Exactly - I should have said someone needs to say it before they retire, then need to keep saying it - and louder. I give those jumping on the bandwagon to serve their own career no passes. It makes no matter whether you are Sqn CC, Wg CC, MAJCOM CC, etc - if you take the job you are expected to review the facts and make the best decision for the troops and the national defense. If you want to retire in obscurity, take the jobs that allow that - but once you accept the responsibility of the position you should be expected to put that responsibility over your own advancement. The job of CSAF or anyone else is not to mirror what SecDef says, it didn't work when the generals parroted what Rumsfeld wanted with regard to how to fight the war and it won't work with keeping the skies ours.
Of course, I do realize that it is not even close to being like that in the USAF, that does not make it any less right that it should be. I specifically remember McPeak sitting next to teh other members of the JCS, directly contradicting them - and I knew without a doubt that he was saying it because that is what the SecDef and President wanted to hear - no other reason. Here is one article referencing that episode:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-29/news/mn-28493_1. From the article: "WASHINGTON — The nation's top Air Force general broke ranks Wednesday with other high-level military leaders over the dangers of air strikes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, asserting that U.S. planes could attack Serbian forces with "virtually no risk" to American pilots.
The assessment by Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff, directly contradicted recent warnings by other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that launching air strikes in Bosnia would be risky and could draw the United States into long-term military involvement."
When guys like CSAF say that we can get by with 187 in Op-Ed's, and generals are rebuked for countering the official Pentagon line in Congressional testimony (and following the oath they took), the perception is that all is OK in air superiority land. The PR seems to be working because the opinion that the referenced article must be wrong - the EXACT opposite of what I think of the article. For some reason, despite all of the mis-steps and careerism, the taxpayers still think that the leadership has their best interests in mind. What I'd like to see is some general saying "if we only get the 187 F-22's, we can live with that as long as we immediately start upgrading all of our Eagles and keep a lot more than we were expecting to."
The problem with equipping for the next war is that we will only be prepared for that war - and you pointed out the problem there. We need to be prepared for all threats, and we finally need to learn that just because this current war is not being contested in the air doesn't mean the next one won't. If we think IED's are bad, wait until our troops, FOB's, and bases come under attack from the air.
And for those who don't think the next war won't be protracted, where are we going to get the leadership that will let us destroy the enemy decisively in one big push? Who here thinks that we are applying maximum effort in the current wars or in any wars of the last 2 decades? Show of hands, please.