PDA

View Full Version : Is Uniformity Needed for All in Uniform?



Bos Mutus
10-13-2016, 08:26 PM
—Brian Everstine10/13/2016

The Air Force is thinking outside of the box and is considering relaxing its fitness standards for some career fields or changing its tattoo policy in an effort to broaden its recruiting pool. Lt. Gen. Gina Grosso (http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108666/lieutenant-general-gina-m-grosso.aspx), the service’s deputy chief of staff for manpower, said USAF needs to “think deliberately about how we value uniformity.” Standards across the entire force “scares a lot of people,” she said during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force event Wednesday in Arlington, Va. “Do I care what a cyber warrior weighs?” Grosso asked, adding if someone who works on cyber networks needs to focus as much on their mile and a half time. Similarly, does the Air Force need to enforce standards related to tattoos the same way now? “Do I care that someone has a flower on their arm?” Grosso said. Still, the service must make sure it doesn’t stray too far from the requirements it has had for decades. “We’re certainly going to need some people who are brawny, and we’re also going to need some people for their intellect as well,” she said.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/October%202016/October%2013%202016/Is-Uniformity-Needed-for-All-in-Uniform.aspx


I think the AF is really struggling with the Cyber career fields....the average enlistee who comes in open general and gets assigned as a cyber warrior or whatever just isn't smart enough to keep up with the tech changes, etc.

I've seen where the AF was considering bringing in trained cyber-guys as direct to E-6 or something also...kind of like band or something I guess.

Now they are looking at lowering standards because they don't care how fat someone is if they can keep the Russians out of the Gen's email..?? Or is this just what the AF gets for recognizing and promoting image over job performance for the past so many years?

garhkal
10-13-2016, 08:47 PM
Well many of us said they would eventually lower standards, cause of how unfit society is getting...

sandsjames
10-13-2016, 08:53 PM
I think the AF is really struggling with the Cyber career fields....the average enlistee who comes in open general and gets assigned as a cyber warrior or whatever just isn't smart enough to keep up with the tech changes, etc.

I've seen where the AF was considering bringing in trained cyber-guys as direct to E-6 or something also...kind of like band or something I guess.

Now they are looking at lowering standards because they don't care how fat someone is if they can keep the Russians out of the Gen's email..?? Or is this just what the AF gets for recognizing and promoting image over job performance for the past so many years?

I think that the only person who can legitimately respond to this question is PTGod, but I'll give it a shot.

I'm all for it. I've been for it for years. There are certain jobs that don't require fitness. A job where your entire career is sitting at a desk 12 hours a day doesn't require you to run 1.5 miles. The cyber career fields are only one example. The AF has different categories for M4 qualification. If someone isn't required to shoot as often or as accurate as I am, they shouldn't be required to be as fit as I'm required to be. I thing this has been a long time coming and would fully support such a thing.

Bos Mutus
10-13-2016, 08:56 PM
Well many of us said they would eventually lower standards, cause of how unfit society is getting...

"You don't go to war with the Army you want, you go to war with the Army you have." ~ Donald Rumsfeld

Rainmaker
10-13-2016, 09:59 PM
Well many of us said they would eventually lower standards, cause of how unfit society is getting...

"Standards across the entire force “scares a lot of people"- Lt. Gen. Gina Grosso

Pathetic.

That the AF has been reduced to having to publically spin, the lowering of fitness and appearance standards (to accommodate these fat fucks) as "thinking outside the box", is just another symptom of the decline.

Rainmaker
10-13-2016, 10:31 PM
"You don't go to war with the Army you want, you go to war with the Army you have." ~ Donald Rumsfeld

A great quote, from the strategic genius, who tirelessly worked alongside Paul Shlomo Wolfowitz to bring us the Iraq war!

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 12:19 AM
Overall I don't like the idea, I think there should be a standard across the service as a baseline. Granted, the USMC fitness standard would likely be higher than the one for the USN or USAF ... but I think one common baseline is a good thing. Specific for fitness, everything I have ever read shows that a basic level of physical fitness means people get sick & injured less ... which means they are working more. From a management perspective ... it is a really cheap way to save health care $$$ and get more productivity. Subjectively, when I have been working extended & rotating shifts either on deployment or on a watchfloor, the people who were the most attentive etc. were the ones who weren't sloths; no need to be a PT stud ... but the stereotypical overweight and out of shape folks generally had the harder time maintaining the battle rhythm. While not everyone is going to be serving in combat or on a front line ... take AUAB as an example. If something happened and people need to run to the bomb shelter, or buddy assist in getting people out of an area ... basic physical fitness is a core/basic military thing ...

This begs the question, is the basic standard for the USAF too high? I don't think so, but for an across the board / service-wide standard that covers most of the needs of the USAF ... maybe it is.

Specific to cyber, this issue has spawned a lot of talk about if the need to establish a separate branch of service for cyber is needed. For DirNSA and CYBERCOM Commander (GEN Alexander - Army) was a supporter of the idea, current DirNSA (ADM Rogers - USN) is not. The people with those skill sets (especially most of the really ... REALLY good ones), are not the typical 'military' type. It is what it is. The need to recruit people with cyber skills spawned the Navy to ask for a waiver to law to allow direct accessions up to E7 in the enlisted ranks and O6 for officers. Most with those skills don't want to start as an E3 or O1 ...

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 12:29 AM
A great quote, from the strategic genius, who tirelessly worked alongside Paul Shlomo Wolfowitz to bring us the Iraq war!

Am overall not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld ... but the quote was and is appropriate. If you can 'control when, where, who and how you fight, great. Some times we have to fight when we don't want to, where we don't want to and with what we have on hand. Unfortunately the adversary gets a vote on when they are going to require a solid dose of freedom :)

As a military overall, we are actually really good at that, doing the best with what the situation dictates to us ... if we wait until the situation or we are totally perfect ... we may be too late.

https://i.imgflip.com/w0wos.jpg

sandsjames
10-14-2016, 01:08 AM
How 'bout we just go back to the pre-2004 standards? It was good enough for the greatest AF in the world for more than 55 years...all non-combat Airmen know how much BS the current standards are anyway.

Damn I wish PT God were here.

MikeKerriii
10-14-2016, 04:17 AM
Am overall not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld ... but the quote was and is appropriate. If you can 'control when, where, who and how you fight, great. Some times we have to fight when we don't want to, where we don't want to and with what we have on hand. Unfortunately the adversary gets a vote on when they are going to require a solid dose of freedom :)

As a military overall, we are actually really good at that, doing the best with what the situation dictates to us ... if we wait until the situation or we are totally perfect ... we may be too late.

https://i.imgflip.com/w0wos.jpg

But In Iraq he used that quote in a case where we had complete control over if and when we went to war,

MikeKerriii
10-14-2016, 04:29 AM
Overall I don't like the idea, I think there should be a standard across the service as a baseline. Granted, the USMC fitness standard would likely be higher than the one for the USN or USAF ... but I think one common baseline is a good thing. Specific for fitness, everything I have ever read shows that a basic level of physical fitness means people get sick & injured less ... which means they are working more. From a management perspective ... it is a really cheap way to save health care $$$ and get more productivity. Subjectively, when I have been working extended & rotating shifts either on deployment or on a watchfloor, the people who were the most attentive etc. were the ones who weren't sloths; no need to be a PT stud ... but the stereotypical overweight and out of shape folks generally had the harder time maintaining the battle rhythm. While not everyone is going to be serving in combat or on a front line ... take AUAB as an example. If something happened and people need to run to the bomb shelter, or buddy assist in getting people out of an area ... basic physical fitness is a core/basic military thing ...

This begs the question, is the basic standard for the USAF too high? I don't think so, but for an across the board / service-wide standard that covers most of the needs of the USAF ... maybe it is.

Specific to cyber, this issue has spawned a lot of talk about if the need to establish a separate branch of service for cyber is needed. For DirNSA and CYBERCOM Commander (GEN Alexander - Army) was a supporter of the idea, current DirNSA (ADM Rogers - USN) is not. The people with those skill sets (especially most of the really ... REALLY good ones), are not the typical 'military' type. It is what it is. The need to recruit people with cyber skills spawned the Navy to ask for a waiver to law to allow direct accessions up to E7 in the enlisted ranks and O6 for officers. Most with those skills don't want to start as an E3 or O1 ...

I spent all my career in a field where we could not keep people in uniform, mostly due to monetary and considerations and chickenshit. the guy who comes in with a high AFQT and who you then invest a small fortune in training and Security clearance for will likley be working a tone of hours and after a couple of years for a fraction of what he could make outside the door. But if running fast enough is that impotent you better hope your budget is fat,

garhkal
10-14-2016, 05:02 AM
This begs the question, is the basic standard for the USAF too high? I don't think so, but for an across the board / service-wide standard that covers most of the needs of the USAF ... maybe it is.

To me its not high enough.



Specific to cyber, this issue has spawned a lot of talk about if the need to establish a separate branch of service for cyber is needed. For DirNSA and CYBERCOM Commander (GEN Alexander - Army) was a supporter of the idea, current DirNSA (ADM Rogers - USN) is not. The people with those skill sets (especially most of the really ... REALLY good ones), are not the typical 'military' type. It is what it is. The need to recruit people with cyber skills spawned the Navy to ask for a waiver to law to allow direct accessions up to E7 in the enlisted ranks and O6 for officers. Most with those skills don't want to start as an E3 or O1 ...

I actually agree, all 4 branches (5 if you add in coasties), should send say 200 people, to form a 1000 man Cyber branch... ALL those people do is secure mil bases, and stop hacks..

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 07:32 AM
To me its not high enough.



I actually agree, all 4 branches (5 if you add in coasties), should send say 200 people, to form a 1000 man Cyber branch... ALL those people do is secure mil bases, and stop hacks..

CYBERCOM alone is currently over 2500 people, also each service has a Service Cyber Element (ARCYBER, AFCYBER, MARFORCYBER, FLTCYBERCOM). Currently a lot more than 1000 people doing that mission along the 3 lines of operations for cyber:

-Secure, operate and defend the DODIN
-Plan and conduct Defensive Cyber Operations
-Plan and conduct Offensive Cyber Operations

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 07:41 AM
I spent all my career in a field where we could not keep people in uniform, mostly due to monetary and considerations and chickenshit. the guy who comes in with a high AFQT and who you then invest a small fortune in training and Security clearance for will likley be working a tone of hours and after a couple of years for a fraction of what he could make outside the door. But if running fast enough is that impotent you better hope your budget is fat,

True, but occupational field attrition is also in part planned and needed. We don't need to keep everyone we recruit and train ... this is dependent on the field:

Infantry wants a lot of E3 and below hence the USMC and Army first term alignment plans account for (plan) to only retain approx 25% of people beyond their first term (don't need near as many Sgts and SSgts as PFCs and LCpls running around), more technical fields keep more ... but over retention will eventually stagnate promotions and assignments.

Max Power
10-14-2016, 07:43 PM
To me its not high enough.



I actually agree, all 4 branches (5 if you add in coasties), should send say 200 people, to form a 1000 man Cyber branch... ALL those people do is secure mil bases, and stop hacks..

http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/i-have-no-idea-what-Im-doing-meme-4.jpg

Mjölnir
10-14-2016, 07:52 PM
http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/i-have-no-idea-what-Im-doing-meme-4.jpg

Improper shave on that soldier.

garhkal
10-14-2016, 09:06 PM
CYBERCOM alone is currently over 2500 people, also each service has a Service Cyber Element (ARCYBER, AFCYBER, MARFORCYBER, FLTCYBERCOM). Currently a lot more than 1000 people doing that mission along the 3 lines of operations for cyber:

-Secure, operate and defend the DODIN
-Plan and conduct Defensive Cyber Operations
-Plan and conduct Offensive Cyber Operations

So increase that # to 5000.

Rainmaker
10-14-2016, 09:34 PM
Am overall not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld ... but the quote was and is appropriate. If you can 'control when, where, who and how you fight, great. Some times we have to fight when we don't want to, where we don't want to and with what we have on hand. Unfortunately the adversary gets a vote on when they are going to require a solid dose of freedom :)

As a military overall, we are actually really good at that, doing the best with what the situation dictates to us ... if we wait until the situation or we are totally perfect ... we may be too late.

https://i.imgflip.com/w0wos.jpg

Great Pic.

& Get the logic of the 80% solution.

But, the quote is garbage, because it was given in response to criticism from General Zinni (a great leader) saying on 60 minutes in 2004, that it was time for someone (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Cheney, Bush, Insert your favorite Israel-Firster Neocon here) to be held accountable for this Iraq shit show.

General Zinni was accused of being an "anti Semite" for stating it.

Now, Moving forward with the 80% solution is one thing.

But, Rumsfeld's bean-counters,engaging in criminal negligence (at best) or treason (at worst) by intentionally discounting the CENTCOM plan (which called for a minimum of 300K troops to "liberate" and secure Iraq) is quite another.

Rainmaker
10-14-2016, 09:41 PM
CYBERCOM alone is currently over 2500 people, also each service has a Service Cyber Element (ARCYBER, AFCYBER, MARFORCYBER, FLTCYBERCOM). Currently a lot more than 1000 people doing that mission along the 3 lines of operations for cyber:

-Secure, operate and defend the DODIN
-Plan and conduct Defensive Cyber Operations
-Plan and conduct Offensive Cyber Operations

sounds like It's destined to become another self-licking ice cream cone.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 10:13 PM
But, the quote is Bullshit, because it was given in response to criticism from General Zinni (a great leader) on 60 minutes in 2004, saying that it was time for someone (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle Insert your favorite Israel-Firster Neocon here) to be held accountable for the Iraq shit show.


Maybe he used that quote more than once...but the one I remember is he used it in responding to a soldier's question about not having enough of the right equipment...Armored Humvees maybe?

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 10:18 PM
Here it is...



SPC. THOMAS WILSON: We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that has already been shot up, dropped, busted– picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles go into combat.
We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us North.

DONALD RUMSFELD: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee, and it can be blown up.

Rainmaker
10-14-2016, 11:16 PM
Maybe he used that quote more than once...but the one I remember is he used it in responding to a soldier's question about not having enough of the right equipment...Armored Humvees maybe?

Okay. But, in either case their arrogance and stupidity led them to underestimate the task at hand. And men far better than them ended up paying the price with their lives for it.

Bos Mutus
10-14-2016, 11:22 PM
Okay. But, in either case their arrogance and stupidity led them to underestimate the task at hand. And men far better than them ended up paying the price with their lives for it.

I agree. I did not intend to hold up Rummy as a hero or role model...just thought that particular quote applied...as callous and disconnected as it may have been at the time he said it.

Rainmaker
10-14-2016, 11:36 PM
I agree. I did not intend to hold up Rummy as a hero or role model...just thought that particular quote applied...as callous and disconnected as it may have been at the time he said it.

They did the same stupid shit in Libya.

Discounted the military's advice and established a no fly zone.

So Libya became a failed state & all the weapons went to Syria.

Now the bitch wants to wash rinse & repeat in Syria, as "the best way to help Israel" ....

Only one problem. How do you establish a no fly zone w the Russians flying sorties, and not start Armageddon?

But all the stooges on CNN care to talk about, 24-7, night and day, is that Trump likes pussy.