government does not--or to follow orders without regard to the law.

If Mr. Rhodes' observation on the ethos of the military officer is correct, we must ask ourselves why that is the case. Why do officers who have taken an oath to support the Constitution, rather than obey orders, choose to place obedience to orders above their oaths in face of UCMJ action for failing to disobey unlawful orders that violate that Constitution?

Perhaps it is a matter of knowledge, that officers take the oath to a document they have not read and do not understand. That would appear to be the hope of Mr. Rhodes as his Oath Keepers organization seeks to educate government employees who wield lethality. Perhaps it is a matter of character, that officers take the oath insincerely, instead of taking the obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Or perhaps Mr. Rhodes is incorrect in his interpretation of the Constitution and therefore errs in his estimation of commissioned military officers.

A concrete example might help illuminate the discussion. In the same article, Mr. Rhodes observes:

But now you have Obama, who has not only not renounced those powers but has expanded them. He also now claims the power to assassinate American citizens his administration deems enemy combatants with no oversight. That's just frightening.

Is the government assassination of American citizens wherever they may be, even off the battlefield, perhaps while dining with their family a violation of the Constitution? What does the Constitution have to say about such action? Thankfully, this issue is one of the clear sections of the document. It defines Americans who make war on America.

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Citizens deemed enemy combatants are those who levy war against the United States, adhere to the enemy, and give aid and comfort. The Constitution has spoken on this group of Americans. Not only does it define them as traitors, it also provides guidance on how they are to be dealt with.

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution continues:

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason...

The Constitution mentions treason in other sections, as well. Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses,....

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 4, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The Constitution also speaks to the rights of Americans more broadly. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This amendment bears repeating. Citizens will not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The due process for treason is stated in the Constitution itself in Article 3, Section 3. The federal government cannot take the life of a suspected traitor, without the due process guaranteed to Americans who commit treason.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence...

Borrowing on language from the Fifth Amendment (which bounds the federal government), the Constitution also binds the states in the Fourteenth Amendment. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And finally, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there found the power of the federal government to assassinate American citizens. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear then, that since such a power is not delegated to the federal government, it does not have the power. Likewise, other sections of the Constitution make it clear that American citizens, even Traitors who make war on the United States, have the right to be captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to the punishment mandated by Congress.

If Mr. Rhodes' observation of the military officer ethos is correct, then the reason well paid commissioned officers would choose to obey an unlawful order over their oaths to the Constitution is a matter of a lack of education, or a lack of character. For the sake of our nation, I hope it's the former. At least that can be corrected. Stewart Rhodes is a former Army paratrooper, Ron Paul staffer, graduate of Yale Law School (the top law school in the nation), and a former clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court.

It's my hope he has great success before his organization, and others, find themselves on a secret hit list that makes McCarthy's bookkeeping appear moderate. Regardless, military officers are required by their oaths, by the laws of our nation, indeed by military law to refuse to carry out unlawful orders no matter where they come from or how many around them obey. I only hope they have the character and integrity to do so despite the personal risks. As Stewart Rhodes said:

It doesn't always turn out well. But when you take an oath you're not saying, "I'll abide by this oath only if it turns out well for me." You're saying that the oath is important enough that you'll abide by it no matter how things turn out.

Temp Reading Making it Up the Chain - And it's Not Good

My last blog post concerned the Reduction in Force (RIF) and the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) program that has recently concluded, and the outrage that has been generated among much of the Air Force rated force. More than 50 negative comments were posted to the story released on the official Air Force website. A Facebook group was created concerning the VSP Program. Letters of complaint have been to sent to Congressman, there is talk of legal action, and according to participants at a well known online Air Force pilot watering hole, some leadership is starting to see the looming manning crisis that is coming and committing to take action.

Apparently General Welsh, USAFE Commander, sent the following mass email out recently:

To USAFE Fighter Pilots


I need your help. During a recent 4-star meeting, we talked about what appears to be a pending fighter pilot shortage. The AF's rated personnel management folks are projecting a 300 fighter pilot shortfall in FY13 that could grow to over 1000 by FY21. They also told us that the fighter community's bonus "take rate" is 10% lower than the rest of the rated community. Obviously, many of you are leaving, or thinking about leaving, the Air Force for other opportunities. If you've already made the decision to do so, then please accept my sincere thanks for your service and best wishes for every success in the future...it's an honor to have served beside you. My concern is not that you've made the choice to pursue a new path, but that we don't really understand why you made the choice.

You may have heard the story about a Captain fighter pilot who wrote a letter to the Commander of Tactical Air Command a couple of years after the end of the Vietnam War. The letter started "Dear Boss, Well, I quit" and went on to list the frustrations that he and his peers were experiencing. I just read a more recent version, written in 2009. It's attached to this note. If you believe the author, some things may not have changed much in 30 years.

Our Air Force is in a dynamic state of change and its leaders need to know why some of their most talented, highly trained people are leaving. As we transition to a 5th Generation fighter force, we simply can't afford to lose front line fighter pilots at our current rate.

I understand that it's a busy time to be in the Air Force. The fighter community is faced with an increasing ops tempo, fewer fighters, less flying, more non-flying jobs and an unclear career sight picture. My gut feeling is that this combination contributes to good people leaving, but I doubt these are the only factors. I suspect some of the issues raised in the Dear Boss letter are also in play. But, most importantly, I don't know for sure. And I don't believe AF leaders can make smart fighter pilot force management decisions until we do.

Interestingly, we also have a fighter WSO shortage which will persist for the next few years. But the longer term trends for that career field are positive. That's clearly not the case with fighter pilots and I want to know as much as possible about what's causing retention to move in the wrong direction.

So, I have a favor to ask. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what is driving fighter pilot retention down. You can send them directly to my CAG at [removed]. They'll strip names off the inputs, then pass them to me, unedited. I'm looking for the ground truth as you see it, not the filtered, watered-down "this is what the boss wants to hear" truth. Once I've seen it all, I'll give you some feedback...including what I plan to do with the info.

Let me close by saying "Thank You" to you and your families for all of your hard work and sacrifice. You, and so many other great Airmen in so many career fields, are the reason we're the world's greatest Air Force. But no matter how good we are, we need to get better. When your job is to fight and win your Nation's wars, you can never be good enough. I will do everything in my power to make USAFE more combat capable; that includes trying to keep our best fighter pilots on Active Duty. If you think "best fighter pilot" refers to you, please let me know what you think. If you don't, this note isn't for you.

R/Boomer

In my experience, pilots are counting the days until they can get out of the Air Force. I've even heard half-hearted dreams of escaping to South America. Many feel they are in a job with long hours located where there is no hope of getting married or having any meaningful social life. They look at long commitments after pilot training and are scared they will end up single, unfulfilled, and old. If they're already married, they want more time with their families. They're tired of the ops tempo. They're not concerned about flying for the airlines, they just want out. They're tired of the politics, the quality of leadership, silly promotion requirements and hours spent crafting performance reports that are all but useless and time consuming. They're done with brass escaping accountability, double speak, and different spanks for different ranks. They're tired of not being able to believe the words that come out of the mouths of their leaders. They're tired of support being cut, and non-flying tasks being put in their laps after a long shift of flying. They look at the end of the tunnel and are not convinced they will be taken care of, if they continue to serve. Many anticipate a stop loss, because they know what leadership apparently does not, that the Air Force will be hemorrhaging rated combat experienced talent in the very near future. Most agree that the Air Force should have seen it coming.

They know they have signed the dotted line, and will serve out what they agreed to. But what they are making clear to any who will listen, is they will not be around longer than required.

Accurate Temperature Readings

I love how the Air Force is harnessing the internet and its liberal blog policy to provide leadership with a more accurate reading of what is going on in the service. The recent Reduction in Force (RIF) initiative, and the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) program it spawned, has provided a rare glimpse into the opinions held by many airmen. Especially the rated aviators who most directly wield America's airpower.

Check out the comments section from this official Air Force webpage: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123252616

For more background information the following thread on Air Force "force shaping", from a website that is a well known cyber watering hole for Air Force aviators, is priceless: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4377-force-shaping-vsp/

According to the thread above, an email sent to Air Force commanders indicates that the Secretary of the Air Force was "overwhelmed" by the number of people who wanted out of the service, and particularly the number of rated individuals. It seems the temperature reading hasn't been all that accurate at the top, and it's good to see the internet is providing it for Air Force leadership.

Where There is Smoke, There is Fire

Tom Ricks has a recent post about the observations of a Vietnam veteran, Dan Hughes, who was faculty at the Air Force's Air War College (AWC) for eighteen years. AWC is one of several "academic" programs run by the Air University (AU) arm of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC). I'll sum Mr. Hughes' picture up as I understand it. AWC is an expensive joke that caters to students who are also a joke.

Mr. Ricks has also posted a response to Mr. Hughes from another AU faculty member.

I have never attended AWC and I never will. As readers of my blog know, I have a "master's degree" from AU's online Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) and I have blogged about my previous experiences with this program and with AU and AETC. In fact, the blog you are now reading is a direct result of my experiences with Air University.

When people ask if I have a master's degree, I say no. I checked a box. It's not the same thing.

What I have read of Mr. Hughes' critique resonates greatly with me. I have seen the products of AWC and I have served in AETC, had significant dealings with the instructors, faculty, and dean of the ACSC online program, and I have engaged several AU processes concerning academic freedom.

Readers should listen closely and take seriously the observations of Mr. Hughes, as one would listen to a surgeon who has diagnosed a cancer.

A cancer that is routed deeply in a command that has been called, Advancing Enron Through Careerism (AETC).