Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 11:12:31 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:05:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 10:48:59 PM
The proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.

Except for Falcon Virgo, Green Flag, AFRCC, et at.   
The real test of the USAF's appreciation comes in the form of funding.   

I said we get ELTs, you're little party doesn't count, it's not a typical CAP mission, and
is a non-starter for the vast majority of CAP members.  You and I both also know that the
make up of the units involved isn't exactly "typical", either.

You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

Sure we pick the cream of the crop for some of those special missions.....but again....the USAF know that we do have that caliber of people in our organization....so again.....it does count.   And for the record.....Green Flag is open to everyone....just go to the link fill out the paper work and commit to the training.

I don't know what more do you want.    They fund us for our ES mission, they buy us aircraft, they buy us vans, they buy us comm gear, they fund our CP and AE program.   They ask us to come help with their missions.....they don't have do that.  They could contract it all out.   They could say to hell with us and start doing their own in-land SAR missions.  But they don't.

Again...and once and for all......the USAF does appreciate us.  Sure...as some will point out....all the freebies we used to get from our local USAF base have gone away....but that's because all those freebies went away for the USAF guys as well.   But we are still supported. 

Master Sergeant:

One aspect I believe you overlook is the fact that your unit is based on one of the largest and most active bases in the USAF.  Compare where most squadrons are based - schools, small general aviation airports, perhaps an ArNG armoury or maybe an ANG/AFRES installation - to where you are based.  You are in the thick of things, so to speak.  I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."

It is easy for someone in your position, based on a very active AFB, to (as they say) "feel the love," while a unit meeting in a cramped facility at a civilian airport that cannot even accommodate having our full complement of seniors and cadets there at the same time, never even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).  There are no active AF installations in my wing/state, and you have a hike to an ANGB if you want to go to MCSS (and if the civilian contractors on the gate will let you in).

Regarding funding, I know little of financial matters (I cannot even balance a chequebook), but I would wager that a large, active unit on a large, active AFB is a much better candidate for generous funding than the little squadron meeting at Jerkwater Landing Ground.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 09, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."

And now that the restrictions and the situations have improved over the years, those same units should be working with their State Directors to get themselves back on those installations.  They should have really been working on that a decade ago.  However, from my own experience, when an armory or base refused to let a CAP unit back on, it was usually due to a long road of bad circumstances.  If it was not that, it was then due to BRAC and they were cramming units onto an Air National Guard base and physically had no room for any extras.  Either way, even with FBI background checks, LEO, and former DoD security clearances, the primary focus of the DoD then was security of its resources.  It had nothing to do with not trusting their own Auxiliary, but everything to do with security of its warfighting resources.

Quotenever even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).

Invite them.  I have invited my CAP-RAP and the Wing Liaison Officer/State Director numerous times to my squadron.  The CAP-RAP was usually invited to weekend activities.  If the SD could, he would fly out, grab dinner together, go to the unit meeting, grab some coffee, and he would depart.  If you have not seen him/her, then ask.

Heck, our Liaison Officer was the officer that swore me into the Army.  You can imagine how much grief I got from Army ROTC and AFROTC about having a USAF Lt Col instead of an Army officer. 

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

One could argue it is much a matter of convenience and economics as preference and appreciation.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 03:50:41 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

One could argue it is much a matter of convenience and economics as preference and appreciation.

I don't know how much more you want.    I guess it would be nice to get the cherry on top of your sundae....some of us see the ice cream and brownie as appreciation. 

Quote from: CyBorg on January 09, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
Master Sergeant:

One aspect I believe you overlook is the fact that your unit is based on one of the largest and most active bases in the USAF.  Compare where most squadrons are based - schools, small general aviation airports, perhaps an ArNG armoury or maybe an ANG/AFRES installation - to where you are based.  You are in the thick of things, so to speak.  I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."

I'm not going to defend the military's reaction to 9/11, because quite frankly they lost their fricking minds that day and have never really fixed it.   Ever Since Kobar Towers FORCE PROTECTION is a never to be contradicted watch word.   Even if it is dumb as hell and is next to useless.   

QuoteIt is easy for someone in your position, based on a very active AFB, to (as they say) "feel the love," while a unit meeting in a cramped facility at a civilian airport that cannot even accommodate having our full complement of seniors and cadets there at the same time, never even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).

Again....what more do you want?   Did your wing have an encampment?  Was it on an AF base?  I know NVWG's was.   I know a lot of them are.   

Yes....the CAP-RAPs are getting far and few between.....but unless you missed it...the USAF is going through another....another force reduction.  The USAF is half the size it was in 1985 (the year I first joined CAP).   Of course losing 1/2 your manning is going to affect the number of "free" people we can loan out to CAP.

QuoteThere are no active AF installations in my wing/state, and you have a hike to an ANGB if you want to go to MCSS (and if the civilian contractors on the gate will let you in).

So the USAF needs to show appreciation to CAP by putting a base in your state?  BRAC has nothing to do with with appreciation.

QuoteRegarding funding, I know little of financial matters (I cannot even balance a chequebook), but I would wager that a large, active unit on a large, active AFB is a much better candidate for generous funding than the little squadron meeting at Jerkwater Landing Ground.

I don't get any funding from the USAF.   I get the use of a few rooms in a building that is slated to be destroyed (as soon as they get the funding).   I get use of the Airman Leadership School facility....and have a great relationship with them.   We are in the same boat as every other squadron.  We have to beg, borrow and steal for facilities....and we got to jump through a lot of hoops to keep access to the base.

But again.....what more do you want from the USAF?
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".

No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 07:53:39 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".

No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.

You really might want to brush up on the way CAP is funded before saying that.

However with that said, I don't even know WTH we're discussing here any more.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 08:04:01 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 07:53:39 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".

No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.

You really might want to brush up on the way CAP is funded before saying that.

However with that said, I don't even know WTH we're discussing here any more.

I do know how the budget process works.   Our appropriations is through the Department of the Air Force as part of the Armed Forces Appropriations Bill.   

My point is the USAF does appreciate us.   It shows that appreciation by continuing to ask congress to fund us.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 08:18:15 PMIt shows that appreciation by continuing to ask congress to fund us.

They don't have the option not to, CAP exists via a public law, not the USAF's whim, and the appropriated funds,
per that law, are restricted to CAP use.

If the USAF wanted to dissolve CAP, they would need to go to do more then just "not ask for money".

I don't think I said the USAF doesn't "appreciate" CAP, many USAF personnel are or were members, owe the
beginnings of their military careers to a start in the cadet program, and / or are still currently garnering a
comfortable living from CAP.  "Appreciation" doesn not equal being considered "one team".

CAP serves a purpose, and presumably the ROI still exceeds its cost, ergo "appreciated", and of course
like any other compassionate parents and leaders, when USAF leadership are in the presence of CAP members they are
nice and understand the effort and spirit of the average member.  I have never met any USAF personnel (or any
military for that matter) who were anything but professional, appreciative, and helpful in regards to CAP.

Few people I know joined CAP to be "appreciated" by the USAF, they joined to serve their communities and
have their free time go towards a better purpose then riding the couch.  They also didn't join just to maintain
status quo and march in a circle.

I think a large number of members would trade "appreciated" for "overworked", and I'd further hazard that
a majority of members would like to see some "tough love" from the USAF rather the "appreciation".

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
I don't think I said the USAF doesn't "appreciate" CAP, many USAF personnel are or were members, owe the
beginnings of their military careers to a start in the cadet program, and / or are still currently garnering a
comfortable living from CAP.  "Appreciation" doesn not equal being considered "one team".

You said

QuoteThe proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.

So make up your mind. 

Fair enough.

Many USAF personnel, on a personal level, understand and appreciate CAP people and what they do.

Organizationally, and from a doctrinal perspective, it would appear that CAP is simply a contractor with an acceptable ROI.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PMDid your wing have an encampment?  Was it on an AF base?  I know NVWG's was.

No it wasn't. It was on a Nevada National Guard facility because Nellis said they could not support them. Nellis has not supported an Encampment for a number of years now.

I was just wondering why the ribbons were different...

Quote from: JC004 on January 10, 2015, 02:57:19 AM
I was just wondering why the ribbons were different...

Because they're a bunch of non-conformists!!!

It's possible they just never thought to look up this before...   

uni·form adjective \ˈyü-nə-ˌfȯrm\
1   :  having always the same form, manner, or degree :  not varying or variable <uniform procedures> 2   :  consistent in conduct or opinion <uniform interpretation of laws> 3   :  of the same form with others :  conforming to one rule or mode  4   :  presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color <uniform red brick houses>

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PMI have never seen a book on the Disaster Services of the Red Cross, but it seems they can still change as needed to be relevant as the world changes, the same is true of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Community Emergency Response Team movement, and the Boy Scouts of America.  I have seen books on their founding, but not a retrospective on what they have done for the last several decades.  Perhaps its because they wish to concentrate on actual adaptation to current operational needs, perhaps its because they don't have historians, I don't know.

The Auxiliary has a Historian's office but unfortunately it is tied to the Public Affairs department. That tends to color a lot of what they do and maybe more importantly what they don't cover or don't research.

For example, the Aux has lost several members in at least 7 duty related aviation accidents. The members "Still On Patrol" are well known and have several monuments in their memory. The Aux has also lost several members in duty related boating deaths. However, there is no known memorial to them. Nor has any of multiple requests to the National Historian for their names ever been answered.

There are three known books published about the Auxiliary. Only the middle one would qualify as a real history.

Weinberg, Ellsworth A. The Volunteers: The Story of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary National Board, Inc., 1986).

Written by a past National Commodore (NACO) of the Auxiliary and published by the USCG Auxiliary Association, Inc. A hagiographic portrayal of the Aux. It also takes the history of the WWII USCG Temporary Reserves (TRs) as part of the history of the Auxiliary. The TRs were part of the military USCG and not part of the Auxiliary. This "confusion" of history caused many problems for the Aux as it definitely confused Auxies as to their history in WWII. This book may still be available through the USCG Aux.

Tilley, John A. The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary: A History 1939-1999. Published by the US Coast Guard and sold through US Government Printing Office. It is out of print.

This is a commissioned historical work by a well-known historian for the 60th anniversary of the Auxiliary. It was not well received by the Aux hierarchy since it exposed some of the not so great things in the Aux's past and cast doubt on its ability to grow into the future. It is the best of the three regarding the Auxiliary.

United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Turner Publishing.  Coffee table picture book for the 65th anniversary. I have never seen this book. I don't remember any comments regarding it on any Aux board. It doesn't seem to have garnished much interest among the Bilge Mice Auxies. The book is out of print. The following blurb is from the publishers web site.

"This US Coast Guard Auxiliary Historical Volume chronicles the history and dedication of our nation's men and women who volunteer their time assisting the U.S. Coast Guard in various missions. This book will highlight the 65 years of being the nation's number one organization dedicated to boating safety. This book will also include the assimilation of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary into the Department of Homeland Security. This FULL COLOR "coffee-table" volume will be a great addition to the library of any boating enthusiast or USCG Auxiliary member."

Last year was the 75th anniversary of the Auxiliary. Other than a commendation from the USCG, which every member received, nothing really significant took place.