Originally Posted by
MD10PLT
It is true though, the AF could use a good dose of what SAC was and that is a good focus on the mission, above all else.
Like many cultures, SAC was at one time THE command. it took care of its people, demanded high standards and was exemplary. Like many cultures, some took the benchmarks as the the measure when it was really about the people and leadership.
We had an ORI when I was in SAC and the tankers hit all refuelings and nav legs. The bombers tossed great bombs. The wing got an unsat because the crews didn't wear hats and they addressed line personnel by first name rather than by rank. It was all to cozy for the ORI IG. We were told we would be inspected again soon. We were not military enough.
About 4-5 months later, another ORI. Many of the tankers didn't get airborne. Some missed their refuelings. Bombers tossed bombs all over Nebraska and the good bombs were even near targets. Everyone saluted. Everyone wore the uniform properly and rank/protocol was done per book. We passed.
??? Bombs on target or wearing hats and saluting? Go figure.
That is a common mistake. Benchmarks of performance can not be substituted for people. And that remains true. The incident last year where a new commander was relieved because some BUFs were carrying unarmed weapons is unfortunately typical. A guy spends 20yrs to get to command a wing and one screw up by the culture and he is toast so the next level commander can show how tough he is. That is NOT leadership. It is a blame culture and it seems to still exist to the detriment of the commands.