Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

[A.Member]

If you know of someone better equipped to bring the organization forward from the things that have been done wrong than Amy Courter, please let me -- and everyone else, for that matter -- know who that individual might be.  

Clearly, C_P has all the answers.   He is the obvious candidate to lead the organization. 

We owe C_P a great deal of respect and attention, for without ever stepping foot inside a squadron, he's identified and figured out how to correct every perceived issue in the organization.  He's corrected our history, addressed issues that we not aware of....it's truly amazing.  It's very rare that such pristene individuals grace us with their pressence.  As such, we must capitalize on this opportunity.

[BrianH76]

This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

On a happier note, my unit has been trying to resurrect our cadet program for some time, and last night, our first cadet earned the Curry achievement.  The look on that cadet's face when told she passed her exam and was presented with her stripe, knowing that she had earned it through her own hard work, was something I'll never forget.  I'm thinking maybe CAP isn't all that bad and that we do some things right.

[Flying Pig]

I know what you mean.   We had a cadet earn her Curry a couple of weeks ago.   Her whole family showed up for her promotion.

[A.Member]

On a happier note, my unit has been trying to resurrect our cadet program for some time, and last night, our first cadet earned the Curry achievement.  The look on that cadet's face when told she passed her exam and was presented with her stripe, knowing that she had earned it through her own hard work, was something I'll never forget.  I'm thinking maybe CAP isn't all that bad and that we do some things right.

Well done.  Hopefully the first step toward the revival of a healthy program!  :clap:

[afgeo4]

Well done!

My unit is currently in process of being resurrected as well.

We recently went from one cadet who shows up every other meeting or so (we only have 2 per month) to 2 cadets with a Curry and 2 with an Arnold (plus the original cadet who now shows up even less).

The best thing is... the more we had trained, the more showed up. We are about to start up a pipeline with 5 more cadets starting their Curry training at the same time!

That's 9 cadets from 2 a year go.

[Jolt]

I'd be interested to find out what led Civilian_Pilot to believe that uniforms are being focused on too much.  The only public thing that would show that is the uniforms section of this forum.  Other than that, it's not like the pilots with the broken nose gear weren't fixing it because they were too busy inspecting each other's uniforms or something.

[N Harmon]

Can the Uniform Policy save the Credibility of the CAP?

No, but it's non-compliance can ruin the our credibility.

The submarine by leaving German waters and sailing in American waters at a time of war would only committ a war crime by executing someone defending "homeland" under the premise of being a "spy" for not having a "uniform".

During World War II the United States territorial waters extended to only 3 nautical miles from shore. So, it is conceivable that a CAP aircraft, in pursuing a German naval submarine, could enter international waters and suddenly place the crew in jeopardy of being unprivileged combatants if caught.

[D242]

I'd be interested to find out what led Civilian_Pilot to believe that uniforms are being focused on too much.  The only public thing that would show that is the uniforms section of this forum.  Other than that, it's not like the pilots with the broken nose gear weren't fixing it because they were too busy inspecting each other's uniforms or something.

I may be to blame for that. I revived a thread about uniforms that had been running during the Steve Fossett search,( http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3202.40), which had many comments critical of Lt Col Ryan's uniform malfunctions. Since the other thread about Lt Col Ryan's more recent foray into the public conciousness had been closed, I was browsing the board looking for other available information on the subject. I found one particular comment worthy of a reply.

BTW, I commend the mods for allowing this one to run its course in spite of calls for its closure. If you think C_P is trolling, don't reply to him. It's a pretty simple concept...

[Pylon]

This is really just some pissing back and forth.  MODS.......wake up. 

Actually, many of us are capable of discussing the subject in a civil and professional manner.  Don't engage in the pissing contest and you don't have to worry about it.   In the future, posts such as that one are much better routed through the "Report" feature as it goes to all the mods emails directly - as opposed to making a random public statement to the mods.

This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

[A.Member]

This is the most bizarre string I've ever read through.  So far, we're on the sixth page of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about.  We've got some guy who's not a part of CAP, who as far as I can tell has never been a part of CAP, saying he wants to make CAP better.  Exactly why he's so interested in an organization he's not even willing to sign up for, I'm still trying to figure out.  If you don't like CAP, join and try to make it better, or move along your way. 

I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   That's clearly up to you if you want to do so but let's not pretend...there is no real discussion occuring here.

[Pylon]

On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   There is no real discussion occuring here.

My comment wasn't specific to the OP of this thread.  I was stating that it's a dangerous attitude to take across the board: to simply say "join CAP otherwise your opinions and suggestions for improvement are meaningless to us."

As for "no real discussion" occurring here - who's fault is that, the OP or those participating in the thread?

[A.Member]

On the flip side, you're giving the OP far too much credit in his willingness to "discuss" issues.   There is no real discussion occuring here.

My comment wasn't specific to the OP of this thread.  I was stating that it's a dangerous attitude to take across the board: to simply say "join CAP otherwise your opinions and suggestions for improvement are meaningless to us."

As for "no real discussion" occurring here - who's fault is that, the OP or those participating in the thread?

All of the above.  It's clear to me that the OP did not post here in good faith with the intent of any real discussion.

I can only speak for myself but I'm certainly willing to look at concerns objectively and discuss those concerns openly, so long as other parties are willing to bring a similar level of reasonableness and objectivity to the table.  Numerous opportunities were extended to the OP and it's become very clear that he is not interested in a true discussion or differing viewpoint, despite any statements to the contrary.

[Eclipse]

I think that's a poor attitude to take.  You've basically argued that nobody outside of CAP, regardless of field, expertise, experience with CAP or impartiality could possibly lend a credible, critical eye to our actions, ideas and the organization.   I hope nobody from the Air Force reads that.  "Join CAP and make it better... otherwise your point of view is invalid and opinion worthless!"

I don't understand why they would >want< too, especially unsolicited.

There are number of leaders and shakers in industry, education, and the military that could potentially contribute to CAP in a positive way, once they are educated and understand what CAP >is< and >isn't<.

But the idea that we should entertain the opinions of anyone who wanders into the squadron door simply because they "might have something to offer" is misguided at best.

[D242]

But the idea that we should entertain the opinions of anyone who wanders into the squadron door simply because they "might have something to offer" is misguided at best.

So, things have come full circle.

Civilian_Pilot originally posted on this forum because he was upset that a well equipped helicopter and crew was turned away from the Fossett search because of what he perceived (from his reading here), as just such a parochial attitude. I know that the reasons ran deeper and are more technically complicated than that, but you've just expressed exactly the same attitude that set him off in the first place.

(BTW, I've expressed privately to C_P that with his credentials, he would make a fabulous addition to CAP. When I tell people of my positive experiences in CAP, I mention that I met folks that made their living flying B-24s, F-16s, and everything in between. He's in that class. Maybe if you asked him nicely, instead of making it an "Oh yeah? Well if you know so much then join and help fix it!" proposition, you'd get better results.)

[DNall]

^ Respectfully, he came on here as the disgruntled before he even joined guy, and with some very bad information about what CAP is all about. He then picked up bits & pieces of conversation out of context from a forum that's primarily intended to be an internal & informal water cooler.

If you want to tell him why we turned down the helo. I'll speculate for you:

Safety:
If this guy is "in that class" as you say, then he's got some experience with planning major air operations of dozens of aircraft butting up against each other in the same airspace. If that's the case, then he should understand no one plays in that game that has not practiced with the same players for a long time before they show up - that includes everyone including the military, regardless of equipment.

Training:
We don't fly people that haven't been specifically trained in Air SaR. It's a waste of time and airspace. It also screws up our PODs.

Equipment:
A helicopter searches at 500ft & lower, and should have FLIR at minimum. CAP comes in when we're narrowing things down from big broad areas to narrow points of interest. A helo is appropriate for looking at those points of interest when the light is poor or in built up or wooded areas, and for landing on sites that can't be reached by foot in a timely manner. As I understand it, rotary resources were already on call for those issues.

I really don't care if people get what they want or feel like they were treated well.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I guess that means none....

Correct ... there were no captures of CAP personnel by German, Japanese, or other Axis forces during World War II.

That does not mean, however, that there could not have been.  The CAP pilots who were involved in the coastal patrols against submarines were considered combatants under international law, and if they had dropped bombs on the German submarines while in civilian clothing -- and were later captured by said Germans -- the rules of war would have allowed their execution as spies.  That, sir, is why CAP went flying in uniforms beginning in World War II -- to enable those CAP members who might be captured to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I can't believe someone with your qualifications didn't realize that.

Jack

And just so you know Colonel Jack, in your example you have a German submarine off the American coast , attacked by a CAP aircraft who are then shot down, captured and executed as spies.

Here is the deal.  By your criteria every merchant shipman that fired a gun off at a German Sub should have been "executed as spies".

That isn't the way it works.

A "spy" by definition is:

--An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
--One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
--One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
--An act of spying.

The submarine by leaving German waters and sailing in American waters at a time of war would only committ a war crime by executing someone defending "homeland" under the premise of being a "spy" for not having a "uniform".

Your statement is even more ridiculous once I have thought about it.

You are dumber than your boldface makes you look.

Merchant sailors did not fire at submarines.  To do so would have made them combatants.  Merchant ships that had guns mounted manned those guns with US Navy personnel in uniform.  This duty was called the "Armed Guard."

To be entitled to the status, rights, and privilege of "Prisoner of War" upon capture, a combatant must:  1.  Be in uniform.  2.  Bear his arms openly.  3.  Be under the control of a superior headquarters, responsible for his conduct. and 4.  Conduct his own operations in accordance with the Law of War.  Exceptions to the uniform requirement are limited to:  1.  Partisans, guerillas, and irregular forces, provided they meet all other criteria, AND display a badge or device recognizable from a distance identifying their membership in a partisan band, and,  2.  Occupants of a town who spontaneously take up arms upon the approach of an enemy force.

All other combatant personnel are classed as "Spies, sabateurs, pirates, and bandits," and are not entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention.

The fact that an enemy warship is in the territorial waters of a beligerent is of no consequence under the Protocols.

I TOLD you to read the Protocols, but Noooooo... you had to go off and post something dumb anyway.

[Civilian_Pilot]

I guess that means none....

Correct ... there were no captures of CAP personnel by German, Japanese, or other Axis forces during World War II.

That does not mean, however, that there could not have been.  The CAP pilots who were involved in the coastal patrols against submarines were considered combatants under international law, and if they had dropped bombs on the German submarines while in civilian clothing -- and were later captured by said Germans -- the rules of war would have allowed their execution as spies.  That, sir, is why CAP went flying in uniforms beginning in World War II -- to enable those CAP members who might be captured to be given the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

I can't believe someone with your qualifications didn't realize that.

Jack

And just so you know Colonel Jack, in your example you have a German submarine off the American coast , attacked by a CAP aircraft who are then shot down, captured and executed as spies.

Here is the deal.  By your criteria every merchant shipman that fired a gun off at a German Sub should have been "executed as spies".

That isn't the way it works.

A "spy" by definition is:

--An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
--One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
--One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
--An act of spying.

The submarine by leaving German waters and sailing in American waters at a time of war would only committ a war crime by executing someone defending "homeland" under the premise of being a "spy" for not having a "uniform".

Your statement is even more ridiculous once I have thought about it.

You are dumber than your boldface makes you look.

Merchant sailors did not fire at submarines.  To do so would have made them combatants.  Merchant ships that had guns mounted manned those guns with US Navy personnel in uniform.  This duty was called the "Armed Guard."

To be entitled to the status, rights, and privilege of "Prisoner of War" upon capture, a combatant must:  1.  Be in uniform.  2.  Bear his arms openly.  3.  Be under the control of a superior headquarters, responsible for his conduct. and 4.  Conduct his own operations in accordance with the Law of War.  Exceptions to the uniform requirement are limited to:  1.  Partisans, guerillas, and irregular forces, provided they meet all other criteria, AND display a badge or device recognizable from a distance identifying their membership in a partisan band, and,  2.  Occupants of a town who spontaneously take up arms upon the approach of an enemy force.

All other combatant personnel are classed as "Spies, sabateurs, pirates, and bandits," and are not entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention.

The fact that an enemy warship is in the territorial waters of a beligerent is of no consequence under the Protocols.

I TOLD you to read the Protocols, but Noooooo... you had to go off and post something dumb anyway.

John, I want to thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Your last insightful post opened my eyes and allowed me to clearly see what I have felt around the edges but have been unable to quantify in words.

When I was a youngster vacation one year we came upon a Civil War reenactment which we stopped and watched. 

The one thing in common between the two sides of battle actors was a sense of entitlement that went with the uniform.  It wasn't that they wanted the Civil War restarted, that they had a desire to rekindle Civil War issues, or even that they wanted to shoot someone.  They simply enjoyed wearing the uniform and acting like a Civil War persona.

But it went deeper than that.  They were representing specific units of the Civil War and went on and on in the pre-battle about how "the 233 Battalion battled for three days against Sherman..." (or some such banter) to capture even more of the Civil War glory.

So to you specifically John, if wearing the uniform is "more better" when there is a story or sense of danger attached (like being shot for a spy on a German U-Boat after conducting an espionage mission), I am all for it.  But let us agree on one thing.  It's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

And let's also understand the real discussion going on here isn't about U-Boats, being captured, spies, espionage or anything like it. 

It is about the current situation at CAP.

[Jolt]

It's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

I don't think the story was told because CAP wanted more glory out of the uniform.  I think it was an explanation of one of the reasons why CAP started wearing military-style uniforms in the first place.  I don't think anyone meant to continue the discussion this far, but it happened somehow.

[Civilian_Pilot]

It's manufactured glory because no CAP member was captured by a U-Boat.

I don't think the story was told because CAP wanted more glory out of the uniform.  I think it was an explanation of one of the reasons why CAP started wearing military-style uniforms in the first place.  I don't think anyone meant to continue the discussion this far, but it happened somehow.

Jolt, I agree.

Thanks.

[NC Hokie]

And let's also understand the real discussion going on here isn't about U-Boats, being captured, spies, espionage or anything like it. 

It is about the current situation at CAP.

To your first point quoted above, I think that it is appropriate to remind you that this discussion (such as it is) is focused on uniforms because YOU framed the discussion around that issue in your original post.

To answer your original question, there is no uniform policy that will save the credibility of the CAP, nor is one being considered with that objective in mind. However, failure to follow what policies we have in place (a common point of contention among many on this board) will damage that credibility, as will failure to project the proper professional image people have every right to expect from a military auxiliary.

As for the second point, please give some consideration to the possibility that the rantings and ravings of a relatively small group of CAP members on a relatively obscure message board has next to no effect on the overall public perception of the Civil Air Patrol.