Gray slacks/white shirt uniform

[Nathan]

Not only was CAP "not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF," but the Air Force wasn't, either. We were wearing the THEN-current Air Force uniform. It evolved from the "pinks and greens" of World War II, which evolved from the Army's previous uniforms. It turned blue, then bluer, and then in 1992, became like the Army's mid-1940s "separate air force" design with no pockets.

I know that. What's your point? The fact that we had NO uniforms then does not support anything in the argument.

And, oh, in case you haven't noticed, we're in the fight these days. Who flew over the WTC doing aerial recon? Who flies intercept-training flights for 1AF? Who is preparing for national emergencies (well, those of us who actually heeded the ICS-course warnings)? But if you're immersed exclusively in the cadet program, I could see you missing all that. The cadet program isn't exactly at the tip of the spear.

...none of which involve the fighting... right? Unless I forgot what the military does again.

The USAF, like any branch of the military, is here to kill people and break things (very loosely). We are not. We perform USAF SAR missions as a free service to them, but it certainly doesn't make us USAF. At least not to the extent where we could claim to have the same responsibilities they do. They fight. We don't even really support their fight (as in the actual FIGHTING part of the USAF, its primary purpose as a military organization). We support their civil missions, which, strangely enough, has "civilian" written all over it anyway.

Maybe if more CAP members would spend time concerned with mission readiness (how many folks didn't do ICS 100/200/700/800 by the deadline, and had their ops quals suspended?) and less time designing their own uniform (former national commanders included), maybe we'd be a little more respected by the mothership and by its people.

Under that logic, our missions would be made significantly safer and more effective if we were allowed to use uniforms actually designed for search and rescue, and not combat. But that's (almost) beside the point.

And, as I've said, I have seen far more DISRESPECT from the military members, USAF included, for wearing a military uniform than respect. Regardless of what's right, or what the military's official position is, many a military member that I've at least had experience with don't appreciate us enjoying a uniform without having to sacrifice what the RealMilitary expects those wearing the uniform to sacrifice. Under that, I would imagine we would get far more respect if we continued to do our mission, and continued to hold true to our relationship with the USAF, but felt secure enough in our abilities to wear a civilian uniform while doing so.

We work side by side with First Air Force and the Air Force's homeland-security and SAR folks, not just under Air University to train cadets. We wear the same uniform because...

WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

Agreed. However, I will say that even though (despite your beliefs) I am NOT involved entirely in cadet programs, and spend a good deal of time working on other projects, I very rarely am ever working side-by-side with the USAF. I find myself working more closely with the police in support of search and rescue. Maybe we should be wearing their uniform instead.

Actually in support of aerospace education, I worked with some glider pilots. And model airplane builders. In addition, we had a Boy Scout venture crew charter for a while, and they even have their own nifty uniform, AND they shared costs of activities with us. By golly, I think that, at least in cadet programs, we're on THEIR team as well!

But let's not forget the most important part. CAP is a team, and this team I see becoming more and more fragmented as time goes on. This is certainly not due just to uniforms, although the attempt to fight the bias against those choosing to wear the civilian alternate uniforms is undeniable and becoming worse with the more uniforms that show up. If we're focusing on ensuring that we're savvy with our team, we have to at least make sure that the "team" that the USAF is partnering up with is itself a team, because when we show up in even two different uniforms, it certainly portrays, whether intentionally or not, a subclass of member. This is unacceptable if we are going to even THINK about using teamwork as a motivation for a uniform.

Because frankly, all the happy feelings we share with the USAF aren't going to mean squat if we can't come together as an organization into a single, coherent, motivated team. And a good first step is getting everyone in the same set of threads.

YMMV

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Not only was CAP "not wearing our current uniform when we were so intertwined with the USAF," but the Air Force wasn't, either. We were wearing the THEN-current Air Force uniform. It evolved from the "pinks and greens" of World War II, which evolved from the Army's previous uniforms. It turned blue, then bluer, and then in 1992, became like the Army's mid-1940s "separate air force" design with no pockets.

I know that. What's your point? The fact that we had NO uniforms then does not support anything in the argument.

We wore the Army Air Forces' uniform, with red epaulets -- a "volunteer" mark that went back at least as far as Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. And as combatants, CAP members had to wear a uniform under existing law.

And, oh, in case you haven't noticed, we're in the fight these days. Who flew over the WTC doing aerial recon? Who flies intercept-training flights for 1AF? Who is preparing for national emergencies (well, those of us who actually heeded the ICS-course warnings)? But if you're immersed exclusively in the cadet program, I could see you missing all that. The cadet program isn't exactly at the tip of the spear.

...none of which involve the fighting... right? Unless I forgot what the military does again.

Yeah, but if I carry what you contend to its logical conclusion, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are in the rear with the gear shouldn't wear a uniform, either -- since they're not actually fighting. And the National Guard should show up for disaster relief missions in civvies, for that matter. They're not fighting.

What you may forget as you make this assertion is that in the GWOT, there is no front line. Everyone's vulnerable. And everyone can fight (just ask the folks on United 93, but you'll have to wait until after you die to do that). Yes, our aircraft don't carry armament. And many Air Force airplanes don't, either. But we're all uniformed in the Air Force uniform or acceptable civilian combinations as we carry out combat or noncombat missions.

The USAF, like any branch of the military, is here to kill people and break things (very loosely). We are not. We perform USAF SAR missions as a free service to them, but it certainly doesn't make us USAF. At least not to the extent where we could claim to have the same responsibilities they do. They fight. We don't even really support their fight (as in the actual FIGHTING part of the USAF, its primary purpose as a military organization). We support their civil missions, which, strangely enough, has "civilian" written all over it anyway.

We support their fight. The aircraft interception missions, for instance, when our aircraft are sent up as "targets," are supporting COMBAT functions. I'm sure there are others, but we don't talk about 'em. Does it make us "Air Force"? No. But it's not something they'll farm out to the EAA or to the Confederate Air Force, or whatever they call themselves this week. They trust their own auxiliary, folks who are expected to train and act professionally, and for whom the uniform is supposed to reflect those traits.

Besides, our search-and-rescue functions aren't a "free service." The Air Force pays, but not for the labor. (Ever heard of the CAPF 108?)

Maybe if more CAP members would spend time concerned with mission readiness (how many folks didn't do ICS 100/200/700/800 by the deadline, and had their ops quals suspended?) and less time designing their own uniform (former national commanders included), maybe we'd be a little more respected by the mothership and by its people.

Under that logic, our missions would be made significantly safer and more effective if we were allowed to use uniforms actually designed for search and rescue, and not combat. But that's (almost) beside the point.

No, that's not where that logic leads, not even close. What I'm saying is that instead of futzing around with uniforms, which is for some an obsession, maybe that time should be spent keeping our capabilities current. Weren't there a couple of threads on this site about how ops quals took a nose dive after the 31 Dec 08 deadline, and at least one wing lost all its mission pilots because they wouldn't take the darned FEMA courses?

Every time you turn around, CAP's monkeying around with its non-Air Force uniforms. It gets old quickly. Over my quarter-century in this organization, there's been enough diddling to drive anyone nuts. It's not worth diving into the non-Air Force uniforms unless you've got the financial wherewithall and the patience to keep up with the changes.

And, as I've said, I have seen far more DISRESPECT from the military members, USAF included, for wearing a military uniform than respect.... Under that, I would imagine we would get far more respect if we continued to do our mission, and continued to hold true to our relationship with the USAF, but felt secure enough in our abilities to wear a civilian uniform while doing so.

I'm going to bet the real beef is with how easy it is to become an officer in CAP. Show up for six months and voila! The training doesn't justify the gold bar.

All told, the primary uniform of CAP is the Air Force uniform. Those who decline to wear it or who can't wear it have alternatives. Why can't we let it be, and leave it at that?

I'm tired of arguing... gonna let some of you guys' fur fly instead for a while.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Second, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Third, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Fourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

[tarheel gumby]

Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Second, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Third, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Fourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

+1

[JayT]

Buckeye and Nathan:

Nathan, you should pay a bit more attentio n to Buckeye.  He's absolutely right on a lot of issues.

First off, we ARE performing non-combat missions for the USAF.  If we did not perform these missions, USAF personnel would have to do them.  Consider the financial burden on the USAF for them to maintain 575 light planes for their Congressionally-mandated mission of air search and recue over inland areas if we were not here.  The planes, the crews, the bases, the necessary payroll, medical and admin support, the training, the financial impact on local schools, you are talking serious $$$$.

Would they really? Or would local civilian groups preform our missions. I'm sure many local Shrieffs and Police departments would love to get a new helicopter or what not.

Second, because of our unique Auxiliary status, we are able to contract with state and local governments and with non-governmental organizations.  Tough as it is to get MOU's through the lawyers, it is even tougher for an active AF organization to set those up.  The only example I can think of right now is the contracts for the USAF to launch private communications satellites.  Through us, the AF can provide services to local agencies when needed.

Can you give us an example of the Air Force acting through us? Or is that another one of those "We in CAP wish it could happen so we'll pretend it can."

Third, Buckeye is right.  We are ALL targets in the GWOT.  (Oh, excuse me... we're not supposed to call it the "War on Terror" anymore.  Obama now wants us to call it the "Muslim Misunderstanding.")  It should not come as a surprise to you that under the Geneva Convention we are considered combatants.

Besides the blantant disrespect towards our duly elected Commander in Chief and Head of State for no aparent reason (why don't we like him again?), again, are we really considered combatants under the Geneva convention? And I don't mean in a bedroll lawyer sort of way. A document from the USAF saying we're protected.

Fourth, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, not even once been shown disrespect by a member of the US Air Force.  In most cases, they salute, even though not required to do so.  They are professionals and they recognize our professionalism as well.  I return those salutes with pride, just like I did as an officer in the RM.  I find it incredible that you have been shown disrespect by USAF types. 

That's a one in a million then. Ninety percent of the times I've been around USAF types, they're either completely indifferent towards me, or curious to why some Captain is wearing a rainbow scarve with her dress blues (but wearing a USAF uniform is so much better then a corporate uniform.)

[Nathan]

I'm going to address both at once, so no point-counterpoint.

First, what gives with this idea that we are somehow going to offend the USAF if we decide to adopt our own uniform? You REALLY think that the Air Force is funneling all of that money to us because we're wearing a uniform that looks like theirs? You really think they're going to stop simply because we aren't wearing that uniform?

As has been drilled into our skulls since joining CAP, wearing the uniform is a PRIVILEGE. We aren't doing the USAF any favors by wearing it. They're LETTING us wear it. They are allowing us to wear THEIR uniform because it helps us attract members, and it ensures that a high percentage of our members are either going to come from the USAF or be going into it. It gives them a PR opportunity.

But in the end, they are paying us to do their missions they don't feel like doing. I would be very, very surprised if they were to stop supporting CAP altogether simply because we decided to adopt a uniform that is both more practical for our mission (which means better efficiency and less AF $$) and closer to our own unique heritage. We wouldn't stop being the USAF auxiliary simply because we aren't dressed like them.

Second, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world. Most of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

As I said, this isn't everyone's experience, and not the official stance of the USAF. But it is out there, easily searchable through Google. We have the respect of USAF on paper, but in reality, it seems to be quite a different picture.

Third, if the argument "We are ALL vulnerable in the global war on terror, therefore, we should wear the USAF uniform" is valid, then it doesn't only apply to CAP. It applies to ANYBODY. I'm not sure how many CAP members died in 9/11, but I can assure you that the percentage of them, if any, was very small in comparison to the general population. I can't think of very many situations where CAP personnel are at more risk from terrorists than are the general population, considering that we ARE the general population 95% of the week.

Fourth, no one is denying that CAP performs an important service to the US and to the USAF. However, that special service does not mean that we are "entitled" to the USAF uniform just because we do stuff that helps them out. There are thousands of civilians that work for the USAF, many in far more costly operations than CAP could ever compensate for, and they show up for work in a suit and tie.

In the end, the truth is that the uniform is an honor for us to wear, but not a necessity. If tomorrow we decided to get rid of the USAF uniform in favor of uniting the entire CAP body in a single uniform, the USAF would still be paying us to do the work we've been doing, and we would do it just as well as we have been doing it.

As I said, I highly, highly doubt the USAF would get even slightly offended if we decided to wear a uniform that signifies us as a single team with CONNECTIONS to the USAF (which we are, and which the CSU does quite well), but even if they do, do you REALLY think they're going to get offended enough to chuck out all the important services you two have been arguing we provide?

If they are so vastly important to the US, why are you so worried that the Air Force would disown us at a simple move toward unit cohesion?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Screw it. One more post. Then I'm moving on.

But in the end, (the Air Force is) paying us to do their missions they don't feel like doing.

You're a Spaatz cadet and you don't know CAP any better than that? We get the Air Force's rejected sloppy seconds, tasking and missions Big Blue couldn't possibly be bothered with?

Try again. $175/hour to deploy a CAP plane and crew. Thousands more per hour to run a Pave Hawk or HC-130, and never mind the ground teams. Plus the training in SAR is specialized enough that it's more efficient to task the Auxiliary, not active-duty troops, especially when manpower is so drawn down and we're fighting a two-front war, uh, "contingency operation."

When I'm talking to reporters as a CAP PA (as opposed to when I'm functioning as working media myself), I characterize CAP as the Air Force's volunteer fire department. In many ways, that's a darn good metaphor. Volunteer firefighters train and stay current, and they're invaluable in an emergency. The same can be said for CAP members.

So if we do missions the Air Force just throws at us like yesterday's garbage, well, I'm a sanitation engineer for the Air Force on a pro bono basis. At least they let me wear the uniform, so I'm readily identifiable as a member of the team.

I would be very, very surprised if they were to stop supporting CAP altogether simply because we decided to adopt a uniform that is both more practical for our mission (which means better efficiency and less AF $$) and closer to our own unique heritage. We wouldn't stop being the USAF auxiliary simply because we aren't dressed like them.

Our heritage is dependent on the mothership. If you think CAP could go it alone, you're suicidal. We already have uniforms that are more practical for our missions, but if you think that translates into less Air Force money, prove it. (No, don't, because I'm done with this thread -- it's time it gets locked.) While those uniforms are more inclusive, they allow overweight people to displace scanners on aircrews (think: weight and balance), and present other inefficiencies. More fuel burn = more Air Force money. Losing an additional set of eyes on a search = more Air Force money from second sweeps over a search pattern.

(With all due respect to those who may have weight issues who don't wear the uniform, but who do participate -- I mean no derision. In fact, your volunteer spirit should be recognized and commended, along with every other active CAP member. I bring this up to debunk the "less money" contention.)

Second, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world.

Nope. I was around members who exemplified the best in situational awareness, military bearing and pride. When military personnel and CAP members scoff at other CAP members, it's usually because they're rag-tag, sloppy or have their heads in the clouds. I've been saluted on multiple occasions by Real Military personnel while in a CAP uniform (usually a flight suit or blues), and I return the salute. Or vice-versa. No scoffing here. Your results may vary, but it may be in how the members around you present and conduct themselves.

Most of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

Again, that's because the CAP "boy scouts" who are being laughed at likely look and act like Webelos, not cadets. Blame the local seniors and cadet leaders for not instilling discipline, proper uniform wear and attention to detail. We're a paramilitary organization -- our members must be held to a higher standard to wear Our Nation's Uniform.

Fourth, no one is denying that CAP performs an important service to the US and to the USAF.

Wow, you said earlier that CAP does stuff the Air Force doesn't feel like doing. Now those functions are worthy?

[Eclipse]

Second, those of you who have apparently never had a bad run-in with members of the military for wearing the military uniform are either considerably lucky or considerably shut off from the rest of the world. Most of the comments I've seen/heard consist of, "So when are YOU getting deployed?", or, "What gives you boy scouts the right to wear that uniform?" Not surprisingly, the comments generally come from those who are just as/more passionate than the members here in terms of the USAF uniform. They simply feel it needs to be protected from those who didn't and are not earning the right, as according to them, to wear it.

I couldn't find a "BS" flag emoticon, but I'm throwing one down via this text.

Any member of the military who would say that to one of us, especially a cadet (assuming the member wasn't acting like a idiot), doesn't deserve the attention or credibility you're ascribing to them.

I have never been treated with anything but respect by those in uniform, regardless of the service or circumstance.  Of course I'm also not a "problem".

Nathan, you're not doing yourself much good on this, and frankly you're speaking like a typical, know-it-all cadet.  The longer and more drawn out your arguments get, the less likely they are to be listened to.  They become manifestos that fall on deaf ears.

[MIKE]

And the more likely this thread gets... Locked.