CAP ignored in AF history of Katrina operations

[RiverAux]

This is a link to an AF historical study entitled The U.S. Air Force Response to Hurricane Katrina, published in 2006 by the AF Historical Research Agency http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/short_studies/TheUSAFResponseToHurricaneKatrina.pdf

Don't we even rate a mention?  The study says the AF, evidently not including CAP, flew almost 4,100 fixed-wing sorties on Katrina-related missions.  Well, CAP flew almost 900.  Seems like this is a pretty significant part of the response. 

Just what are the CAP national historians doing to make sure the AF doesn't forget about us?  Do we at least send them copies of the Volunteer for their files on the off chance they might read them every now and again and use them? 

For heavens sake, they're part of the Air University, just like us. 

[mikeylikey]

They even downplayed the Coast Guard role.  Face it, they don't respect CAP enough to include us as part of the "total force".  That's OK.  I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.

[SJFedor]

Eh, I wouldnt get too worked up about it. It's really a paper on what USAF units played and what they did. It is kinda weak that we were left out though.

I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.

That wouldn't be too bad. That's where the big funding is.

[JayT]

Eh, I wouldnt get too worked up about it. It's really a paper on what USAF units played and what they did. It is kinda weak that we were left out though.

I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.

That wouldn't be too bad. That's where the big funding is.

Except.......ya know........there goes all of the guys who join for the military aspect........and..........those twenty thousand or so cadets we have around.........

[ZigZag911]

That's OK.  I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.

The only thing worse, in my view, than an unappreciative bureaucracy, is an inexperienced unappreciative bureaucracy!

I'm not so sure DHS would be loads and loads of fun....

[John Bryan]

As for the DHS....I just got down reading a report on how the Federal Protective Service has been hurt by the move to DHS.  Seems most officers would like to return to the GSA. We all know how FEMA has suffered under DHS.

I for one would not want to see us go to DHS. In fact as a tax payer I question the need for a DHS. Secret Service was fine in the Dept of Treasury, USCG was fine in DOT, FPS was fine in GSA....I think it was a knee jerk reaction.

Anyway.....back to the issue if we were ever to leave the USAF the only other federal agency which would make a good parent for CAP would be the US DOT. Our education missions (AE & CP) are transportation focused and most of our ES is aviation focused. Outside DOD, DOT is one of the few federal departments that has had a history with a uniform service.

BUT.....I don't think it is that broke....so why fix it. There is no need to look for a new parent or step-parent.....USAF is the best fit.

As for why we were left out of the publication...we are not the AIR FORCE we are the CAP.....maybe we should write our own book 

[A.Member]

BUT.....I don't think it is that broke....so why fix it. There is no need to look for a new parent or step-parent.....USAF is the best fit.

As for why we were left out of the publication...we are not the AIR FORCE we are the CAP.....maybe we should write our own book 

Agreed 100%!

[isuhawkeye]

since we are on the topic

fyi.  the coast guard aux was not only recognised by their parent entity, but a presidential unit citation was awarded

[RiverAux]

Well, actually the entire Coast Guard, including the Aux, was given this award.  It wasn't really a CG decision.  That being said, the CG never loses a chance to recognize its Auxiliary while the AF never takes advantage of one. 

[SAR-EMT1]

Well, actually the entire Coast Guard, including the Aux, was given this award.  It wasn't really a CG decision.  That being said, the CG never loses a chance to recognize its Auxiliary while the AF never takes advantage of one. 

And that my fellows is why the two of us are dual hatters !

[JohnKachenmeister]

We hashed out this issue a while back, and I don't think we came to any co nsensus.  There are adavantages and disadvantages to placing CAP under DHS as sort of a "Flying Coast Guard," and I don't really know if we decided what outweighs which.

[afgeo4]

Two thoughts:

1. USCG Auxiliary is a direct reporting unit to USCG. They are simply a part of it.
2. Although I can see why USAF wanted to write a book about what they did (they did do a good job) and I can see why they may not have included us into it (gives the reader a clearer picture of what USAF itself did) and I am all for CAP writing its own book, I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?

[mikeylikey]

I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?

That is a good question.  Actually......where the crap is CAP-USAF on a lot of things is a better question.  Or how long does an AF Colonel actually let his career die at CAP-USAF?

My favorite of course......CAP-USAF, whats that??

[afgeo4]

I must ask... where was CAP-USAF on this? Isn't that exactly what they're there for?

That is a good question.  Actually......where the crap is CAP-USAF on a lot of things is a better question.  Or how long does an AF Colonel actually let his career die at CAP-USAF?

My favorite of course......CAP-USAF, whats that??

Hey... I don't support CAP-USAF bashing in general. I'm sure their HQ are working hard on the VSAF program and many others. I also know that their NYWG liaison works very hard on many programs here, so I don't want to go saying they do nothing. I'm just wondering where they stand on this particular mission. However, I'm sure that they don't have much pull to fight their own superiors on this.

[RiverAux]

To be fair to CAP-USAF, I would have been surprised if an AF historian had contacted them for info on CAP operations during Katrina and they blew him off.  More likely, the AF historians contacted the major "operational" commands and reviewed their records and since CAP (and CAP-USAF) is hidden within AETC, the historians probably never thought to solicit info from them and CAP-USAF was just as surprised as us at being ignored. 

CAP-USAF was also very involved in actual operations they were "hurt" just as much as CAP by this oversight. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

We SHOULD have developed our own historical statements in the same format as the USAF major commands, and simply submitted it for inclusion in the overall USAF report.

But... "Hindsight is always 20/20."

[RiverAux]

An organization that doesn't even recommend writing after action reports, even on major missions, is not very likely to be well covered in the history books. 

We SHOULD have developed our own historical statements in the same format as the USAF major commands, and simply submitted it for inclusion in the overall USAF report.

And this is pretty sad for an organization that does at least have a smattering of official unit historians around the country and supposedly has a national historian or two.  Maybe if we had developed a Katrina patch they would put it on display -- that should be enough, right?

[afgeo4]

Still not too late to make a Katrina anniversary patch.

[flyguy06]

They even downplayed the Coast Guard role.  Face it, they don't respect CAP enough to include us as part of the "total force".  That's OK.  I heard a rumor the DHS wants CAP real bad.

Yeah, If CAP went to the DHS, I would not renew

[SAR-EMT1]

Why the dislike for after action reports as an organization? I seem to recall part of SLS being dedicated to writing military documents and such...