tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post6932176211809141037..comments2023-12-22T19:58:58.655-05:00Comments on Air Force Association Blog: Note from AFA President -- Words MatterThe Air Force Association Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262071008560681148noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-13241455725980295262011-10-30T22:50:34.381-04:002011-10-30T22:50:34.381-04:00I think the problem is much, much deeper than sele...I think the problem is much, much deeper than selecting the appropriate jargon. In early 2004 I was a scum-sucking, bottom-feeding contractor supporting a forward deployed Predator LRU. At the time, we were preparing to move our unit from Tallil (now Ali AB) to Balad, and I had an opportunity to argue the move with LTG Buchanan (then CENTAF). Although I’d been pretty much fully occupied with Predator support since deploying with the 387th AEG in January 2003, I had retired 10 years earlier as an AF officer and pilot who paid a lot of attention to the scholarly understanding of doctrine. There at Tallil, it seemed to me that the planned move made no doctrinal sense. We were perfectly effective - and safe - where we were. At that time, there was no unrest in the Naisiryah area, while they were mortared or rocketed every night in Balad (BTW, they <i> still </i> are). What possible purpose could it serve to place our equipment and personnel in danger there? Very basic doctrine (and common sense) says that if you are in position to put your aircraft over the target at the desired time, you should not do anything to risk your assets otherwise, unless it results in an improvement in mission effectiveness.<br />I was honestly surprised when Buchanan told me the real reason for the move - that “we”, meaning the AF, had been pushing Abazaid hard to let us “join the fight” by hunkering down with the Army at what was then called Anaconda; as if we hadn’t been part of the fight, simply because we were not getting attacked daily on the ground. And Buchanan was very angry with me for not understanding that rationale.<br />I think history teaches us that whenever we lose sight of the strategic objective, we seldom recapture faith in our own capabilities. I am firmly convinced that AF leadership at that time had lost the bubble on the decisiveness of air power in combat, and the deterrent value of that ability, and they haven’t gotten it back. Use of such Army-isms as “garrison” and “expeditionary” by a “senior AF leader” are just the tip of the iceberg, and show just how much faith we’ve lost in ourselves.Ted A. Morris, Jr.http://www.zianet.com/tedmorrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-17455441769971998442011-10-26T23:00:17.497-04:002011-10-26T23:00:17.497-04:00If the aim is simply to avoid using Army terms lik...If the aim is simply to avoid using Army terms like "garrisoned" and "expeditionary" to describe means, we could use "forward based" and "quickly deployable". To describe ends and missions, though, is a different question. A corollary to KISS is to use terms with which an audience is familiar. How about "long range strike", "air and space defense", "interdiction" and "close air support"? (I know; "interdiction" can be both long and fairly short range strike. I didn't say these were perfect!)Scottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-85179466976899048092011-10-26T13:02:51.258-04:002011-10-26T13:02:51.258-04:00CAVEARI! As in "Call out the Caveari!" ...CAVEARI! As in "Call out the Caveari!" CAV'ER EE<br /><br />COMBINED<br />AEROSPACE<br />VEHICLE<br />ACTION <br />RESPONSE/and/or<br />INTERDICTION<br /><br />MSgt D W Dykes, USAF RETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-6497553723042685942011-10-26T11:04:25.362-04:002011-10-26T11:04:25.362-04:00I prefer "Umbrella" or "Protective ...I prefer "Umbrella" or "Protective Umbrella" allowing all other forces to proceed uninhibited. Without protection from overhead forces and technology, including space assets, all, I repeat all other military forces would be at the mercy of enemy air and space assets.John Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-61846302207377867032011-10-26T10:20:29.719-04:002011-10-26T10:20:29.719-04:00u guys are wound up about Airu guys are wound up about AirAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12980437380653231901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-44065308114142722632011-10-26T10:19:54.332-04:002011-10-26T10:19:54.332-04:00Homeland Air Force
Air Defence Forces
Air Of...Homeland Air Force<br /> Air Defence Forces<br /> Air Offence Forces<br /><br />Satellite Air Force<br /> Air Defence Forces <br /> Air Offence Forces<br /><br />Satellite Air Force would include all Air Force opperations away from the Homeland, allowing a unified effort to support global needs.<br /><br />EarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-82120074705641462682011-10-26T00:19:08.889-04:002011-10-26T00:19:08.889-04:00Several problems cause this discussion to go sidew...Several problems cause this discussion to go sideways. First, there are no simple words, especially single words, which describe what the Air Force does. Second, use of long phrases or sentences to describe what you do or why you do it will not be used or remembered. KISS certainly applies here. Third, this kind of debate often has an agenda as to who is important. My answer is that the Air Force have a strong and clearly understood mission statement. Then we stick to deceptively simple words like "Intelligence", "Operations", "Planning", etc. Those words mean something to people. There is nothing wrong with "Support." As an AF doctor I was part of the support staff. I knew I had an important job, and I did not need a five-word title or a long sentence to describe what I did. The mission of the Air Force is "To Fly and Fight". That doesn't begin to tell the whole story, but none of us has trouble remembering the phrase. And it does not denigrate what the rest of us do.Ed Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01223863659973045684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-8176851733421310432011-10-25T21:15:02.511-04:002011-10-25T21:15:02.511-04:00IMO, you're overthinking the difference betwee...IMO, you're overthinking the difference between "garrison" and "expeditionary." Forces "in garrison" are simply those not currently tasked; "expeditionary" forces are those responding to a joint force commander's objectives, i.e., performing a mission or task.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-41467954415292142502011-10-25T20:35:08.537-04:002011-10-25T20:35:08.537-04:00I think we had this figured out in SAC years ago. ...I think we had this figured out in SAC years ago. Aren't we talking about Global Reach/Global Power?<br /><br />The terms are used but they haven't been used in a while...we could probably dust 'em off and shine 'em up.Dave Houdenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-90674274329385373242011-10-25T20:06:20.854-04:002011-10-25T20:06:20.854-04:00Your comments leave a stong word picture with me.....Your comments leave a stong word picture with me...that of an arrow--silent, straight and true-simply going to it's target.gadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07989706849755244624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-46557564471955520962011-10-25T17:52:46.877-04:002011-10-25T17:52:46.877-04:00Global Air Interdiction.Global Air Interdiction.Gramps61966https://www.blogger.com/profile/04157485370437946171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-37684229849457060722011-10-25T17:36:36.026-04:002011-10-25T17:36:36.026-04:00KISS- keep it simple-- why not CONUS based forces ...KISS- keep it simple-- why not CONUS based forces with worldwide reach?wildbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09060622263585500153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-47651875903902645232011-10-25T17:33:01.291-04:002011-10-25T17:33:01.291-04:00simplicity is key to ease of understanding' wh...simplicity is key to ease of understanding' why not--- conus based forces with global reach???wildbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09060622263585500153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-88507771719583737042011-10-25T16:58:03.726-04:002011-10-25T16:58:03.726-04:00When thinking of our Air Force, I think of a "...When thinking of our Air Force, I think of a "Global Action Force."Dolores I.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-28093181445962987682011-10-25T15:50:42.300-04:002011-10-25T15:50:42.300-04:00About those Minuteman ICBMs at FE Warren (or Minot...About those Minuteman ICBMs at FE Warren (or Minot,<br />or Malstrom) -- Since they all come under the Global Strike Command, I think that this should remind us that the terms associated with the weapon systems in that<br />command might be useful.<br /><br />In connection with the distinction between means and ends, perhaps "targets" and "sorties" and even "launches" need to be looked at.<br />"On alert" is a descriptive phrase; as is "Combat Ready."<br />These are just ones that spring to mind.Nat Mushkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-87554146691459906952011-10-25T14:29:28.914-04:002011-10-25T14:29:28.914-04:00Hey folks! Quit sounding like a bunch of English ...Hey folks! Quit sounding like a bunch of English teachers in the faculty lounge! Years ago there was a wonderful slogan that said it all, "Air Power is Peace Power." So what, then. is Air Power? When I was young, I learned that Air Power is the Air Force (and Naval Aviation)plus the air transport industry plus the aircraft manufacturing industry. This is so clear and simple that anyone can understand the concept. As an adult, I heard about Mahan who wrote about sea power and defined it as the Navy, merchant shipping, and the ship building industry. That is so true and whoever applied a similar defination to air power was wise indeed. As far as peace is concerned, I'll quote Webster's: "a state of calm and quiet; public security under law; freedom from disturbing thoughts or emotions; a state of concord (as between persons or governments)"<br />'nuff said, okay!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-69675927559826758022011-10-25T12:46:49.493-04:002011-10-25T12:46:49.493-04:00Too much garbage. Wherever it is ,it is a Strike F...Too much garbage. Wherever it is ,it is a Strike ForceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-62585756986267311932011-10-25T12:39:33.992-04:002011-10-25T12:39:33.992-04:00I don't know who coined it, but I recommend th...I don't know who coined it, but I recommend the old SAC motto: "A Global Force"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-1294670171986260332011-10-25T12:07:57.532-04:002011-10-25T12:07:57.532-04:00How about 'Direct Combat', 'Indirect C...How about 'Direct Combat', 'Indirect Combat', and 'Force Support'.<br />Direct Combat would be the folks in combat. Indirect combat would be the forces supporting the Direct Combat forces. Force Support would be everyone else in the Air Force.PJ Baileynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-70487557128411581172011-10-25T11:55:03.934-04:002011-10-25T11:55:03.934-04:00Sorry, but this "debate" is nonsense. T...Sorry, but this "debate" is nonsense. The result will be "leaders" talking to "leaders," nothing more. The majority of USAF personnel could care less, and the American public even less -- if that is possible. <br /> Just look at leadership's widespread use of terms like "kinetic" when describing war-fighting. It is impossible to find a simple definition of the term that applies to military action in Merriam-Webster. My bet is most USAF personnel cannot define the word.<br /> Another bet is I can find about a dozen terms on almost every page of "Air Force" magazine that most USAF people do not comprehend. That finding applies especially to articles that involve interviews with, or statements by, our leadership.<br /> It is time to stop worrying about trend-setting gobbledygook and start communicating clearly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-88195528900599218692011-10-25T09:27:50.102-04:002011-10-25T09:27:50.102-04:00You're right; words matter. As a part of the ...You're right; words matter. As a part of the fledging Air Force Space Command many years ago, I was concerned with the use of the term "Space Superiority" used as synonomous with "Air Superiority". Both terms signify significant expense, and lead to conditions that we may never realistically expect to attain. I favor terms such as "Air/Space Control" implying conditions of control over areas that are important to us. More realistic, affordable, and attainable. Just adding to the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-84601663434333474702011-10-25T09:13:35.871-04:002011-10-25T09:13:35.871-04:00Direct Strike Force: Air Cyber Space
The DSF conc...Direct Strike Force: Air Cyber Space<br /><br />The DSF concept implies no intermediary issues (land or sea) but applying compelling force direct to your enemy and be the best at this. <br /><br />Land Tactical - Army<br /><br />Sea - Navy and MarinesJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05623146730655368123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-54468323001060244722011-10-25T09:07:20.857-04:002011-10-25T09:07:20.857-04:00Sir, this is a tough one for which I don't hav...Sir, this is a tough one for which I don't have an answer. However, your former boss is hitting all around the target, which is communicating the Air Force's why, not what. The AF does a great job selling it's what, but a poor job with it's why. I'm not convinced this can be captured in a few words that stick, but rather in a total overall of how we communicate, beginning with why. The Air Force is about change and innovation and a better way of doing things. It's the DNA of the service branch. It's our heritage that we live out every day. The country doesn't realize it, but it's what they want and need us to do. Our why is our fight, our focus. We just fail to communicate it effectively. The service cannot be compared on an apples-to-apples basis with the sister services simply because our why is so very different. Perhaps refocusing our communication overall, starting with why, which is amazingly compelling, is the way to approach this, rather than try to summarize it in a few words. From this perspective, a skilled communicator can then articulate everything the service does in a way that moves people, not just informs people.JoelFortnerPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10221489160142849635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-77571362625406937002011-10-25T08:40:49.949-04:002011-10-25T08:40:49.949-04:00Interesting concept, but I think I disagree. Afte...Interesting concept, but I think I disagree. After living in very non-military communities for the last thirteen years, it seems to me that one of the major problems the Air Force faces is that the non-military American public genuinely doesn't understand the AF mission, and therefore thinks of the AF as relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of national defense. Changing the language, I believe, would further exacerbate the problem. Words like warrior, garrison, expeditionary carry emotional weight of meaning and lend credence to the idea of "importance". While garrison and expeditionary certainly don't fully capture the AF mission, they do resonate with the civilians who pay the taxes that ultimately allow the AF to exist and be successful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9004611408106715980.post-30283446673979030902011-10-25T07:18:09.249-04:002011-10-25T07:18:09.249-04:00Engish words sometimes convey rather bland meaning...Engish words sometimes convey rather bland meanings. The French are known for rather loquatious concepts. Perhaps, words that are derived from that dialect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com