Movement of CAP-USAF and State Directors to 1st AF and state National Guard

[RiverAux]

Its been quite a while since we've discussed the organizational placement of CAP within the structure of the Air Force family (and last time we veered off almost immediately into a digression for the rest of the thread) and I'd like to throw out a hybrid of what seemed to be the more popular scenarios discussed in the past.  As CAP isn't really in the AF, what we're really talking about is CAP-USAF as the AF unit responsible for overseeing CAP. 

The basic proposal is this:  CAP-USAF (and CAP) should be moved from Air Education and Training Command to 1st Air Force.  CAP-USAF State Directors and members in the CAP-RAP program should be moved to the appropriate state National Guard headquarters. 

Justifications follow:

1.  Right now CAP-USAF is very well hidden within the bowels of the Air University which is part of the Air Education and Training Command.  What is the mission of the AETC?

Air Education and Training Command
Air Education and Training Command ... provides basic military training, initial and advanced technical training, flying training, and professional military and degree-granting professional education.

Is there any doubt that CAP doesn't come close to fitting in within their overall mission?  They are entirely focused on developing AF members and CAP does absolutely nothing towards that.  Obviously the reason we are here is because of the cadet program, but just because we're providing some AE to cadets (and incidentally to seniors), still doesn't put us within the scope of what AETC is around for.  We certainly aren't providing initial flight training to anyone (except for a very, very tiny percentage of cadets) and any advanced flight training for seniors isn't a funded AF mission and is done on the member's dime and only if they can talk a CAP instructor into giving them that training at no charge. 

So, where should we be?  Well, I believe within the 1st Air Force as part of the Air Combat Command.  What is the purpose of the ACC? 

Air Combat Command
The mission is to support global implementation of national security strategy. Air Combat Command operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management, and electronic-combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications and intelligence systems, and conducts global information operations.

While this is pretty broad and doesn't really address CAP's purposes well, if you drill down to the purposes (see below) of the 1st Air Force (which is part of ACC), you will see that CAP fits in pretty nicely. 

1st Air Force is assigned to Air Combat Command. It has the responsibility of ensuring the air sovereignty and air defense of the continental United States. As the CONUS geographical component of the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command, it provides airspace surveillance and control and directs all air sovereignty activities for the continental United States.

So, it is pretty obvious that speaking broadly, CAP would fit better with the 1st Air Force (and ACC) than AETC.  Heck, 1st AF is where all the AF offices that we work with (AFRCC, AFNSEP, and 1AF itself are located) But, lets get a little more specific about this, starting with the cadet program as that was one of the sticking points last time.

2.  While the CAP cadet program of WWII was focused primarily on getting kids ready to join the Army Air Corps and therefore would have fit well with the mission of today's AETC, that isn't where we are now.   Only a relatively minor percentage of cadets are going to join the Air Force so saying that CAP is preparing them for AF service is a stretch, and isn't one of the explicit goals of the cadet program in any case. 

3.  One can say that AF JROTC is much like CAP as a general citizenship, leadership, and aerospace education program, yet it is in AETC and I'm not proposing to move it.  Well, there are three reasons that CAP is different from AF JROTC in that regard and why CAP doesn't belong in AETC but JROTC does:
   A.  All CAP cadets are potential operational assets for the AF and many of them are trained and do serve on actual missions.  This is not the case for AF JROTC as they are purely an educational outfit.  That alone is a huge difference.   
   B.  98% of the people associated with AF JROTC are cadets (according to the AFJROTC homepage) while in CAP, that percentage is 39% -- and this percentage has been falling – it was 41% in 2000. 
   C.  All the adults working in the AFJROTC program are 100% focused on the cadet program while in CAP that percentage is probably only 10-30% (a SWAG, I admit). 

4.  Now one might argue that AETC assets are occasionally used for operational purposes (such as after Katrina), so CAP isn't really any different.  Well, I think its clear that CAP is an organization that happens to have a cadet program rather than a cadet-focused organization that does emergency missions on occasion.  It is a rarity for AETC to do operational stuff, while it is the norm for CAP.

5.  One could say that because CAP uses some of the Air University's correspondence courses, our seniors would have a beneficial relationship with CAP in AETC, but since those same correspondence courses are open to AF officers around the service, moving CAP to a different part of the AF wouldn't change anything one bit.  Quite frankly, the lack of updates to several of the CAP-specific correspondence courses shows that they're not terribly interested in working with CAP specifically.  And more broadly speaking, the primary benefit that CAP gets from being in AETC is having access to AETC bases for encampments and such, but that is the same sort of service we get from all AF bases regardless of where CAP is, so I don't see that as very important. 

6.  One could argue that it doesn't matter where CAP-USAF and CAP are headquartered administratively since there are already existing procedures for 1st AF to call on us if needed. 
   A.  This is true, however as I explained at the top of the thread, when it comes right down to it, CAP's use by the AF is almost entirely as an operational asset that also has a cadet program and it just makes logical sense to house us administratively with units with similar purposes.  In other words we would be very much like the 10 Air National Guard Fighter Wings that are aligned with 1AF. 
   B.  However, the big benefit to housing CAP-USAF with 1st AF is the huge increase in visibility we would have by having the CAP-USAF folks around the table talking up what CAP and they are doing to the 1AF leaders on an ongoing basis.  Our primary advocates would be as well-positioned as possible to get us as many missions as possible. 
   C.  A secondary, but still important, benefit of being part of 1st AF is the increased public affairs benefits we would have within the AF community.  Think about it – 1AF is always going to be on the hunt to play up any activities on its part since it is competing for public affairs "space" within the AF with those dropping bombs, etc. overseas.  By putting CAP directly under them, they're going to get to claim our successes as part of their own.  They can sort of indirectly do that now by giving credit to AFRCC for saves made by CAP on AFAMs, but getting to claim they success of the guys and gals and girls and boys there on the ground rather than some folks back at a base that made some phone calls makes a much better story.  Over the long run I see this as resulting in much better visibility for CAP within the AF which can do nothing but good for us. 
==================
Part 2. 

Now the second part of my plan is where the hybrid aspect comes in.  Drawing some from some past proposals regarding moving us to the Air National Guard, I believe that we could move the State Directors and the CAP-RAPs to the state headquarters for each National Guard.  The Air Force would need to move the funding for those persons along with them of course.  The transition from CAP-RAPS being mostly Reservists with a few National Guard to mostly National Guard with a few Reservists would take some time and would require a lengthy transition period. 

Why would we want to make this move? 

7.  Placing the State Directors and making the CAP-RAP program a primarily National Guard program will place the people most directly familiar with CAP into the command structure of the state's National Guard where they can best advocate for us to get additional missions.  In other words, this would be very similar to why I think it would be good for CAP-USAF to be under 1st AF. 

8.  I'm not proposing that the NG have authority to approve CAP missions (which is what previous proposals came down to) since that would require changes in federal and state laws that I don't want to mess with.  Like we have currently, the State Directors would initially review things such as requests for CAP training missions for AFAM status and then would forward them to the regional CAP-USAF office (as part of 1AF) for actual approval.  There is no logical reason that it couldn't be done that way even though the SD would be an employee of that state's National Guard.  CAP-USAF would still be responsible for setting the policies and working on the regs that the SDs would have to follow. 

9.  As a side note, I would probably try to get the SD switched from a civilian position back to a military one as I believe that would increase their ability to work within the National Guard command structure.   Perhaps this could also be partially justified by combining the SD duties with that of the lead CAP-RAP officer in each state. 

10. Putting the SD in the National Guard structure would also help from a public affairs point of view since it would give the National Guard the incentive to publicize CAP missions as well.  Again, very much like what would happen if CAP-USAF moved to 1st AF.   

Okay, I know this has been a huge post, but if nothing else, I've given you lots of potential items to criticize and you've got a holiday to work on your slings and arrows!

[es_g0d]

This general idea is exactly where the CAP needs to go; that is, to be more aligned with our parent organization, the USAF.  The only way we will be seen as credible to Air Force leaders is to have a great deal more involvement and supervision BY Air Force personnel.  CAP-RAP is a well-meaning program, but really doesn't fit that bill.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Overall, I'd have to agree with you.  I think keeping CAP under AETC is a mismatch.

I think, with our dual status, placing our NHQ under 1AF and then having our NHQ place our Wings under the operational control of the Air Guard commanders in the various states makes for better unity of command.

As far as part 2, item 9, if we are OPCON to the AG Air, or if the SD is under the AG, the position could always be a "Technician" post, where the incumbent must be military and wear a uniform, but would be paid and otherwise administered as a civil service employee.

[PHall]

I think being under the supervision of the USPFO (United States Property and Fiscal Office) for Logistics and Finance would be a good idea too. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Eclipse]

First and last question is where the money comes from.

1AF for operational tasking is fine, but we won't get any more work unless there are serious changes to the charter and several laws, Posse-Com being at the top of the list.

As to being a part of the Guard, well good luck with that.  God love our Guardsman, but unless the money is appropriated in a way that the Governors have no say on its distribution, you're looking at an excellent way to kill CAP in a lot of areas.

Anyone familiar with how things are done in many of our cash-strapped states knows what I am talking about.

And if you don't give the Guard full authority over CAP and its assets, why would they want to bother with the added responsibility?

[Eclipse]

A couple of other things to consider -

The SD's, for the most part, are current or recent former military today (ours is an O-5).  Making it a full billet might preclude some of the best SD's who have retired (for whatever reason), and have no interest in re-upping.  It would also probably reduce the pay.

The other thing, very important, is that putting us under the Guard might actually reduce our existing access to military facilities, with no equivelent substitute from the Guard (because they don't have any).

Again, this gets back to being under state control vs. federal.  In my home state, we have two major military bases (literally "Major Commands"), a plethora of Reserve centers, and one, (that I know of) Air Guard facility, which is, to say the least, somewhat "limited" in it resources.

[SM-MADDOG]

I agree sort of, however saying We arent part of AF I dont know if I will accept that or not. First evidence is United States Air Force Auxiliary, "Air Force", 2nd, doesnt the Air Force have regulations for us that We must follow? Also the Air Force has to approve or disapprove of certain things before CAP can do them. So yes We are part of AF. But I agree that the Air Force and CAP should come together and do better things for both sides. I liked the ideas in this thread.

[SAR-EMT1]

Hmm.... will have to ponder this and get back with an opinion.

[RiverAux]

The SD's, for the most part, are current or recent former military today (ours is an O-5).  Making it a full billet might preclude some of the best SD's who have retired (for whatever reason), and have no interest in re-upping.  It would also probably reduce the pay.

Thats a fair comment and I would suggest that the issue be handled by attrition over the years.  Whenever a SD retires or quits the position would then be switched to a military one. 

having our NHQ place our Wings under the operational control of the Air Guard commanders in the various states makes for better unity of command.

Not what I suggested.  The SD would be part of the NG rather than part of CAP-USAF.  CAP's relationship with the state and CAP-USAF wouldn't really change.  If the NG wanted to use CAP, they would still need to follow the same basic request procedures they have now.  The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it. 

As to being a part of the Guard, well good luck with that.  God love our Guardsman, but unless the money is appropriated in a way that the Governors have no say on its distribution, you're looking at an excellent way to kill CAP in a lot of areas.

Not a factor.  All we're talking about is the money to pay the SD, not CAP's operational budget.  The money CAP now gets from CAP-USAF for training, etc., would still come from CAP-USAF from their regional office. 

There are all sorts of state employees out there whose positions are paid for directly by a grant from the federal government, which is what would essentially happen in this case.  In fact, aren't there people working full-time at state National Guard headquarters right now on Title 10 status, which is what this would be if the SD were made military?  Don't see that there would be any real cost to the state beyond toner for the copy machine. 

Incidentally, I don't see this as a package deal and I think both of the suggested reforms are worth doing on their own merits. 

[Eclipse]

The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it.

Where the SD's are won't change a single mission, unless you change the role of the SD from oversight to command, which then essentially changes the structure of CAP substantially.

Your assertion that the SD's are not out there stumping for missions, which is not true universally, notwithstanding, that is not their job.

SD's have zero command role, they are oversight only with very limited powers of "go/no-go" in safety and financial malfeasance situations.  Having them report to the Guard would not change that, which means they would have no more influence on recruiting, training, relationships with local agencies, etc., than they do today.

That means no more actors or mission requests than we have today. Changing that effectively dilutes the wing CC's authority, and makes the SD the defacto Wing CC.  A dynamic that isn't going to be popular or easy to implement.
We have some great SD's, but not all of them "get" CAP or the volunteer dynamic, and in my personal experience one of the best ways to cause even more problems than you already have (in CAP) is to bring in military commanders with the intention that they "fix" things.

And you're also assuming that every state has this magic guard presence that is more effective for ES than CAP is today, which is not necessarily the case.  A handful of fighter and transport pilots isn't going to be a more effective manager of ground ES assets or cadets, especially volunteers.

Many Guard units have challenges just getting their paid, contracted, people to show up and play nice, not to mention how thin they are stretched with the continued war effort.

Further, if you believe that the USAF is going to continue the funding of SD salaries and benefits - not insubstantial at their GS-12 rate, yet relinquish authority to individual state control, you don't understand how federal agencies work.

And as to funding, sure, a lot of states get grants or matching funds, and then they "combine the function" of 12 different people into some sort of directorate or cabinet office and before you know it the job is gone - just what we need, some political appointee giving CAP 1/12 of his attention in his role as SD while the funding goes to paying for some gov'na's pet project.

This is the person you are suggesting be in charge of CAP:

[RiverAux]

Having someone at the table with the local NG can only help us.  Your're right that in some states it may not make a big difference, but in others it very well could.  Thats no different than anything else in CAP.  However, getting your foot in the door is always the hardest part. 

I know quite a bit about how the fed government works in relation to funding state positions and it is extremely common and is not at all unusual.

SDs very commonly are actually stumping for CAP missions and you're right that its not their primary job.  This would still be the case in my proposal, but as is the case now, it would be one of the things they do.  I've seen more than one occassion where the State Director is actually the primary liasion with the state for CAP and is the one at the state's command center in emergencies basically finding missions for CAP.  However, when they were in those postions and as I wrote this proposal, they never have any command authority over CAP members.  CAP is always in control of CAP.     

And you're also assuming that every state has this magic guard presence that is more effective for ES than CAP is today, which is not necessarily the case.  A handful of fighter and transport pilots isn't going to be a more effective manager of ground ES assets or cadets, especially volunteers.

Well, since I didn't actually propose any such thing, this statement is irrelevant.  Placing administrative control of the State Directors with the National Guard is all it is.  Right now CAP-USAF has that administrative control and they don't micromanage our missions at that level, and that would continue to be the case if the SD were under the NG. 

[ThorntonOL]

The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it.

This is the person yo are suggesting be in charge of CAP:

Who is this guy by the way?

[Capt M. Sherrod]

The recently impeached governor of Illinois.

[DNall]

If cadet programs & AE are the most important part of CAP (to the AF) then it's perfectly positioned in AU alongside AFROTC & AFJROTC. Those functions could not happen effectively anywhere else in the AF command structure. In fact those functions of CAP would make us a burden on any other command's support of combatant commanders.

If ES is all-important & CP/AE don't matter, then CAP belongs under 1AF & can't effectively execute ES operations under the AETC structure.

So... we compromise. 95% of the time we're not on missions, and CAP-USAF works for AETC under those circumstances. The 5% of the time we are on missions, operational control of involved personnel (CAP-USAF & CAP) is transferred to 1AF. It works exactly as though we were permanently assigned to them.

As far as national guard, you're missing the boat on that one. 1AF does have some ANG fighter and recon units assigned to perform Homeland defense missions, but 1AF is not itself a guard organization. Even is you moved CAP to 1AF, CAP-USAF would not then move it's personnel to ANG. If your intent is to have state directors answering through the ANG state chain of command to 1AF, that can't work that way either. All you'd be doing is turning CAP over to the Army National Guard on a national scale, and with 52+ ways of doing everything.

The CAP-USAF personnel we get are either active duty assigned to the job, a few drilling reservists who are basically in IMA status, and everyone else is doing extra duty for retirement points (either from active reserve status or more likely from the IRR). What you want is a standardized structure with centralized control on the national level working down, not a state structure that tells the national side what to do, and not a big confusing power sharing arrangement that can't get anything done cause no one is in charge.

I think CAP-USAF is right where it needs to be. I think it'd be more appropriate if CAP were placed fully in that chain of command (albeit made up of unpaid civilian volunteers) and cease the multi-level civilian control that is ultimately not responsible or accountable to AF. And I certainly think CAP-USAF could use more resources to support CAP - meaning more paid reserve slots for CAP-RAPs at the local level, to include junior to mid-grade enlisted that could help with unit administration.

[RiverAux]

If cadet programs & AE are the most important part of CAP (to the AF) then it's perfectly positioned in AU alongside AFROTC & AFJROTC. Those functions could not happen effectively anywhere else in the AF command structure. In fact those functions of CAP would make us a burden on any other command's support of combatant commanders.

If ES is all-important & CP/AE don't matter, then CAP belongs under 1AF & can't effectively execute ES operations under the AETC structure.

The only reason the AF ever calls CAP is to ask for operational support and that is reflected in the fact that our ES budget is almost 4 times bigger than our Cadet budget.  Beyond that we're getting metaphysical, but there is no reason that the cadet program would change one iota just because CAP-USAF is in 1st AF rather than AETC. 

Who said that ES was all important?  However, it is undeniable that unlike any other part of AETC, and especially unlike AF JROTC, CAP has a major operational mission.  It doesn't slight CP to recognize that the AF uses CAP primarily as an operational asset that also happens to have a cadet program (that also can be considered an operational asset). 

As far as national guard, you're missing the boat on that one. 1AF does have some ANG fighter and recon units assigned to perform Homeland defense missions, but 1AF is not itself a guard organization

Never said it was.  The important part of 1AF is that it houses the 2 primary AF units that we work for -- AFRCC and AFNSEP. 

Even is you moved CAP to 1AF, CAP-USAF would not then move it's personnel to ANG.

Didn't propose that.  All the current CAP-USAF military members would maintain their current structure, but report to 1st AF rather than the Air University.  Only the State Directors (and possibly the CAP-RAPs -- moving them to the NG isn't critical to the plan) would go to the NG either in their current civilian role or possibly back to a military position. 

All you'd be doing is turning CAP over to the Army National Guard on a national scale, and with 52+ ways of doing everything.

Not a bit.  The State Directors would still be bound by the AFIs that govern the use of CAP just like states have to follow federal military regulations.  Each NG doens't make up its own uniform regulations for example. 

[RiverAux]

I'll say it before someone else does -- it is obvious that every once in a while the AF will perform some sort of informal analysis about where CAP is placed and that obviously the last time they did that they decided that AETC was the best place.

However, it hasn't always been the case.  We've actually split our history about equally between AF headquarters and AETC (or related predecessors).  But, from 1959-1968 we were in Continental Air Command, which was the part of the AF responsible for administering the AF Reserve and Air National Guard and had air defense duties like 1st Air Force. 

By the way, we left CAC when it was inactivated and its duties split up and its not like they made a conscious decision that CAP wasn't a good fit.  The AF has seemed to have refocused again on homeland defense and has been using CAP (to a limited extent) for that purpose so I see my proposal as fitting in pretty well with the current trends. 

[Major Carrales]

How is it that some many of you think you know better where CAP fits than the USAF?  Hubris...perhaps?

In anycase, I can imagine a situation where CAP was a SG type place.  Imagine how many possible distinctive State CAP uniforms there could be!!! Bwahahahahah!!! 

I can see it now, stetsons and cowboy boots for the Southwest region, "Royal Canadian" red tunics and Smokie the Bears for the Northwesters and who could forget the Hawaiian floral patterns for the BDUs for our friends out on the "50th!"

Some Wings will authorize the carrying of weapons, others to relect their herritage by the use of command Kilts.  The National Board would be a weak confederation that will make the United Nations or Nato command centers look like everyone was in the same exact uniform.

Hyperbole aside, the idea of a CAP beholden to State Government might open so many Pandora's boxes that you..."will be sorry!"

[es_g0d]

Funny, the Air National Guard doesn't seem so beholden to the states to which they belong...

Truthfully, the ANG model is probably about right for the operational side of Civil Air Patrol.

[ELTHunter]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

[Major Carrales]

Funny, the Air National Guard doesn't seem so beholden to the states to which they belong...

Truthfully, the ANG model is probably about right for the operational side of Civil Air Patrol.

You know, the Air National Guard gets PAID!!!  Totally apples and oranges. Quite likely, CAP would end up like the State Defense Forces of some states; underfunded, back-burnered and forgotten.

I think the status quo, where CAP is a player in the assistance of States in disasters is better than State control...especially since some states are having fiscal problems of their own at this time.

[Major Carrales]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

A bit better fit than a STATE DEFENSE FORCE model. 

[PHall]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

A bit better fit than a STATE DEFENSE FORCE model. 

AFRC only has a FEDERAL mission while the ANG has both a FEDERAL and a STATE mission.

The ANG model is a much better fit to CAP especially since 2000 when the Aux On/Aux Off came about.

I'm all for getting some "adult" supervision for CAP, Lord knows we could use it.

[RiverAux]

How is it that some many of you think you know better where CAP fits than the USAF?  Hubris...perhaps?

Because I have way more experience with CAP and what it can do than almost every officer in the AF (excluding those in CAP-USAF and not including those whose only CAP experience was as a cadet).         

[DNall]

How is it that some many of you think you know better where CAP fits than the USAF?  Hubris...perhaps

The Air Force is not some high and mighty all-knowing thing. It's just people, & they aren't any smarter or more entitled to determine where CAP or CAP-USAF belongs in the AF structure, or even how the AF operates for that matter, then anyone here. When people have good ideas, they are supposed to be brought to the collective thought process and academically discussed. That's what AU is all about, and publications like airpower journal in particular. You tell me all the time that CAP shouldn't think of itself with self-loathing. Well, you're right, it shouldn't. Our members are just as capable of coming up with good ideas that become policy as anyone else.

River,

You can't judge the importance of ES versus CP or AE by the amount of budget dedicated to it. It costs a lot of money to purchase/operate/maintain a huge fleet of aircraft/vans/comm gear. And that gear does get used as a public service, which has an operating cost. It costs very little to operate the cadet program to the extent necessary to achieve AF objectives.

My bigger point was our in-garrison mission is about CP & AE. Hence, we are when in-garrison tasked under AETC (just as AFROTC/JROTC are). That is the appropriate place for those programs. It doesn't matter if they would get the same support if under another MAJCOM or not, that is where they belong.

Our ES functions clearly do fall under 1AF, which is why we are OPCON to 1AF when activated for missions. That is not at all unusual in the way the military, and AF in particular, works today. I do realize 1AF is the modern parallel of the old continental air command, but the doctrine is significantly different. CAP belonging full-time to 1AF would not change anything. It would not open up any additional missions. 1AF already has full and complete access to CAP capabilities within the limits of the law & good judgment. They would not have us suddenly doing any other mission we are not doing today if we were reassigned. All that would happen is we'd become just one more resource in a pile of other resources, which doesn't bode as well for annual funding as under AU where idealistic concepts prosper.

I do think it would be good to allow ANG officer to do extra duty as CAP-RAPs for points (which is not currently allowed), but I don't think CAP going to any part of the guard structure is a good idea. And by the way, YES, each state does their own awards/badges/etc that are added to the uniform manual. More importantly, they all have different forms, regulations, policies, etc that govern everything from the mundane to the critically important. They fight the national structure and do what they want more times than not. We have enough problems with that in CAP already. We need greater centralization & more accountability to the federal AF, not to state structures. And also, the ANG may be a component of the Air Force, but it answers through it's Adjutant General (almost always an Army national guard officer) to the NGB (which is almost always headed by an Army national guard officer), which has a seat on the joint chiefs of staff now. It's a very weird balancing act between the state/NGB structure and the extent to which we answer to our parent branch. Again, more often then not, it's the state/NGB side of the structure that determines how things are going to be, not the parent branch.

[Major Carrales]

As always, DNALL has to take my ideological opposite stance.

How is it that some many of you think you know better where CAP fits than the USAF?  Hubris...perhaps

The Air Force is not some high and mighty all-knowing thing. It's just people, & they aren't any smarter or more entitled to determine where CAP or CAP-USAF belongs in the AF structure, or even how the AF operates for that matter, then anyone here. When people have good ideas, they are supposed to be brought to the collective thought process and academically discussed. That's what AU is all about, and publications like airpower journal in particular. You tell me all the time that CAP shouldn't think of itself with self-loathing. Well, you're right, it shouldn't. Our members are just as capable of coming up with good ideas that become policy as anyone else.

I'm sorry to break it to you my friend, but the USAF is our OVER LORD.  They control our destiny and allow us to do what we want only in a very narrow regard.  We can do lots of stuff, until they descide we have crossed the line.  Then they can smack.

I am confident that the USAF is the expert in knowing the position of CAP in its organization.  It is not for us to dictate our place in their system, it is ours to accept the missions, roles and functions they allow us to take in their organization.

Only after that is where our members are capable of coming up with good ideas that become policy.

As for self-loathing, when one looks down on CAP as "mickey mouse" just because it is not the REAL MILITARY or some other bupkes excuse because one lack's faith in CAP...I point to the efforts that prove that wrong.  Like deployments to Katrina, Rita and IKE (to which both you and I were involved in the latter, albiet in different locations)  I point to the volunteer spirit of the same mold that had minute men at Lexington and Concord.  That need to serve.

Those minute men weren't "soliders" in a regular army.  They were farmers, artisans and the like...ordinary people just like CAP is today.

[RiverAux]

You can't judge the importance of ES versus CP or AE by the amount of budget dedicated to it. It costs a lot of money to purchase/operate/maintain a huge fleet of aircraft/vans/comm gear.

I will stipulate that in terms of what the official party line of the AF and CAP is, all of our "3 missions" are supposed to be equal.  You will not find anyone in authority saying one of them is more important than another.

However, if you want to know what an organization REALLY cares about and REALLY thinks is its most important mission, look at where they spend their money.  That goes for government, private industry, or charitible organizations.

If the AF REALLY thought the "3 missions" were equal, you would see the AF fully-funding all wing cadet encampments so that cadets could attend at no cost.  The AF would be paying for rockets for cadets to build and launch.  If they cared as much about AE, your squadron shelves would be packed with brochures, booklets, books, etc. that the AF paid for and sent to each squadron for squadron use and for the public.  The AF would have bought every squadron a powerpoint projector so that members could be giving presentations to the public on the importance of aerospace.     

By the way, its is the CAP ES operational budget for that is 3-4 times bigger than the entire cadet budget.  This does not include comm, vehicle or airplane purchases.

For the record, I think the AF SHOULD be doing all the things I suggested so that we can do all that we're supposed to be doing.  Don't fault me for recognizing what they really think are the most valuable CAP programs. 

Sparky, you might want to take a look at various military professional journals.  Members of the military are always proposing changes in how their services are organized.  As a partial member of the AF family, CAP members should have that same ability to share their thoughts on CAP's place within the AF. 

[Sarge]

As a matter of clarity, Chief, NGB is now a bluesuit ANG guy. Gen Craig McKinley is now the boss. By the way, many states have a "blue" TAG, including mine. It is a non-issue for CAP, as even states with a "green" TAG have an Asst AG for Air thet is always "blue". I believe the ANG-CAP relationship is the way to go, organizationally and operationally. Our unit does a great deal with the ANG, from low-level route surveys resulting in 50-75 hours of flying each year to intercept training to assisting with family support and airshows. We are also beginning the augmentation program soon on UTA weekends, covering several slots for deployed personnel.

Rick Larson, Lt Col, CAP
Sq/CC, Sioux Falls Comp Sq. SD Wing
MP/MO/MS/SDCEM
Mitchell # unk
SMSgt, USAF

[lordmonar]

Changing who we fall under...would mean a change in where our money comes from.

Under AETC our cadet program, DDR, AE all fall under the big AETC/AU umbrella.  If we fell under ACC all the time it may be problematical for funding those things that ACC does not care about.

ACC would fund all our missions....because they would have to pay big bucks to do the same mission with USAF platforms.  But ACC could decide to pull CD/AE/DDR funding in a tight budget year if they "needed" the cash of ACC stuff.

Here is an example.

Back in the day communications fell under AFCC.  Some bright Chief of Staff decided that he wanted everyone on his bases to belong to the wing commanders.  The very first year.....the MAJCOMs diverted millions of comm infrastructure/maintenance dollars to pay for flying hours.  At my unit we ran out of money six months before the close out of the fiscal year.  AETC has the power to protect our (CAP's) money from over spending MAJCOMs...but 1AF does not have the same control as a MAJCOM.  If another numbered AF needed the money sitting around in 1AF's coffer (to pay for say a NCSA or Free Uniforms) then that money would simply disappear.

[DNall]

As a matter of clarity, Chief, NGB is now a bluesuit ANG guy. Gen Craig McKinley is now the boss. By the way, many states have a "blue" TAG, including mine. It is a non-issue for CAP, as even states with a "green" TAG have an Asst AG for Air thet is always "blue". I believe the ANG-CAP relationship is the way to go, organizationally and operationally. Our unit does a great deal with the ANG, from low-level route surveys resulting in 50-75 hours of flying each year to intercept training to assisting with family support and airshows. We are also beginning the augmentation program soon on UTA weekends, covering several slots for deployed personnel.

I'm aware Gen McKinley is ANG, but the great majority of NGB is not, which is also the case within states. The ANG is also currently moving a lot of fighter wings to predators, and the Army side is picking up a lot of UAVs too. And again, ANG works for NGB moreso than AF. You get a lot of divergent priorities & competitive influences dealing with AF, NGB, ARNG, governors, etc. You might as well transfer CAP to DHS for as close as they'd be to AF under that arrangement. In fact, that would make far more sense, but then it would erase CP/AE, the military end of CAP, and some of our ES mission in exchange for stuff civilian volunteers should never be involved in, so no net gain of mission.

Basically, CAP is in the best place already. The problems and limitations on CAP have nothing to do with where we are in the AF/govt structure. They have everything to do with how jacked up CAP is internally - both the nature of our volunteer membership and our own internal structure.

[isuhawkeye]

dont forget that in order to make these proposed changes you would have to fin d champions within all entities involved.  these champions would need to work hard to politic for any move.  Unfortunately I dont think that there are enough highly placed officials who care enough about CAP to take on this type of challenge

[O-Rex]

I can appreciate the insider's view from a CAP operational perspective.  I too am an Ops-centric member.  But sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.  Take a step back for a moment, look at our organization as a whole from the outside: two of our three missions are educational in nature.

Would it be nice to be under a USAF operational command, but if you're looking at CAP from the view high up in the DeptAF food chain, the choice is obvious

[RiverAux]

Under AETC our cadet program, DDR, AE all fall under the big AETC/AU umbrella.  If we fell under ACC all the time it may be problematical for funding those things that ACC does not care about.

How is that any different from our current situation where the majority of our budget (apparently going through AETC) is going for operational missions while only a minority is for cadet programs.  Switching that equation to having the majority of our funding coming from ACC for operations and having a minority going towards CP/AE would make more logical sense. 

[lordmonar]

Under AETC our cadet program, DDR, AE all fall under the big AETC/AU umbrella.  If we fell under ACC all the time it may be problematical for funding those things that ACC does not care about.

How is that any different from our current situation where the majority of our budget (apparently going through AETC) is going for operational missions while only a minority is for cadet programs.  Switching that equation to having the majority of our funding coming from ACC for operations and having a minority going toward CP/AE would make more logical sense. 

The difference is that AETC who controls our appropriated budget is not usually affected by surges in operations.  They have a very stable OPSTEMPO so they can plan better.  ACC on the other hand can be hit with a contingency or decide to send a squadron to some joint exercise that they did not plan for.  When that happens they have to find the money from somewhere.  MAJCOM HQ's control all of their subordinate units money.  It is easier to "steal" from ACC Peter to pay ACC Paul then it is to steal from AETC Peter to pay for ACC Paul.

Internally within CAP we always run the risk of AU diverting AE/CP money to ES....but because we ususally do a pretty good job of planning and funding for ES we don't have to do that very often.  If we do take a hit we usually will steal from ES training before digging too deeply into CP/AE funds.

The key point I am trying to make is that our current OVERLORDS understand and support all three of our missions, they are not as subject to changes in OPSTEMPO.  So we win because a) AETC is not as likely to need extra cash as ACC would, b) AETC values our CP/AE and ES missions more then ACC would, c) AETC is more likely to feed us competant officers at CAP-USAF than ACC would (what fighter jock wants to be in charge of CAP  ).

[heliodoc]

What is wrong with current AU/ AETC setup as it is?

Like mentioned before.... Wanna a real change?  Put it under DHS as is USCG, CBP etc for enforcement; CERT, VIPS, etc for volunteerism and grants..

Maybe then every one in CAP who needs to be up on ICS courses would have to be long before now...

Then CAP would have to fall under a true credentialing system like swiftwater rescue and others.

Some of that real fire and training could be, in some CAP'ers dream, a real Hawk Mountain experience

So maybe we need to start that rumor.... AF getting rid of CAP and getting absorbed by DHS!!!!

Or could that happen??

[ThorntonOL]

Not unless they change the law.

[heliodoc]

^^^^

Yep and look at how fast laws were changed to bring on DHS and its absorption of agencies...

Could happen with CAP , too..

[FW]

Hey, guys.  Nice conversation.  However, our appropriated funding goes through AETC; not comes from AETC.   If "we" were "transfered" to ACC or, any other AF command, things would remain basically the same.  It would be CAP-USAF which would be transferred, not CAP.   Remember, Civil Air Patrol is a civilian nonprofit corporation.  We are, like it or not, a civilian organization which receives federal funding.  Our relationship with the Air Force is solid and, if the SECAF or CSAF wants to put CAP-USAF into another command, it probably won't make any difference to us.  I think the better argument would be; who should the CAP-USAF/CC report to.  Right now, he/she reports to the AU commander (a 3 star).  IMHO, it may be more logical to have them report to a 1 star slot.  The more AF generals on our side the better.

[heliodoc]

FW

Good explanation...

Some folks here will argue the civilian non profit and round it out about being about the military and all that non combatant vs non combatant "stuff"

But yours is a short and concise, what appears to be reality

I had better watch it, the flaming will proceed or everyone will put a spin on it

[RiverAux]

It would be CAP-USAF which would be transferred, not CAP.   

True, as was mentioned in the first paragraph of this thread.  Everyone understands that and we've obviously been using "CAP" as a shorthand for CAP-USAF. 

What is wrong with current AU/ AETC setup as it is?

Read the opening post for my justifications.  I don't really argue that something is specifically wrong, rather that things would be better under 1st AF. 

[FW]

River, we "all" may understand that however, from the majority of the posts, there may be some confusion on how we (CAP) would operate or get our money or change our priorities.

I'm just making the point it won't.  However, I understand your first premise; it just won't make a difference to CAP.  Remember, there is an office at the Pentagon which has the responsibility of working the relationship between the Auxiliary and the Air Force.  It's this office which has the ear of the CSAF.  And, it is this office which can affect us most.

[RiverAux]

As far as general policy and "strategic" considerations, you're probably right about that.  However, I am thinking of more (for lack of a better word) "tactical" considerations regarding current operations within the US.   

[ELTHunter]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

A bit better fit than a STATE DEFENSE FORCE model. 

AFRC only has a FEDERAL mission while the ANG has both a FEDERAL and a STATE mission.

The ANG model is a much better fit to CAP especially since 2000 when the Aux On/Aux Off came about.

I'm all for getting some "adult" supervision for CAP, Lord knows we could use it.

However, doesn't the Guard only have a Federal mission when they are activated?  Full timers are state employees?  My concern with being under a Fed/State duel organization would be that non Federal activities of CAP would not be supported.

[ELTHunter]

As far as general policy and "strategic" considerations, you're probably right about that.  However, I am thinking of more (for lack of a better word) "tactical" considerations regarding current operations within the US.   

Tactically, why not put us under the same command as AFRCC since that's who we usually work for any way?

[RiverAux]

That is what I've suggested....AFRCC is under 1st Air Force.

[smj58501]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

A bit better fit than a STATE DEFENSE FORCE model. 

AFRC only has a FEDERAL mission while the ANG has both a FEDERAL and a STATE mission.

The ANG model is a much better fit to CAP especially since 2000 when the Aux On/Aux Off came about.

I'm all for getting some "adult" supervision for CAP, Lord knows we could use it.

However, doesn't the Guard only have a Federal mission when they are activated?  Full timers are state employees?  My concern with being under a Fed/State duel organization would be that non Federal activities of CAP would not be supported.

The Guard has a federal mission when they go on title 10, most often for deployment overseas. The rest of the time they are in title 32 status, or under the control of their respective Governor. For state emergencies they are often activated under state active duty, and become basically temporary employees of their state.

A dual status identity would work just fine for CAP. Those activities under a "Federal" status (for AFRCC, for eg) would remain unchanged. Those activites of CAP under the direction of the Governor would simply have to be supported by a state, just like any other state agency, and just like the NG when they are on State Active Duty. If their response is part of a disaster that ends up with a Presidential Declaration under the Stafford Act, a large percentage of the states response costs (incl CAP) could be picked up by FEMA.

Bottom line is a dual status identity can only increase the ways we can support our community, and increase our relevance as an organization. Will there be challenges... of course. But there always are when you are trying to evolve and improve