You don’t make general in the USAF by being incompetent nor an sycophant, let alone chief of staff of the Air Force. The Air Force is a meritocracy where you are rigorously tested at every rung of the promotion ladder. The three hundred or so general officers are the best of the best.

That said, I am astounded the General McPeak supported Howard Dean, John Kerry, and now Obama. Generally, the military is two thirds conservative, one third liberal. It skews sharper to the right as you ascend the officer ranks. McPeak appears to be a contrarian in this respect, swimming against the current.

I can see how the military could nurture a liberal, even socialist, sentiment if so inclined. The military is essentially a socialist organization. It provides meals and housing as it sees fit to its junior members. An elite makes all the decisions for everyone, who are compelled to obey. It is no democracy.

While American generals tend to by hyper-competent within their domain, I am constantly amazed at how often they flounder when they set sail on the stormy sea of politics. With regard to politics, they tend to be idiot savants: guys who can manage the incredibly complex concrete task of running a fighter wing but can’t tie their own shoelaces politically. It’s as if whatever mental muscles are developed to succeed in the military can not firmly grasp political problems.

General Merrill Anthony “Tony” McPeak favored fighter jocks during his tenure. He disbanded whole commands, like SAC, and distributed their assets among the Air Force. Politically, that could be interpreted as Tactical Air Command (TAC, the fighters) killing off Strategic Air Command (SAC, the bombers). From the fighter pilot perspective, strategic bombing has not been effective after WWII.

The centralized, bureaucratic organization SAC built to execute the Single Integrated Operations Plan, ie WWIII, was necessary to keep fine control of nuclear weapons. However, that ponderous bureaucracy ran counter to the fighter concept of operations where vehicles enroute can by dynamically retasked to new, transient targets. For fighters, it’s all about the OODA Loop. The downside of dismantling the bureaucratic safeguards of SAC is illustrated in the recent incident where nuke warheads were inadvertently loaded on a bomber overflying the US.

McPeak took many elements of support and packaged them in an expeditionary wing where all the tankers and electronic warfare assets were in one organization, kinda like an army division. It’s a good idea but it disrupts the career paths of all those field grade officers in the support units which commanded themselves. Most of all, he screwed with the uniform, foisting a new version on everybody that nobody liked.

The only change in the military that I can really fault McPeak for is the uniform change, which seems gratuitous. The other changes seem reasonable. But then I flew fighters.

Tantor on June 11, 2008 at 7:51 PM

….. ?

You lost me at the point where the bug flew into McPeak’s mouth.

.. or something.

Limerick on June 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM

DUDE. I cringed the whole time watching that. Definitely “Dude”-worthy.

That said, I am astounded the General McPeak supported Howard Dean, John Kerry, and now Obama. Generally, the military is two thirds conservative, one third liberal. It skews sharper to the right as you ascend the officer ranks. McPeak appears to be a contrarian in this respect, swimming against the current.

I can see how the military could nurture a liberal, even socialist, sentiment if so inclined. The military is essentially a socialist organization. It provides meals and housing as it sees fit to its junior members. An elite makes all the decisions for everyone, who are compelled to obey. It is no democracy.

While American generals tend to by hyper-competent within their domain, I am constantly amazed at how often they flounder when they set sail on the stormy sea of politics. With regard to politics, they tend to be idiot savants: guys who can manage the incredibly complex concrete task of running a fighter wing but can’t tie their own shoelaces politically. It’s as if whatever mental muscles are developed to succeed in the military can not firmly grasp political problems.

General Merrill Anthony “Tony” McPeak favored fighter jocks during his tenure. He disbanded whole commands, like SAC, and distributed their assets among the Air Force. Politically, that could be interpreted as Tactical Air Command (TAC, the fighters) killing off Strategic Air Command (SAC, the bombers). From the fighter pilot perspective, strategic bombing has not been effective after WWII. The bomber and fighter culture disagree on this, of course.

The centralized, bureaucratic organization SAC built to execute the Single Integrated Operations Plan, ie WWIII, was necessary to keep fine control of nuclear weapons. However, that ponderous bureaucracy ran counter to the fighter concept of operations where vehicles enroute can by dynamically retasked to new, transient targets. For fighters, it’s all about the OODA Loop. The downside of dismantling the bureaucratic safeguards of SAC is illustrated in the recent incident where nuke warheads were inadvertently loaded on a bomber overflying the US.

McPeak took many elements of support and packaged them in an expeditionary wing where all the tankers and electronic warfare assets were in one organization, kinda like an army division. It’s a good idea but it disrupts the career paths of all those field grade officers in the support units which commanded themselves. Most of all, he screwed with the uniform, foisting a new version on everybody that nobody liked.

The only change in the military that I can really fault McPeak for is the uniform change, which seems gratuitous. The other changes seem reasonable. But then I flew fighters.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp3.blogger.com/_m-dS7QmVZjo/RxBDv0RSmnI/AAAAAAAAAAM/r1_KMHe5rv8/s320/spydragonfly.bmp&imgrefurl=http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/10/dragonfly-spies-brain-prints-and-dccc.html&h=166&w=228&sz=10&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=fKwJzmKsy6bdaM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dinsect%2Bspy%2Bmachine%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN

how to spell Isaiah

My son Isaac’s schoolteachers are always spelling his name Issac.

Urban newscaster in the country.

If we don’t figure this out then the terrorists have already won.

ROTFLMAO

Shy Guy on June 11, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Brilliant!

Allah…did you miss the prostate cancer clip at ABC?

DUDE

Duuuuude. I wonder if she cupped ‘em a little too…nice.

Shy Guy on June 11, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Touché!

How come nobody knows how to spell Isaiah?

baldilocks on June 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM

ישעיהו

:)