Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

[D242]

I think you have to look at the psychology of why organizations, such as the military, sports teams, etc. issue uniforms in the first place. It has to do with creating the mindset that one is no longer an individual, but a part of something greater. That's essential to accomplishing the mission in many cases, particularly when one is asked to place one's life in danger. If you think about it, it's the same reason that proper wear of the uniform is stressed in the Cadet program--it helps to create the mindset.

The CAP of 1941 was composed of civilians, but they were being asked to perform in a military manner, so the uniform was an essential part of that. (I'm sure that was a whole lot bigger factor than the possibility of one of them being taken prisoner by a U-boat.)

What is sad, and counter-productive to the credibility of an organization such as CAP, is that just as sports fans will wear their team's uniform, in an effort to grab part of the glory of that particular 'something greater', I think that there are some CAP members that see the uniform, and use it, for the same purpose.

[N Harmon]

It is about the current situation at CAP.

You said you wanted "a discussion of how to change the course of the current direction."

But that begs the question: Are we currently moving in the wrong direction?

Because I don't think we are. I think our current leadership has seen to that.

[Eclipse]

The CAP of 1941 was composed of civilians, but they were being asked to perform in a military manner, so the uniform was an essential part of that. (I'm sure that was a whole lot bigger factor than the possibility of one of them being taken prisoner by a U-boat.)

The CAP of 1941 was comprised of members who, for whatever reason, were not serving in the military during a time when nearly >every< able-bodied man in the country was fighting, training, or coming home.

A uniform was a significantly important indicator of masculinity, and many young men joined, fought, and died specifically to get one.

The ability to wear a military-style uniform >and< serve your country in a meaningful role despite whatever kept one out of the active services cannot be discounted, then >or< today.

[D242]

A uniform was a significantly important indicator of masculinity, and many young men joined, fought, and died specifically to get one.

The ability to wear a military-style uniform >and< serve your country in a meaningful role despite whatever kept one out of the active services cannot be discounted, then >or< today.

Ok, lemme make sure I'm reading this correctly....

To join, for the purpose of getting a military style uniform, and thus bolstering one's masculinity, is part of the grand tradition of CAP?   

I guess that does make it hard to argue with that portion of today's members that do it...

(BTW this >thing< you do to add emphasis is even harder on the eyes than random  bold.) 

[Eclipse]

To join, for the purpose of getting a military style uniform, and thus bolstering one's masculinity, is part of the grand tradition of CAP?

Its part of the reality of the military and part of our history, no one said it was a grand tradition, it is what it is, and still happens today.

[D242]

I'm curious (and I wonder whether anyone else thinks this might be true too), how membership would suffer if the USAF suddenly took away their uniforms, and left CAP to only its corporate varieties?

[lordmonar]

Several posters here have emphatically stated they would quit CAP if we lost the USAF style uniform and moved to corporates only.

[DeputyDog]

But I will tell you this.  I do think the CAP needs uniforms.  I have no problem with that.  In fact I think it is important.  My problem is when it takes precedence over everything else.

Do our uniform policies take precedence over everything else? How so?

[Whocares]

I'm curious (and I wonder whether anyone else thinks this might be true too), how membership would suffer if the USAF suddenly took away their uniforms, and left CAP to only its corporate varieties?

The best example I guess for CAP would be NBB.  What happened to NBB when NHQ took away the beret?  Let us face it, a number of people join CAP for the pride of the uniform.  Youngesters want to wear a "military" uniform.  Some adults want to wear a "military" uniform because they were not able to with the actual military.

On the other hand, comparing CAP uniforms to military uniforms is like comparing apples and oranges to me.  Military uniforms had a purpose that helped in direct combat.  The uniforms allowed field commanders to easily identify where their units were (hence the brightness of the uniform).  Now they allow for the purpose of camoflauge and concealment.  Sure there were others reasons, but those are among the primary reasons.  

CAP has neither of those, but it does have the ability to create a sense of pride, something to get behind.  One that the organization can use to its advantage--recruitment.  

Without really caring who said what and who did what, I think we all need to take a step back and think about this.  Obviously, Civilian_Pilot has hit a nerve.  We all take the organization seriously and to our hearts because we have spent money and time into it.  We do not want to see it knocked by someone.  Thus, we take a defensive posture.  

Now Civilian_Pilot, a non-member has taken things that have been said on these forums and past experiences with CAP to develop his own idea.  This does speak volumes to us about professionalism.  This is a prime example.  This board speaks to the public for CAP, whether we or NHQ likes it or not.  Thus, the way we conduct ourselves is going to give an impressions (right or wrong) to those non-members what CAP is like.  This is to not say we should not ask about particular problems and help, but the way we ask and respond to those questions is important.  Both sides of the issue have given very arrogant and unprofessional responses.

In the military, officers and NCOs should not talk about their superiors or leaders around or to their soldiers.  This creates problems because you are now undermining your leadership.  In essence, this is what CAPtalk.net, cadetstuff.org, and other forums have happen.  We talk about how bad the squadron, wing, region, and national commanders are.  Stupid policies that need to destroyed.  How bad the cadet program at Squadron X, Y, Z has failed and why.  What ever have you.  

I as a general public does not want to step into an organization that is weak and rebuilding.  Look at military recruiting posters and commericals.  What do you get from those?  A sense of duty and pride in an organization that is strong.  Does the military have problems?  Oh hell yes and I know about the cases of 1SG getting soldiers pregnant, soldiers having drug dealers in the barracks, and officers committing adultery.  The military tries not to present that side to the general public.  Does the public know it happens?  Yes of course.  But in recruiting posters and commericals, we walk away as those things never happen in the military.  That every day in the military is perfect and that every leader is perfect.  The military has since been pushing forums discussing military items to be put behind lock and key.  Platoonleader.org and Companycommander.org are prime examples, you now have to have a .mil address to register so that issues and items can be discussed privately.  

What we should take away from this thread is the fact of how we present ourselves to the public?  Are Civilian_Pilots' conclusions wrong?  Sure some of them are.  But ask yourselves, why are they wrong?  What image have we given to him/her?  Is that the image we are presenting to the local public and media?  



What I believe Civilian_Pilot is trying to say, although misguided, is:  What happens to CAP when we put other items before the main 3 missions?  Has CAP put uniforms ahead of the Cadet Program, Aerospace Education, and ES?  How many uniform changes have we seen in the last few years?  Have we seen this many changes with the ES doctrine?  AE doctrine?  Cadet Program doctrine?  Are we hurting ourselves by loosing focus on what is really important to CAP?  Should we put more emphasis on correctly training the leadership of CAP than making changes to our uniforms or to the way the vans should look or the correct decal on the airplanes?  I am serious, I do nto know how many changes I have seen to the decals for the aircraft in the time I have been in.  

If we put as much energy or more energy into training our squadron commanders then changing our uniforms, how many things would correct themselves?  

[cap801]

When I switched to senior membership, I joined the IT specialty track.  The online (and quite dead) forum site for the IT track required that you send the administration a screenshot of your eServices page so they could validate you really were in the IT track, and then you could register and view the forums.

As much of a pain as that was, I think this (and other) threads demonstrate why it's a pretty useful thing.  People such as Civilian Pilot who aren't actually members of this organization but come in here and try to tell everyone how it needs to be run raise some questions in my mind.  First of all, how do these people find the time to pursue the (according to them) monumental task of improving a volunteer organization to which they do not belong?  C_P clearly spends a fair amount of time writing his posts with coherent thoughts and punctuation (not to mention all of those bold tags).  Which I think is great as far as general writing habits are concerned, but honestly, isn't this forum, and all of us, a colossal waste of his time?  Given the credentials he's offered, he must be a busy guy, traveling all over the world to countries where we can't operate airplanes.  That's also probably why he doesn't have time to poop off in CAP.  So why is he posting here?

Moreover, I just really think that being able to talk about how to improve this organization requires a person to spend a little time in this organization first.  I think this goes along the same line of logic that prevents people who aren't (insert your favorite country here) citizens from voting in (insert same country) elections.

To this specific topic:  Why does the "Credibility of the CAP" need saving?  Where is the data that indicates we don't have "Credibility" anymore?  I understand that many people (C_P included) like to base opinions about this organization on how they perceive things.  I don't.  I like data.  So, as the adage goes, "Show me the bodies."

C_P, I think we all appreciate help in trying to improve our organization, but given that there's very little in this thread, I think you're probably wasting your valuable time.  If you don't volunteer already, I highly suggest joining an organization that suits your interests (service clubs like Rotary, organizations like the United Way, whatever you like), and remember that you'll get out of it what you put in.  I spent way more time volunteering this past year (my senior year of high school) than I ever should have simply because I was trying to pad my resume sufficiently to get into Notre Dame (guess it worked).  So don't spread yourself too thin.

Best of luck,
Jay

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Well I was the one who stated core mission but I really should have stated primary function/expression of the core reason for the CAP.

What I mean by this is that the CAP is an organization to promote aviation; a aviation Boy Scouts.  All the training, programs, ideals and even uniforms come together in the greatest task that CAP functions:  Search and Rescue.

Does that clarify what I misstated?

"Aviation Boy Scouts"? WTF planet are you from?

CAP is NOT like the Scouts. The Cadet Program is 1/3 of our mission, and at that, it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP.

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

To everyone on the board: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. Stay classy, San Diego.

[jb512]

I grew up as a dependent and it's very hard to explain to civilians how the military career lifestyle is for soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines.

A uniform is not an option for the military and as members of their auxiliary, it shouldn't be either.  People who join organizations like ours do it because they are somehow unable, unwilling, or otherwise not in an active or reserve branch of the U.S. military so they volunteer their time to do what we do.

That is a very noble action, but if you're going to be in an auxiliary and help out, you need to study up on the uniforms we wear and make sure that you're in compliance.  It's only fair.

[sarflyer]

Hey buckeye! Watch your mouth!

[wuzafuzz]

People who join organizations like ours do it because they are somehow unable, unwilling, or otherwise not in an active or reserve branch of the U.S. military so they volunteer their time to do what we do.

There are many reasons people volunteer their time to CAP.  To suggest we are all here because we are either unable or unwilling to serve in the military is simply inaccurate and unfairly colors the organization as nothing more than "wannabe's."  Does that explain the motivations of some?  Sure it does.  Does it cover all of us?  Of course not.

CAP has something to offer for all kinds of people.  Some of us join to provide a community service, some to fly, perhaps DDR calls to others, the list goes on.  CAP offers some unique opportunities and some people merely accept the military style culture/uniforms as the cost of coming out to "play." 

[afgeo4]

Honest question, CP:

What makes you think search and rescue is, has ever been, or needs to be the core focus of the organization?

Well I was the one who stated core mission but I really should have stated primary function/expression of the core reason for the CAP.

What I mean by this is that the CAP is an organization to promote aviation; a aviation Boy Scouts.  All the training, programs, ideals and even uniforms come together in the greatest task that CAP functions:  Search and Rescue.

Does that clarify what I misstated?

"Aviation Boy Scouts"? WTF planet are you from?

CAP is NOT like the Scouts. The Cadet Program is 1/3 of our mission, and at that, it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP.

This was a war-born organization. Cadets came later. I take the "Scouts" comment as an insult.

To everyone on the board: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. Stay classy, San Diego.

Buckeye... given that you're a member of the National Public Affairs staff, I would encourage you to change your statement to something that falls in line with NHQ's view and vision of CAP.

The Cadet Program IS 1/3 of our mission, but why do you say it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP? The majority of CAP members are involved in Cadet Programs you know.

Also, check your history because the Cadet Program didn't come about later. It too came about during WW2 as an Army Air Corps feeder program where the youth were instructed by CAP in basic flying so they could go on to Army undergraduate combat pilot training and off to war.

Thirdly, being a Scout is no shame. The Boy and Girl scouts of America are great organizations that turn out great citizens. They turn out young men and women capable of helping this nation instead of being a burden on it. They turn out fine leaders. I am sad that I wasn't a member of such an organization when I was younger, but such was my personal upbringing. Many CAP units are dual chartered with the Boy Scouts of America actually.

Please refrain from biased comments on this board. Especially when you sign it as a member of NHQ PA Staff. Otherwise, be prepared for your comments to make it up the chain to the national director of Public Affairs and deal with him.

Furthermore, please check and correct your signature (if you must have one) so it complies with CAP regulations. Check USAF Tongue & Quill for reference. What you have now is definitely not correct.

[Eclipse]

The Cadet Program IS 1/3 of our mission, but why do you say it isn't the first thing you should think of when you think of CAP? The majority of CAP members are involved in Cadet Programs you know.

Because it misstates the situation.

The BSA is an organization specifically for youth. All adults in the program are focused on the execution of that mission.
You cannot join the BSA without being fully involved with children and adolescents, and that is the fundamental understanding and image to the public.  It is the core of recruiting, and also the core of many people steering clear.

CAP is a service organization which has a youth-organization component.  Thousands of members serve their entire CAP careers without ever encountering a cadet, which is fine as long as it serves the overall mission.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

OK, OK, I surrender. Yip, should've not gone off half-cocked. Still, on this board, the comments I make are mine and mine alone.

Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

I was incredulous last night when I read through this topic. No, Scouts aren't a bad thing at all, but they're not us. We offer many things Scouting doesn't, and I think our cadets are a cut above. To say that we're the "aviation Boy Scouts" does no justice at all to what CAP really is and does every day. It trivializes two missions of ours that have just as much weight as the cadet program.

Whomever civilian_pilot is, he's a troll. Let's not feed him anymore.

[Al Sayre]

You know we aren't the only one's that spend time debating uniforms...

http://www.afblues.com/?p=402#comments

[Eclipse]

Someone said my signature on this board means I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Not at all. The signature on a chat board identifies me, and tells people here what I do. I don't think you can hold anyone on a chat board to anything more than that. Also, my signature here doesn't have to be Tongue And Quill-correct. This site doesn't serve as official correspondence. It's a friggin' chat site, for crying out loud.

If I were speaking for someone else, or for higher headquarters, I'd be doing so in a different venue. Sorry, folks, if you thought otherwise.

Sorry, Buck, I gotta go with afg on this.  I don't think the format matters to anyone, but the listing of staff positions is only there as an indicator of BTDT for credibility, and conversely you have to accept that if you say it linked to listing who you "are", you are open to getting tapped by higher HQ.

You can't have it both ways.

BTW - what is this thread about, anyway?

[Eclipse]

You know we aren't the only one's that spend time debating uniforms...

http://www.afblues.com/?p=402#comments

Flightsuit = "adult onesies"  THAT'S AWESOME!   :clap: