Wait, are you arguing that it is ok for commanders to throw their subordinates under the bus if it saves the commanders careers?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
Wait, are you arguing that it is ok for commanders to throw their subordinates under the bus if it saves the commanders careers?
No, I meant that it seems there is a rush to judgment. I wasn't saying commanders were right/wrong for doing it.
Ok, well then I'm saying from the reporting I saw, the commander rushed to judgment and was wrong.
I don't think we are getting the full story though, all the news I have seen on it is theird or fourth hand and mainly from a guy with a huge axe to grind with the USAF (much different than AskSkipper or CDR Sal).
From what I've seen of the USAF, I'd trust Tony Carr (a.k.a. John Q. Public) over the USAF senior leadership. I've spent a lot of time with the USAF, and while I envy their amazing powers at a serve-mart run, their leadership is abysmal. Those IPs were engaging in nothing more than standard jackassery and had their careers shoved up their asses sideways.
What is his story, anyway? Right or wrong, every time I read one of his articles, the amount of vitriol at the institutional AF reminds me of the old saw about three sides to everything. His side, the AF's side, and the truth.
I believe he was a C-17 squadron CO.
I work with AF leaders (GO/SES/O6) often. There are some great, humble, inspiring AF leaders. They are mostly trying to do the right thing. The problem is that there is no margin for error anymore. The scrutiny is so intense that commanders who "ignore" or fact-check an issue for longer than a hot minute are themselves punished.
The incentives are misaligned, and hurt Airmen like the ones in this story. It's a bad result all around. Everyone jumps to conclusions - not always the correct one.
I dunno how we fix it, except to perhaps allow more benefit-of-the-doubt in cases where there's suspicion but no proof. The Sq/CC, MSG/CC, WG/CC, etc. need to be granted sufficient time (and latitude) to collect the facts without the MAJCOM, OSI, Congress, or 24-7-News demanding their removal for perceived "inaction."
Last edited:
He's just following the Fox News / MSNBC model. Who tunes into PBS Newshour to get objective and responsible reporting?
I have spent a lot of time with USAF folks since the beginning of my career until today with one of current bosses being a USAF guy, even working for the current CSAF at one time. While some of their leaders have been real winners I haven't seen a huge deviation from the mean with USAF leadership compared to the other services. There seems to be a few more glaring outliers in the Army and USAF than the Navy and Marines from my personal experience but there were some from the sea services that were real 'winners' too.
Like Nittany said John Q screeches so loud and often it is hard to take him seriously even when he does have a good argument. He could take a few cue from AskSkipper and CDR S on how to write a blog.
Yes he was, and he retired right after his CO tour if I read his bio right and maybe even short of 20?!
But Carr does a lot more original reporting and commentary than Sal. Sal also veers more into general politics, which run conservative in his case, whereas Carr keeps civilian politics much more in the background.
I think Sal also has a much different personal mission statement. Clearly the title,"John Q. Public," indicates that Carr is taking the viewpoint of a skeptical citizen/watchdog, vice general profession interest. AskSkipper, though I've read much of him, takes a much more benign tack than either of the others.
"After serving for more than 22 years on US Air Force active duty"
I was talking more about tone than subject, his posts are far more sensational than they need to be and he seems to see a conspiracy behind every tree and under every rock. The service doesn't the help itself sometimes by being secretive abut commander reliefs and other stupid stuff but 'the man' isn't always out to get you, sometimes folks are just stupid. He is also long-winded and takes too long to make his point, a bit like a lawyer which he is studying to be, and unlike some other online commentators I have read.
I am all for smart commentary on the military, I think we could use more of it, but his tone and subjects are basically better written tabloid pieces in many cases.
Apparently he was prior service but I had to look up his ribbon rack to figure it out. It isn't mentioned in his bio, he doesn't have a good conduct medal (he would 5 or 6 years enlisted to get to 22) and it is only mentioned off-hand by him in an interview.
Do you think the Air Force was correct in grounding those three Instructor Pilots, and then refusing to reinstate their flying status until a Member of Congress got involved? You may not agree with his writing style or tactics, but I'm sure lots of Air Force guys and gals, and probably some taxpayers, are glad that someone is finally willing to shed light on matters that the Air Force Public Affairs folks would rather not.I was talking more about tone than subject, his posts are far more sensational than they need to be and he seems to see a conspiracy behind every tree and under every rock. The service doesn't the help itself sometimes by being secretive abut commander reliefs and other stupid stuff but 'the man' isn't always out to get you, sometimes folks are just stupid. He is also long-winded and takes too long to make his point, a bit like a lawyer which he is studying to be, and unlike some other online commentators I have read.
I am all for smart commentary on the military, I think we could use more of it, but his tone and subjects are basically better written tabloid pieces in many cases.
Some of askskipper's posts have generated similar feelings and discussions; he just has a different style and posts less frequently. I think what really got his readership going was the 2014 O-4 board results post and the aftermath, followed by the AMCSB scandal. Seems like they're both of the opinion that the public has the right to know things the services would rather not publicly air out.
The bio linked here is a little bit more up-to-date: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/author/tcarr_airpower/
You call? From yesterday's post in the Republican Primary thread ....Mark Shields on The PBS News Hour said it was brilliant. (David Brooks of the NYT was apocalyptic in his hopes for the Republican Party.)