Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: Obama Nominates 1st NON-PILOT to Command Air Force in Pacific (BTW it's a Woman)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,302
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Obama Nominates 1st NON-PILOT to Command Air Force in Pacific (BTW it's a Woman)

    Why I am I not surprised Obama did this? At a time of increasing tension with China's territorial claims in the SE Asia and the up tempo of joint Russo-Chinese Pacific military exercises it makes so much sense...

    To hell with actual qualifications in the name of Political Correctness and socialist/progressive agendas.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...man-non-pilot/

    The White House has picked the first female general to head the Air Force in the Pacific, which will make her the first non-pilot to command air power in such a large theater of operation.
    Gen. Robinson is not a career pilot. Her military profession is air battle manager. She has served aboard the Air Force’s surveillance aircraft, the E-3 AWACs and E-8 JSTARS, and she was nominated for a promotion amid a drive for more diversity in the Pentagon.
    A retired pilot said there is a reason the Air Force historically has put a pilot in charge of large combatant command Air Forces.

    “It is because you make operational decisions that require the understanding of what you are going to ask pilots to execute in combat where the wrong decisions mean the difference between life and death,” the retired pilot said. “Now her vice commander and director of operations will be rated fighter pilots, but still she makes the decisions.”
    Last edited by cinco; 07-18-14 at 13:48.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,204
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    He is the most incompetent "leader" EVER. A plan for success could literally be written out by simply doing the exact opposite of everything this kenyan turd has done.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    4,261
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    I would be surprised if I was surprised.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,917
    Feedback Score
    0
    I spent 11yrs in the AF. I don't see it as that big of a deal. With her background she has a solid grasp on what is asked of aircrew during operations. Besides at a certain point leadership is more about the person than the technical skill set. We call them "General" officers for a reason.
    Before you suggest that licensing, background checks, or other restrictions for the 2nd Amendment are reasonable... Apply those same ideas to the 1st and 4th Amendments. Then tell me how reasonable they are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,193
    Feedback Score
    0
    Too bad she isn't a transgendered member of GLAD - He's really rack up the points with the unwashed masses of the Occupy Wall street crowd that loves him so much.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    652
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I have met General Robinson, however briefly, she deserves the positions she has held to date. She is a Weapons School graduate and former Weapons School instructor and took the first E-3s into Iraq as a squadron commander. "NON-PILOT" is rather sensational, as Air Battle Managers are still import aircrew who C2 the Air War from inside various platforms. While the ABM community is the brunt of a lot of jokes, it's not like they put a Force Support or Maintenance Squadron chick in charge. The "former pilot's" line: "you make operational decisions that require the understanding of what you are going to ask pilots to execute in combat" could be the ABM's job description.
    Last edited by J8127; 07-18-14 at 15:28.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,791
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    She sounds like a fine officer, but I question that her experience(s) match the skillset of this position, and seriously have to wonder how many qualified men were passed by in order for a woman to have this slot. Don't get me wrong, if she's the best qualified and her packet was the best, good for her.
    "Those who do can't explain; those who don't can't understand"...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    849
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skydivr View Post
    She sounds like a fine officer, but I question that her experience(s) match the skillset of this position, and seriously have to wonder how many qualified men were passed by in order for a woman to have this slot. Don't get me wrong, if she's the best qualified and her packet was the best, good for her.
    How about we start with the assumption that she is qualified, instead of the automatic assumption that she isn't because of her gender. Did Colin Powell benefit from being African American? Very probably. Was he still outstanding? Very probably. The two are not mutually exclusive. How many unqualified men have been promoted by the old boy network who were not qualified, simply because they were one of the guys? I know of many... Interesting that no outrage follows. The assumption that the status quo is a meritocracy devoid of bias and that seeking to actively promote highly qualified minorities and woman undermines that meritocracy doesn't hold much water. Additionally, given the role of senior leadership, being a brilliant pilot doesn't mean you can handle the larger organization any more than being a brilliant beat cop qualified you to be the director of the FBI.

    I am not advocating diversity for the sake of diversity, but diversity is important to ensure broad decision making. I work in a company of over 100,000 people that has really suffered from group think. You put a the same bunch of super smart, white, straight, techie men between 30 and 50 in a room, guess what you get group think. Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't. Diverse opinions, diverse life experience, diverse educational backgrounds (as long as folks are qualified) is a source of strength, not a source of weakness.

    Just the perspective of a straight, white, middle aged, middle of the road male that is as non diverse as they come.
    Damien

    If a large number of people are willing to kill you for saying something, then it probably really needs to be said. .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,302
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by skydivr View Post
    She sounds like a fine officer, but I question that her experience(s) match the skillset of this position, and seriously have to wonder how many qualified men were passed by in order for a woman to have this slot. Don't get me wrong, if she's the best qualified and her packet was the best, good for her.
    You summed up my sentiments for posting this in the first place. One would think that actual combat seat time would put one over the top in rankings. If she was the best, fine - no problem.

    However, to use Barack as a good example, progressives have a habit of elevating some folks based on agenda rather than merit. We saw where that has us today - complete FUBAR. Thus, my wariness.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,302
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by KTR03 View Post
    I am not advocating diversity for the sake of diversity, but diversity is important to ensure broad decision making. I work in a company of over 100,000 people that has really suffered from group think. You put a the same bunch of super smart, white, straight, techie men between 30 and 50 in a room, guess what you get group think. Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't. Diverse opinions, diverse life experience, diverse educational backgrounds (as long as folks are qualified) is a source of strength, not a source of weakness.
    The "Peter Principle" comes to mind. Spent many, many years in the Fortune 500 environment coupled with other management positions. Sadly, there are seemingly more Peters than Leaders.

    The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on their performance in their current role rather than on their abilities relevant to the intended role
    Could care less if you are white, black, woman, man, whatever. Are you the most qualified for the position coupled with ethics, reliability, etc? Great I'm going to hire you or be more than pleased to work under you. I want to be surrounded by great people who motivate and provide positive pressure to succeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by KTR03 View Post
    How about we start with the assumption that she is qualified, instead of the automatic assumption that she isn't because of her gender.
    However, when you have the type of person such as Obama making such decisions, I feel I more than justified in viewing his decision through the lens of his past actions. So yeah, based upon Obama's known whack socialist/progressive agenda - dang right I'm suspicious. The litany of train wrecks that have ensued from his management has now become legendary in the history of America. Furthermore, any move Obama makes has lost any chance for me to assume he's done it for our nation's best interest.

    And I still stand by my earlier comments, if this person was the best pick, then great!
    Last edited by cinco; 07-18-14 at 16:11.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •