0109Uniform.Pdf

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

0109Uniform.Pdf Everyone, even Red the Uniform Tailor, has said his piece about how to fix USAF’s blue suit. In Search of the Perfect Uniform ✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯ By Peter Grier n Oct. 31, 1991, Gen. Merrill an airline uniform, grumbled many out the new airman battle uniform and A. McPeak, then Air Force in the service. It looked like a Navy improved physical training gear. O Chief of Staff, unveiled a uniform, said others. “The Chief of Staff said he’ll new service uniform to assembled “Instead of looking like soldiers in take until [this] summer and then photographers and reporters in the blue uniforms, we will all look like decide whether to proceed,” said an Pentagon’s press briefing room. Mc- stewards from the Love Boat,” wrote Air Force spokesman. Schwartz, he Peak was wearing it. one critic in a 1991 letter to the Air added, “wants to fix the uniforms The lanky ex-fighter pilot moved Force Times. we currently have before we add new somewhat stiffly, and admitted he The new “blues” lasted only three uniforms to the inventory.” was no one’s idea of a catwalk star, years. McPeak’s successor, Gen. Ron- Given the Air Force’s relatively but he gamely tugged at the front of ald R. Fogleman, ditched it within a short history as a separate service, it the three-button coat to show off its week of his taking office. should perhaps come as no surprise slim cut. He pointed out his new sleeve that it is still searching about for rank insignia, a two-inch silver braid Fix The Ones We Have uniform elements to combine into a embroidered with clouds and thun- Since then, the Air Force has con- distinct look. The Navy, for its part, derbolts topped by three additional tinued its search for a dress uniform has had more than 200 years to figure narrow braids. He raised his arms that expresses the service’s distinct out its uniform requirements. Since high in the air to show the garment’s identity. The latest effort—the “heri- World War II, Navy uniform changes flexibility and ease of wear. tage coat”—is currently on hold. have primarily involved materials, as “It’s much more comfortable,” The heritage coat was designed to opposed to basic patterns. McPeak said. “The armholes are partake of the service’s history. Its For the Air Force, the color blue larger.” design borrowed heavily from the has been a constant, of course. But McPeak had ordered up the new belted, high-button jackets of the era the question of how elaborate service uniform to give Air Force personnel of Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, the uniforms should be has remained open a more military appearance. What he airpower pioneer and World War II to debate, with opinions veering back got was a firestorm of controversy. leader of the Army Air Forces. and forth over the decades. Many in the Air Force disliked the However, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, McPeak considered the service new coat, which to critics offered not the current Chief of Staff, decided in dress to be too cluttered. He also a more military look but a stripped- August to defer a decision on whether regarded it as being, at heart, a blue down, corporate appearance. to proceed with the heritage coat ef- version of the Army’s uniform. When Nor did they approve of the silver fort begun by his predecessor, Gen. T. he became Chief in 1990, he was piping on the lower sleeves worn by Michael Moseley. Instead, Schwartz determined to give the Air Force a officers to display rank. It looked like wants the service to focus on rolling more distinctive look. AIR FORCE Magazine / January 2009 63 Then there were the sleeves—more specifically, the silver braids ring- ing the lower sleeves as indications of rank. Did the braid speak of “US Air Force” or “US Air?” Many in the service thought it was the latter. “Guilty as charged,” said McPeak, when asked by a reporter if the new coat looked just a little bit like an air- Going back to the uni- line uniform. “We do look something form known as “pinks and greens” (shown here on like ... many airline pilots.” However, Gen. George Kenney) was that was not a bad thing, according considered, but ultimately to McPeak. rejected. “We want a distinctive military look. We also want an airman’s look,” he said. Airmen liked the new, more comfort- able fabric, and the fit met with approval. ✯ In general, though, the stripped-down look got a thumbs-down response. Air Force personnel did not want to be asked the way to the business class lounge. Nor did they want to be confused with Navy officers. BDUs Are Better Among the senior officers who were not fond of the new design was Fogle- man, who was then the commander of Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB, Ill. He directed members of his com- mand to wear the battle dress uniform, not service dress, as their day-to-day The result was stripped-down, radi- uniform’s Halloween day unveiling. outfit. cal, and unloved—to put it mildly. “It’s a return to basics.” Fogleman’s opposition was so well- Designed by Red the Uniform Tailor, Rows of “fruit salad” ribbons mark- known that, after he was picked to of Toms River, N.J.—and at a cost of ing awards and decorations were succeed McPeak as the Air Force $1.5 million—McPeak’s uniform did discarded in favor of a minimalist Chief of Staff, press reports openly away with outer patch pockets and a “top three.” debated whether he would wear the number of decorative buttons. It elimi- nated epaulets, emblems, name tags, and as many pin-on items as possible. The coat was three-button, instead of the old four. Lapels were cut lower to provide what its designer described as a “more elegant fit.” The fabric was a polyester-natural fiber blend, During the early 1960s, the as opposed to the former polyester dress blues (shown here on Gen. Curtis LeMay) bore double-knit. a close resemblance to As Chief, McPeak wanted to shake today’s uniform. up the Air Force’s traditional way of doing things. He was known for his attention to detail, and the uniform reflected that. A fitness enthusiast who mixed ✯ his own muesli-based breakfast each morning, McPeak made every effort to stay in shape and said that he expected everyone else who wore a blue uniform to do the same. The new clothing “fits in with ... our image of a streamlined, trim, and tougher Air Force, with less doodads of all kinds,” said McPeak at the 64 AIR FORCE Magazine / January 2009 rollout goes smoothly, and that PT gear is upgraded in response to airmen complaints. “Our airmen spend their hard- earned money on these uniforms, and we owe it to them to do the research, development, and quality assurance to guarantee every uniform item put on the shelf is right the first time,” said CMSAF Rodney J. McKinley after the heritage coat was delayed. Gen. Merrill McPeak, as The service is developing a lighter- USAF Chief of Staff, intro- weight ABU for hot weather climates, duced a widely disliked “stripped down” dress for instance. PT shorts are being length- uniform with Navy-style ened by one inch for larger sizes, and braids in 1991. one-half inch for smaller ones. PT gear is getting bigger pockets. The Air Force is also looking at quieter fabrics for warm-up jackets ✯ and pants. This is not a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic: On combat as- signments, airmen can only wear ABUs or PT gear, noted service spokesman Capt. Michael Andrews. “Depending on where you are, that ‘swish-swish’ sound isn’t something you want to be making,” he said. Limited production of improved ABUs will begin in the summer of 2010, depending on funding and fab- ric availability, according to the Air Force. Deployed units will receive the first production models. McPeak uniform at his October 1994 from the same motives that drove Boots have also been an issue. Air change-of-command ceremony. Many Fogleman. Whatever the merits of the Force officials say ABU boots have thought that he would show up in his design, at the moment the Air Force led to complaints about blistering, older, traditional blues. does not need a new uniform to be an contusions, sprains, swelling, and Fogleman wore the McPeak-style issue or source of controversy. general pain. uniform. Still, once in office, he The service has plenty to do in The service has recently certified quickly sent a message to Air Force regard to making sure the new ABU a second manufacturer for the boots, personnel around the world, announc- ing uniform changes. The “US” and traditional rank insignia were reinstated, bringing captain’s bars and general’s stars back to the shoulders. Ribbons, too, were An early version of back. Epaulets were reinstated. the “heritage coat” (shown here on Most importantly, the silver braid SMSgt. Dana Ath- USAF photo LopezbyTodd SSgt. C. was unraveled. Old rank insignia were nos and then-Brig. the new order of the day. Gen. Robert Allard- Fogleman billed the alterations as ice) was styled after “midcourse corrections” which would the uniform worn by airpower pioneer enhance the uniform’s acceptability, Billy Mitchell. functionality, and appearance. “Our goals are to make the neces- sary changes as soon as possible and eliminate the uniform as an issue,” said Fogleman in his message to the ✯ field, alluding to the dislike McPeak’s uniform had engendered.
Recommended publications
  • Joint Force Quarterly 97
    Issue 97, 2nd Quarter 2020 JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY Broadening Traditional Domains Commercial Satellites and National Security Ulysses S. Grant and the U.S. Navy ISSUE NINETY-SEVEN, 2 ISSUE NINETY-SEVEN, ND QUARTER 2020 Joint Force Quarterly Founded in 1993 • Vol. 97, 2nd Quarter 2020 https://ndupress.ndu.edu GEN Mark A. Milley, USA, Publisher VADM Frederick J. Roegge, USN, President, NDU Editor in Chief Col William T. Eliason, USAF (Ret.), Ph.D. Executive Editor Jeffrey D. Smotherman, Ph.D. Production Editor John J. Church, D.M.A. Internet Publications Editor Joanna E. Seich Copyeditor Andrea L. Connell Associate Editor Jack Godwin, Ph.D. Book Review Editor Brett Swaney Art Director Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Publishing Office Advisory Committee Ambassador Erica Barks-Ruggles/College of International Security Affairs; RDML Shoshana S. Chatfield, USN/U.S. Naval War College; Col Thomas J. Gordon, USMC/Marine Corps Command and Staff College; MG Lewis G. Irwin, USAR/Joint Forces Staff College; MG John S. Kem, USA/U.S. Army War College; Cassandra C. Lewis, Ph.D./College of Information and Cyberspace; LTG Michael D. Lundy, USA/U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; LtGen Daniel J. O’Donohue, USMC/The Joint Staff; Brig Gen Evan L. Pettus, USAF/Air Command and Staff College; RDML Cedric E. Pringle, USN/National War College; Brig Gen Kyle W. Robinson, USAF/Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy; Brig Gen Jeremy T. Sloane, USAF/Air War College; Col Blair J. Sokol, USMC/Marine Corps War College; Lt Gen Glen D. VanHerck, USAF/The Joint Staff Editorial Board Richard K.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report
    Oregon Cultural Trust fy2011 annual report fy2011 annual report 1 Contents Oregon Cultural Trust fy2011 annual report 4 Funds: fy2011 permanent fund, revenue and expenditures Cover photos, 6–7 A network of cultural coalitions fosters cultural participation clockwise from top left: Dancer Jonathan Krebs of BodyVox Dance; Vital collaborators – five statewide cultural agencies artist Scott Wayne 8–9 Indiana’s Horse Project on the streets of Portland; the Museum of 10–16 Cultural Development Grants Contemporary Craft, Portland; the historic Astoria Column. Oregonians drive culture Photographs by 19 Tatiana Wills. 20–39 Over 11,000 individuals contributed to the Trust in fy2011 oregon cultural trust board of directors Norm Smith, Chair, Roseburg Lyn Hennion, Vice Chair, Jacksonville Walter Frankel, Secretary/Treasurer, Corvallis Pamela Hulse Andrews, Bend Kathy Deggendorfer, Sisters Nick Fish, Portland Jon Kruse, Portland Heidi McBride, Portland Bob Speltz, Portland John Tess, Portland Lee Weinstein, The Dalles Rep. Margaret Doherty, House District 35, Tigard Senator Jackie Dingfelder, Senate District 23, Portland special advisors Howard Lavine, Portland Charlie Walker, Neskowin Virginia Willard, Portland 2 oregon cultural trust December 2011 To the supporters and partners of the Oregon Cultural Trust: Culture continues to make a difference in Oregon – activating communities, simulating the economy and inspiring us. The Cultural Trust is an important statewide partner to Oregon’s cultural groups, artists and scholars, and cultural coalitions in every county of our vast state. We are pleased to share a summary of our Fiscal Year 2011 (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) activity – full of accomplishment. The Cultural Trust’s work is possible only with your support and we are pleased to report on your investments in Oregon culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Air & Space Power Journal, November-December 2012, Volume 26, No. 6, AFRP 10-1
    November–December 2012 Volume 26, No. 6 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspective Airmen ❙ 4 Delivering Decision Advantage Lt Gen Larry D. James, USAF Features For and from Cyberspace ❙ 12 Conceptualizing Cyber Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Col Matthew M. Hurley, USAF Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ❙ 34 Strategic, Tactical . Both? Maj Tyler Morton, USAF The F-22 Acquisition Program ❙ 53 Consequences for the US Air Force’s Fighter Fleet Lt Col Christopher J. Niemi, USAF Personnel Recovery ❙ 83 Strategic Importance and Impact Col Lee Pera, USAF Paul D. Miller Darrel Whitcomb Departments 113 ❙ Views A Culminating Point for Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance . 113 Col Jon Kimminau, PhD, USAF, Retired Realizing the Potential of Analytics: Arming the Human Mind . 130 Maj Robert D. Folker Jr., USAF Capt Kyle Benjamin Bressette, USAF Lightning Strikes and Thunder Claps: The Strategic Bomber and Air Superiority . 137 Maj Wade S. Karren, USAF 146 ❙ Historical Highlight The Evolution of Air Force Targeting Capt John R. Glock, USAF 175 ❙ Book Reviews Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons from the Hanoi Hilton . 175 Lee Ellis Reviewer: Dr. Richard I. Lester Eisenhower 1956: The President’s Year of Crisis—Suez and the Brink of War . 178 David A. Nichols Reviewer: Maj Thomas F. Menza, USAF, Retired 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century . 182 Andrew F. Krepinevich Reviewer: 2d Lt James W. Anderson, USAF (active) Drugs and Contemporary Warfare . 184 Paul Rexton Kan Reviewer: Jan Kallberg, PhD Flying from the Black Hole: The B-52 Navigator-Bombardiers of Vietnam . 186 Robert O.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretary of Defense Task Force on Dod Nuclear Weapons Management
    Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Phase I: The Air Force’s Nuclear Mission September 2008 Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Chairman The Honorable James R. Schlesinger Task Force Members General Michael P. C. Carns, USAF (Ret) The Honorable J. D. Crouch II The Honorable Jacques S. Gansler Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN (Ret) The Honorable John J. Hamre The Honorable Franklin C. Miller Mr. Christopher A. Williams Executive Director Dr. James A. Blackwell, Jr. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON DOD NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANAGEMENT 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, CRYSTAL MALL 4, SUITE 900-D, ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4521 PHONE: (703) 602-1450 FAX: (703) 602-0968 The Honorable Robert M. Gates 12 September 2008 Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 Dear Mr. Secretary: The Task Force you appointed on 12 June has completed the first phase of its work, addressing the nuclear mission of the Air Force. The attached Phase I Report provides independent, professional advice on our findings and our recommended improvements in Air Force organization and stewardship. Such improvements are essential both to sustain public confidence in the safety and surety of our nuclear weaponry and to bolster clear international understanding in the continuing role and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. As compared to its role in the Cold War, the nuclear mission is both different and more circumscribed. Nonetheless, it remains crucial. Other nations have substantial capabilities; some of which are growing. The number of nuclear states may be increasing—making the challenge of deterrence ever more complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Chasing Success
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Chasing Success Air Force Efforts to Reduce Civilian Harm Sarah B. Sewall Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Sewall, Sarah B. Copy Editor Carolyn Burns Chasing success : Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm / Sarah B. Sewall. Cover Art, Book Design and Illustrations pages cm L. Susan Fair ISBN 978-1-58566-256-2 Composition and Prepress Production 1. Air power—United States—Government policy. Nedra O. Looney 2. United States. Air Force—Rules and practice. 3. Civilian war casualties—Prevention. 4. Civilian Print Preparation and Distribution Diane Clark war casualties—Government policy—United States. 5. Combatants and noncombatants (International law)—History. 6. War victims—Moral and ethical aspects. 7. Harm reduction—Government policy— United States. 8. United States—Military policy— Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. II. Title: Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm. UG633.S38 2015 358.4’03—dc23 2015026952 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Allen G. Peck Published by Air University Press in March 2016 Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ http://afri.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any AFRI other US government agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    C O R P O R A T I O N ALAN J. VICK, SEAN M. ZEIGLER, JULIA BRACKUP, JOHN SPEED MEYERS Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4368 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0500-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The growing cruise and ballistic missile threat to U.S. Air Force bases in Europe has led Headquarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Strategic Planning: Past, Present, and Future
    C O R P O R A T I O N Air Force Strategic Planning Past, Present, and Future Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1765 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9697-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface For a relatively young service, the U.S. Air Force has a remarkably rich intellectual history. Even before the Air Force’s official formation, the development of airpower has been dotted with such visionaries as Billy Mitchell and Henry “Hap” Arnold.
    [Show full text]
  • The Billy Mitchell Syndrome A
    Airpower advocates always have, and always will, face certain occupational hazards. The Billy Mitchell Syndrome By Rebecca Grant Mitchell, shown standing at his 1925 court-martial, wrote that airmen “are bluffed and bulldozed so that they dare not tell the truth [about airpower], knowing full well that if they do, they will be deprived of their future career.” irpower advocacy is part of tion of complex capabilities, delivered Air Force chief historian, has written being an airman. Air Force at just the right time, in the right place, that one result, among senior airmen, Doctrine Document 2 tells to the right persons. The message has is a “tendency to not be as aggressive Aall USAF members, “Each of you must not always been welcome. Today is in arguing the airpower case as one be articulate, knowledgeable, and un- no different. would expect them to be.” Call it the apologetic advocates.” It adds, “We Advocacy has a checkered history Billy Mitchell Syndrome. must understand what it means to be an in the Air Force and its predecessor Mitchell, America’s first great air airman” and explain “what air and space organizations. Start with Brig. Gen. commander, was the master of air- power can bring to the joint fight.” William Mitchell in the 1920s, and power advocacy. (See “The Real Billy Advocacy rarely has been easy or you see that speaking up for airpower Mitchell,” February 2001, p. 64.) He safe. It has required reasoned articula- carried risks. Richard P. Hallion, former saw that it was a multipronged task, 52 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2006 requiring work in the joint community, American officer knew who to convince, mirals.” That all-out Washington brawl with allies, inside the US government, what to say, how to explain airpower, pitted Air Force backers against Navy in the press, and in the public arena.
    [Show full text]
  • Generations of Chevrons a History of the Enlisted Force
    Generations of Chevrons A History of the Enlisted Force ★ Edited by Janet R. Bednarek Generations of Chevrons A History of the Enlisted Force ★ Edited by Janet R. Bednarek AIR FORCE HISTORY AND MUSEUMS PROGRAM UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the au- thor(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force History and Museums Program, the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Generations of chevrons : a history of the enlisted force / edited by Janet R. Bednarek. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. United States. Air Force—Non-commissioned officers—Biography. 2. United States—Biogra- phy. I. Bednarek, Janet R. Daly (Janet Rose Daly), 1959- 9- UG626.G44 2004 358.4’0092’2—dc222 2004026962 ★ This book is dedicated to the memory of four great chief master sergeants of the Air Force: CMSAF DONALD L. HARLOW 1920–1997 CMSAF RICHARD D. KISLING 1923–1985 CMSAF ARTHUR L. “BUD” ANDREWS 1934–1996 CMSAF THOMAS N. BARNES 1930–2003 CONTENTS Preface . ix Foreword . xi Introduction . 1 CHIEF MASTER SERGEANTS OF THE AIR FORCE Paul W. Airey. 45 Donald L. Harlow . 57 Richard D. Kisling. 69 Thomas N. Barnes. 81 Robert D. Gaylor . 93 James M. McCoy. 105 Arthur L. “Bud” Andrews. 117 Sam E. Parish . 129 James C. Binnicker . 141 Gary R. Pfingston . 153 David J. Campanale. 167 Eric W. Benken . 179 Frederick J. Finch . 191 Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options
    LONG-RANGE STRIKE: IMPERATIVES, URGENCY AND OPTIONS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic and Budgetary Smarter Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments April 2005 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions in matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on future U.S. military strategy, force structure, operations, and budgets. These assessments are integrally linked to CSBA’s research on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), The Revolution in War (2004), and Winning the Race: A Naval Architecture for Enduring Maritime Supremacy (forthcoming, 2005). The analysis and findings presented here are solely the responsibility of the Center for Strategic and the Budgetary Assessments and the author. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS GLOSSARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. i I. FRAMING THE PROBLEM .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Culture and American Civil-Military Relations
    Tinted Blue Air Force Culture and American Civil-Military Relations Jeff Donnithorne, Major, USAF If war is an extension of politics by other means,1 then civil-military dialogue is the birthplace of that extension. Thelogical continuity of poli- tics and war requires a functional continuity of effective civil-military ex- change. This effectiveness hinges both on normative democratic ideals as well as a deep appreciation of the other’s material interests. To improve the clarity of civil-military dialogue, this article explores the cultural roots of military self-interest. While civil-military relations in the United States are generally healthy, military and civilian policymakers do not always agree on the proper means to secure their common ends. Even the best of civil-military rela- tionships must endure a messy hybrid of cooperation and resistance be- tween principal stakeholders. A military that believes in and submits to civilian control is still a military that harbors its own interests. But what are the origins of military self-interest? Is it useful to assume that these massive organizations simply crave more money, autonomy, and prestige?2 The “empirically based abstraction” of organizational cul- ture suggests otherwise, exposing deeper currents that shape military self- interest.3 Culture predisposes the attractiveness of certain conclusions while creating cognitive barriers to aberrant ones; it impacts what its members see, ignore, amplify, and discard.4 In civil-military relations, in- terests matter—and for a military service, culture uniquely informs the content of that interest.5 In light of these material interests, Peter Feaver invokes a principal- agent framework to assess how civil-military relations in the United States The author wishes to thank Maj Tony Carr, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons and Mistaken Shipment of Classified Missile Components: an Assessment
    The Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons and Mistaken Shipment of Classified Missile Components: An Assessment Michelle Spencer, Aadina Ludin, and Heather Nelson Advisor: Colonel Larry Chandler, USAF, ret. US Air Force Counterproliferation Center 56 Future Warfare Series No. 56 The Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons and Mistaken Shipment of Classified Missile Components: An Assessment by Michelle Spencer Aadina Ludin Heather Nelson Advisor: Col. Larry Chandler (USAF, ret.) The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 56 January 2012 USAF Counterproliferation Center Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama ii The Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons and Mistaken Shipment of Classified Missile Components: An Assessment Michelle Spencer Aadina Ludin Heather Nelson The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established to provide education, research and analysis to assist the understanding of the U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. The USAF Counterproliferation Center is funded jointly by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the United States Air Force. Copies of this report and other publications are available on the USAF Counterproliferation Center website: http://cpc.au.af.mil or by contacting them directly by mail at USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427; phone: (334) 953-7538 / DSN 493-7538; fax: (334) 953-7530 / DSN 493-7530; or email: [email protected]. USAF Counterproliferation Center Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427 iii DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S.
    [Show full text]