4 ms·

I'm a former Air Force pilot and was going to writeup a long post about my experience. But, this pretty much sums it up. I loved the people, and LOVED the fly

I'm a former Air Force pilot and was going to writeup a long post about my experience. But, this pretty much sums it up. I loved the people, and LOVED the flying. Some of the best times of my life. But, the organizational bloat, bureaucratic BS, and constant deployments just became too much. As you can imagine, it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening.

dingaling 8y ago
> it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year risking your life for a counterproductive endless war Did you not think about that before signing up? What, honestly, did you expect military life to be like? The entire history of military organisations has been pushing the individuals at the sharp-edge to their limits and beyond in order to achieve the unachievable as directed by the politicians. And usually without anyone knowing about their sacrifice. There is nothing unusual or inconsistent with the modern USAF. Back in the 1960s "SAC SUCKS" could be found scraped on the interiors of B-52s after 26-hour Chrome Dome missions.
magduf 8y ago
>risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening. Yet the American public happily votes for these wars over and over.
- kevinventullo 8y ago
  As an American voter, I can assure you my choices have always been war or war.
  - magduf 8y ago
    There have always been 3rd-party choices on the ballot.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - reallydude 8y ago
      I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's not "realistic" or what-have-you, until you get to the lottery... See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.
      - hindsightbias 8y ago
        Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.
      - asark 8y ago
        It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".
        reallydude 8y ago
        > No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
        asark 8y ago
        > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
  - chrischattin 8y ago
    Tulsi Gabbard.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      The coming election will be a measurement of American voters. Now they do have a choice. There is actually a candidate opposed to mass murder as our official policy. Now we've learned she's also the only major-party candidate wise enough to correctly judge the whole Assange situation, as well.
    - averros 8y ago
      Yes, she's the only human in the current posse presidential wannabe reptiloids. Too bad that her understanding of economics is lacking. (Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard (in whatever order) anti-war ticket would be great... not gonna happen).
jriot 8y ago
As a former Air Force air traffic controller, the sentiment is similar on the enlisted side. I remember a Chief called all controllers in for a meeting to discuss his new policies, then asking the NCOs what he thought of his them. Every NCO agreed and said they were needed Chief. I told him they were counterproductive and would cause more problems than solve. He kicked everyone out of the room, and we had a one-way conversation in which I was instructed to never disagree with him, ever, particularly in a group setting. While ATC isn't fighter pilot cool, it was an amazing job to have when you're 18 at the beginning of the war (2003), but after 11 years of many similar experiences, as I illustrated above, I left. What struck me most, was when I told my Chief, Flight Commander, and SQ/CC I wasn't reenlisting, none of them tried to talk me into staying. I was dual rated - Tower and RAPCON (with ARTCC) - with 4 different facility ratings plus a deployment to Balad AB where we were pushing 1000+ aircraft a day. They could care less to keep their experienced NCOs in, their sole focus appeared to be on their next promotion and/or assignment. It solidified my choice while reassuring me I made the right decision.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  IOW, not much different from corporate management.

dingaling 8y ago

> it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year risking your life for a counterproductive endless war Did you not think about that before signing up? What, honestly, did you expect military life to be like? The entire history of military organisations has been pushing the individuals at the sharp-edge to their limits and beyond in order to achieve the unachievable as directed by the politicians. And usually without anyone knowing about their sacrifice. There is nothing unusual or inconsistent with the modern USAF. Back in the 1960s "SAC SUCKS" could be found scraped on the interiors of B-52s after 26-hour Chrome Dome missions.

magduf 8y ago

>risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening. Yet the American public happily votes for these wars over and over.

kevinventullo 8y ago
As an American voter, I can assure you my choices have always been war or war.
- magduf 8y ago
  There have always been 3rd-party choices on the ballot.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - reallydude 8y ago
    I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's not "realistic" or what-have-you, until you get to the lottery... See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.
    - hindsightbias 8y ago
      Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.
    - asark 8y ago
      It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".
      - reallydude 8y ago
        > No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
        asark 8y ago
        > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
- chrischattin 8y ago
  Tulsi Gabbard.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The coming election will be a measurement of American voters. Now they do have a choice. There is actually a candidate opposed to mass murder as our official policy. Now we've learned she's also the only major-party candidate wise enough to correctly judge the whole Assange situation, as well.
  - averros 8y ago
    Yes, she's the only human in the current posse presidential wannabe reptiloids. Too bad that her understanding of economics is lacking. (Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard (in whatever order) anti-war ticket would be great... not gonna happen).

jriot 8y ago

As a former Air Force air traffic controller, the sentiment is similar on the enlisted side. I remember a Chief called all controllers in for a meeting to discuss his new policies, then asking the NCOs what he thought of his them. Every NCO agreed and said they were needed Chief. I told him they were counterproductive and would cause more problems than solve. He kicked everyone out of the room, and we had a one-way conversation in which I was instructed to never disagree with him, ever, particularly in a group setting. While ATC isn't fighter pilot cool, it was an amazing job to have when you're 18 at the beginning of the war (2003), but after 11 years of many similar experiences, as I illustrated above, I left. What struck me most, was when I told my Chief, Flight Commander, and SQ/CC I wasn't reenlisting, none of them tried to talk me into staying. I was dual rated - Tower and RAPCON (with ARTCC) - with 4 different facility ratings plus a deployment to Balad AB where we were pushing 1000+ aircraft a day. They could care less to keep their experienced NCOs in, their sole focus appeared to be on their next promotion and/or assignment. It solidified my choice while reassuring me I made the right decision.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
IOW, not much different from corporate management.