Letters - Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

Seeking legends

Mitchell. Arnold. Spaatz. Kenney. LeMay. Creech. Horner.

Big names. Big accomplishments. All legends of air power. There can be no doubt that our senior leaders of the past were men of influence and vision. Perhaps more than that, they were men of remarkable character, with an element of the swashbuckler.

They oozed charisma. These icons built the Air Force and carried it on their backs, all the while defining and refining it.

At times they bucked the system. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. David C. Jones opposed his own service and his fellow service chiefs to champion the cause that would result in Goldwater-Nichols. During the Cold War, it was Air Force senior leadership that refused to subscribe to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. As one contemplates the legacy of these great men, it is hard not to wonder, “Where are the legends of today?”

What has become of the great tradition of iconic Air Force generals? Since the end of the Cold War, it is hard to find examples of charismatic leaders who make a difference — officers whose contributions exceed the bounds of service and capture the imagination. In fact, there are too many examples of the opposite. Gen. Michael J. Dugan: sacked. Gen. Ronald Fogelman: resigned. Gens. Merrill McPeak, Michael Ryan and John Jumper: solid performers, but not legendary. Gen. T. Michael Moseley: resigned.

Where are you, Jimmy Doolittle?

Perhaps the Air Force itself has changed. Do we promote or reward the risk-takers and the big personalities? Is there room for mavericks and swashbucklers in our high-technology, high-visibility world and its 24-hour, real-time news cycle? Have we become a sterile, unimaginative service where our leaders advance by filling squares, playing it safe and toeing the party line?

The Air Force needs a champion, not another martyr. Reversing this state of affairs will require a big personality, a powerhouse who is not afraid to think big and get out there and make it happen. A passionate officer with the courage to dare and the charisma to inspire. A person who will put the Air Force back on the offensive.

I believe there are legends out there. We just have to find and develop them, and nurture those same qualities in ourselves, our peers and our subordinates. Perhaps it’s like catching lightning in a bottle, but if history’s proof, we’ve done it many times before.

Lt. Col. Geoffrey Weiss

Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.

Vets weigh in on uniforms

I am so happy that the new chief of staff has decreed that service dress blues be worn at least one day per week [“Back in blue,” Sept. 15]. None of the excuses posed by airmen for disdaining the service dress hold water.

First, that we are at war: Service dress blues have been disappearing from the scene since the peaceful post-Vietnam era and, if anything, the trend gathered momentum after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the continental U.S., wearing the dress uniform is a mark of military pride and not in the least a sign of combat unreadiness.

Second, if the enlisted might be “pissed off” if told to wear the dress uniform, as one noncommissioned officer maintains, they are out of line.

The trend toward wearing the battle dress uniform or the new airman battle uniform (or flight suits, for that matter) in any and all venues is mainly a reflection of the civilian population in their continuous devolution in presentability. There has been a steady trend toward the attitude that pride in appearance is drudgery at best or uptight and bureaucratic at worst.

The Air Force, especially when compared with the other services, can use a makeover in displaying military courtesies and bearing.

Col. David R. Rudy (ret.)

Delaware, Ohio

Does any of this uniform stuff make any sense to anyone?

We’re at war so we need to wear our war uniform. Wait, we’re not at war on Monday, so we need to wear our service dress uniform (apparently still being at war Tuesday though Sunday). But while we were at war seven days a week, we needed to develop a new service dress uniform that we won’t actually wear. But now that we are at war only six days a week, we don’t need a new service dress uniform.

In my 30 years of Air Force service, I went through 15 to 20 uniform styles, including service dress with patch pockets (the bus driver suit); darker blue service dress without patch pockets; dark blue shirt and trouser combination with tie tucked in; dark blue shirt and trousers with tie not tucked in; three-button service dress with sleeve stripes and no U.S. insignia; three-button service dress with epaulet rank and U.S. insignia; white mess dress; black mess dress; blue mess dress; green flight suit; orange flight suit; numerous fatigue-type uniforms — and don’t forget the famous U-neck T-shirt.

During this same period, the Army was able to get by with about four uniforms, including dress models. The basic Army green service dress uniform lasted almost 50 years with minor modifications and it is only being changed now to adopt a “spruced up” version of the old Army blue uniform that has survived since cavalry days.

I offer two suggestions:

• Wear a war or flight uniform when you’re warring or flying. Hap Arnold apparently got along fairly well in his pinks and greens.

• If the Air Force needs a more military uniform, just order the Army green one in blue. It looks very military and the Army won’t be using it any more.

Col. Robert W. Nichelini (ret.)

Oakland, Calif.

I agree with Robert F. Dorr that service dress should be worn by all service members except those in combat or doing dirty fatigue work [“Airmen should wear service dress uniform to offices every day,” Back Talk, Sept. 15].

Even security forces personnel doing law enforcement duty should wear the service dress. The service dress is more military than the ABU and conveys a positive image to the public — and we need to show the public a positive image during this time of crisis.

Former Sgt. Richard L. Wahl

Farmingville, N.Y.

Get the Guard involved

A glaring omission in the story on possible solutions to the unmanned aerial vehicle pilot shortage [“UAV career field takes flight,” Sept. 29] was the possibility of incorporating Air National Guard pilots into the program.

The last base closure and realignment actions eliminated or gutted many ANG flying units across the country because of the lack of follow-on aircraft to replace the legacy aircraft that are or were being flown by those units.

Officials in the states affected have fought to retain their flying units.

The UAV would be ideal for those units seeking a follow-on and, therefore, sustaining mission. The mission would be especially appealing since it could be performed at their home bases. At present, there are a small number of Guard units transitioning to the UAV mission, but that number should be much larger to achieve a win-win situation for the Air Force and the Guard.

Senior Master Sgt. Joseph L. Mlaker

Roseville, Calif.