From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Air Force Career Types (Was Re: The A-10)
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:06:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.165306.14470@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>>As an ex-air force type who flew 200 combat missions in VN

>That means s**t, if you were any good you would be a career
>air force type. Napalming unarmed civilians is probably all
>you did.

My word, we DID wake up owly this morning, didn't we?  Do you want him to
tell you where he lives so you can spit on him?

Your "if you were any good you would be a career Air Force type" comment
certainly indicates you have absolutely no military experience.  The Air
Force has no need for good pilots.  The Air Force needs the "whole man"...
one who can administer, write good memos, give good briefings, and
whatever.  Seriously... when I was in ('70's) the Officer Effectiveness
Report had ten areas upon which your supervisor graded you.  Of those, only
*THREE* had anything to do with how well you did your primary job.  The
rest are categories like "Oral Communication" and "Human Relations."

As far as the Vietnam War went, here's the typical scenario (from my
father-in-law, a retired CMsgt):

1.  Air Force unit gets sent to Vietnam
2.  All the paperwork is done correctly, but missions aren't getting done
3.  Command personnel replaced with "fighters"
4.  "Fighters" say "screw the paperwork, let's drop bombs on Charlie".
5.  Mission Objectives met
6.  Unit returns to CONUS
7.  First ORI... inspectors are shocked to find the paperwork's not up to
date
8.  "Fighters" are fired, never to see promotion again.  Most leave the
service.
9.  Paperpushers fired in step 3 are promoted and placed back in command.

Bill Mauldin, in _Up Front_, describes a similar semi-official method used
within one unit for appointing MPs... one set of combat-savvy ones during 
combat, and another, more "regimental" set for when the unit came off the
line.

So just because someone is not a career military person doesn't mean they
don't understand tactical needs.  In fact, you can usually find an inverse
correlation between "warrior" skills and promotability.  Many of the Air
Force's heroes were men who were significantly, err, "promotion-impaired."
Take Frank Luke... he was awaiting court martial when he broke arrest and
took off on his last mission.  Maybe Pappy Boyington (another Medal of 
Honor winner with poor promotability) put it best:  "Show me a hero, and 
I'll show you a bum."

As Boyington's history should indicate, the Air Force doesn't have a 
monopoly on heroes with poor promotability.  Dan Gallery planned and
executed the operation that captured the first enemy warship on the high
seas since the War of 1812, and he was brushed aside in the postwar period.
And for those who have seen the movie "ZULU", which depicted the battle of
Roarke's Drift during the Zulu Wars, the two lieutenants in command (both
received Victoria Crosses) remained in the service for at least twenty more 
years... and kept the same rank until they retired.

Most military systems... the American one included... have a bad history of
shunting the opinions of the experienced warriors aside in favor of desk-bound
careerists who have learned how to work their way up the ladder.  Let's
not duplicate this on the net, folks.  Let's judge each other's postings on 
their merits and stated qualifications, and not on ignorant supposition 
regarding the poster's military career.

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com

"No, thank you, we don't want food, sir, but couldn't you take an' write
A sort of 'to be continued' and 'see next page' o' the fight?
We think that someone has blundered, an' couldn't you tell 'em how?
You wrote we were heroes once, sir.  Please write we are starving now."

                 - Rudyard Kipling, "The Last of the Light Brigade"