AD, Guard, Reserve, Auxiliary, Civilian= Total Force; your vision statment :)

[SAR-EMT1]

I just wanted to open up a sub thread to structural change. I am going to state some things; out of order regarding how I see our role, vs the rest of the Air Force and how the Coast Guard views its relationship with its own Auxiliary. MY pourpose here is emphasize how we are treated by the Air Force  (and thus how some view CAP) as to how I feel we should eventually be treated. -> Using the Coast Guard as an example. 

Within the post (this isn't meant to be a rant) are several factors I feel could be used in a vision statement .. SO:

THIS THREAD WILL BE TO CREATE OURSELVES OUR MISSING VISION STATEMENT
... to begin, Ill start the background noise...

I HATE CAP MEMBERS TRYING TO PLAY AIR FORCE 

Excuse, but taking a page from my membership in the USCG-Aux. Our uniforms look EXACTLY like the USCG and they even say - USCG-AUX on the tape.
Within that spectrum I feel that having to wear a tape that says "CAP" and not USAF-AUX is a punch in the face by the Air Force. Or flip the bit. Maybe it is a punch in their face that we can't seem to earn the right to have the change made.

Personally I feel we have been handicapped from the 40's simply because we were created by private citizens and NOT the military itself- as in the case of the Coast Guard.

We are not members of the USAF.    If you want [subdued] rank and patches and qualify...enlist in the USAF.    If you want CAP to look like the USAFR or Air National Guard, sorry.  We don't need to mock our servicemen by pretending we are one with them when we are not.

No disrespect to the Warfighters,  HOWEVER.
We ARE A PART OF THE USAF FAMILY, Thus we are a member of the USAF. We are part of the "TOTAL FORCE" - to take a phrase from my ROTC  training- AD, Guard, Reserve,Civilian AND Auxiliary.

(In fact in the ROTC class we were listed before 'civilian' and were described by the Instructor as serving " in a manner parallel to the Reserve working to meet domestic missions, in an effort to free the warfighter for his mission") [In putting this in another thread I left the warfighter bit out]

To ME that description says something) [ It says the Air Force WANTS us in the fold IF we can get our act together] -

The problem here is that the USAF is treating us like a stepchild because they have"
A- forgotten us (in terms of mission capability)
B- found that we are unworthy of attention
C- because of 'CAP INC' and some in the membership have created a buffer and even gone so far as to state " we aren't part of the Air Force" .
OR D- put us on the back burner because the Army Air Corps didn't create us and someone somewhere has a case of NIH - not invented here- 

Well, we are part of the Air Force. We are the Air Force Auxiliary. Air Force is in the title. And last time I checked my ID said Air Force Auxiliary. We've all taken AFIADL 00013 and tats an Air Force correspondence course. Same with many others who take the SOS, ACSC etc. Even our corporate classes are held on base. Our HQ is at an Air Force Base, not in a civilian office high rise.

We are lucky to have what we have in wearing an AF style uniform at all.

Absolutely True.
....
That may be, but in the CG-Aux, I can earn and wear AD ribbons on my Coast Guard Uniform. I augment at AD coast Guard units and I carry a Coast Guard Identification. - Again taking a page from the Coast Guard:
The Coast Guard .mil website lists the Auxiliary. Where is CAP on AF.mil? -

While the Armed Airmen provide Strength Internationally, So we provide Aid and Assistance Domestically.


Some argue that we aren't USAF or we would carry weapons... 
Do we carry weapons? No. But neither do 99% of Airmen on our stateside bases . They don't need to, neither do we. If the mission called for it they would. And if the mission called for us to have depth charges on our Cessna's I'm sure we can find a way.

It just Inflames me to hear someone accuse a CAP member of "playing Air Force" when in fact, we ARE Air Force, but have just forgotten.(remember the depth charges-from the 40's)

Are we Active duty, Guard, Reserve? no   BUT WE ARE THE USAF-AUXILIARY

HOWEVER  Lets think of something else: The Coast Guard uses its Auxiliary so effectively in part, because it is the smallest service. It cant meet all its commitments with its personnel. Thus the Auxiliary is used "AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER" Whereas The USAF IS big enough to do our job, it would just be a severe PITA.  So From that perspective ...

Do we now, and can we in the future prove of value to the USAF its mission and its strength? I believe it can and should. 
We are more akin to the Reserves then one might think.
We meet roughly as often as they, both have civilian jobs, We take AFIADL courses, as they may be called up and sent to -Stan, so we too may be called up at 3 am to get an ELT, or help with a flood or hurricane or whatever.  It is not that anyone is better or worse. We have a separate mission. 

And I feel that we can rework ourselves to discover a million and one ways to remind the Air Force that It can still use US as a FORCE MULTIPLIER OF ITS OWN
HLS being one category.  We would need to be an Auxiliary reborn though- look at IOWA-  [As an example. ]  Then work to gain Reserve/ Guard-like items; such as job protection while on missions, and POSSIBLY per-diem pay for AFAM's.
And we would need to grow. OR AT LEAST STOP our losses in membership.
We would need to get PD revised and make all the little changes discussed in all our threads.

We just need to perform up to the expected level of professionalism so that we as a whole as an Auxiliary may become worthy of that mission.

We have - " A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION STAFFED BY VOLLUNTEERS"
We provide: " LOW COST ALTERNATIVES FOR THE AIR FORCE IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: CADETS, HLS, SAR etc...."

....CONTINUE....

[SAR-EMT1]

Just wanted to say real quick: Sorry about the length, my lack of cohesion etc.
I love CAP with all my heart. I really do.
Some might say, Im "trying to play Air Force" well, yeah in a way you can say that. Im in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. And I can augment stations and have more respect from the AD Coast Guard for who I am and what I can contribute to the total force then I ever have in CAP. I want to see the USAF- Aux brought up to the level that the Coast Guard Aux has. So lets create a vision statment to do that.

[Smokey]

Very well put Lt .....You bring up some very good points.  A common thread on CAPTALK is   WE    need to get our act together to be taken seriously.  Far too many aren't  willing to make the effort.

[mikeylikey]

Not sure if anyone has seen it but the 2007 AF posture statement is on line.  I will provide the link NOW ------> http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060303-013.pdf

If you don't want to read the whole thing, I urge you to turn to page 36, where CAP is mentioned. 

We (our leaders) seriously need to get with the AF and make more of an effort to get the organization out to the rest of the Air Force! 

Every time something like this is published, CAP should be more than a passing statement hidden in the text.  What exactly is the National Leadership doing to promote CAP to who we are supposed to be serving in the first place.

I have every belief that the AF would welcome more CAP integration into the force.  I however (and sadly) believe our leadership does not want that, and may in fact want to distance us from them.

Get with the program CAP-USAF

Get with the program CAP NHQ

Lets start speaking in terms that the AF leadership understands, TOTAL FORCE.  How can CAP be integrated into the TOTAL FORCE?  Why does CAP want to be part of the TOTAL FORCE?  Quick answere is that the future of our organization is in the Total Force structure.  Eventually our leadership (not currently, but within a few years) will realize that their predecessors missed the post 9-11 window of opportunity.  Sure we did the Homeland Defense thing, but we missed out on being one of the cornerstone architects of the new culture that will developer.  NHQ should have approached the AF with as much courage and tenacity as they did when it came to budgets last year and demanded greater mission responsibility, and greater integration into the force.  Eventually that costly mistake will come to haunt us and those of us that are around when we find ourselves replaced by a cheaper and better friend to the AF.

I was going to try to come up with vision statement that TP could pawn, but I will let him do what he should have done many months ago. 

END

[RiverAux]

By the way, there is a link to CAP on the main Air Force web page (look down on the lower right).  If memory serves that was placed there after discussion on the CAP public affairs officer list serv about a year ago when this discrepancy was noted. 

Boy, a whole paragraph devoted to CAP in an 85-page document.  Wow, really shows where our 60K members place in the hierarchy...

I would love to get the same sort of feeling from being part of CAP as I do from being part of the CG Aux.  I think every member of the CG Aux knows that the new Commandant has a real, personal interest in the Auxiliary.  From recent discussions I have been part of I understand that he has made special trips to talk to DIRAUXs (equivalent to region-level CAP-USAF folks) urging them to focus on Auxiliary recruitment and use and this has spurred them into action. 

While current federal laws certainly would let the AF use CAP in the same way, I have gradually become convinced that this will not happen as long as CAP has the dual USAF Aux/corporate identity.  We're going to have to take the risk of giving up total control to the AF if we want the benefits of being considered part of the total force.  After all, the AF Reserve is always considered part of the total Air Force and isn't the "Military Air Patrol" half the time. 

[Earhart1971]

Not sure if anyone has seen it but the 2007 AF posture statement is on line.  I will provide the link NOW ------> http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060303-013.pdf

END

I took a calculator and figured the 2000 hours CAP flew in support of Katrina Relief.

If the Air Force flew those same hours in an H-60 or C-130, with ground crews, and support personnel, we are talking about a 15 to $20 million cost.

The base cost of an H-60 per hour with Crew is about $3000 per hour.

CAP flys 2000 hours for Katrina and is reimbursed by the Air Force to the tune of about $200,000 total, and our reimburse rate is $100 or so per hour or LESS.

I believe a case could be made that CAP should get $200 to $300 per hour.

But regardless of what we are reimbursed, we are still a great support organization the Air Force can depend on.

The Air Force needs to be educated, and our CAP Leaders need to get strong with the program they lead.

The money the Air Force is willing to spend for AFJROTC, which is only a one mission organization (Cadet Program) is budgeted at 200 million per year.

If CAP had a Budget of say 100 Million per year, what would our program be like?

We would probably have about 100,000 Senior Members, and 150,000 Cadets, roaring for action!

[sparks]

What does the Air Force say about CAPs relationship with them? Do they have constructive comments or aren't they permitted to make public comments? There seems to be a lot of guessing about why CAP isn't a partner with the USAF like the Coast Guard Aux is with the USCG.

[davedove]

You make really good points and I generally agree with what you are saying.

I do have to take issue with this statement though:

Some argue that we aren't USAF or we would carry weapons... 
Do we carry weapons? No. But neither do 99% of Airmen on our stateside bases . They don't need to, neither do we. If the mission called for it they would. And if the mission called for us to have depth charges on our Cessna's I'm sure we can find a way.

While I certainly agree that most stateside airmen do not carry weapons, they ARE part of the active duty military, and as such, could be issued weapons at any time.

In order for CAP to arm would require a literal Act of Congress.  While our origins do have a combatant role, our current organization is chartered as benevolent and noncombatant.

I will agree though that the weapons argument doesn't mean we are not part of the USAF.  We are certainly a part of the family.  We just have a different mission from our warfighting siblings.

[aveighter]

I think this whole "armed" issue is a straw dog.  It is distracting and really quite irrelevant to the discussion topic.

Although I don't have the numbers at hand, I would bet a few bucks that the majority of AF aircraft are unarmed.  The one young 1Lt. aveighter flies certainly is.  It is equipped with some whiz bang missile counter measures (he is assured in the case of a missile attack while at altitude, they have a 70% chance of surviving) the other flight modes rely on training and tactical maneuvers and a big pot full of luck.

And remember, things can change very quickly.  Your merchant ships being blown out of the water within sight of a guy sitting in a beach chair or a major city turned into a smoking hole can be very focusing.

But for the time being, stay on topic, prepare for possibilities and eventualities and don't get stuck on the endless merry-go-round of why a thing can't be done.

[DNall]

I feel that having to wear a tape that says "CAP" and not USAF-AUX is a punch in the face by the Air Force. Or flip the bit. Maybe it is a punch in their face that we can't seem to earn the right to have the change made.

Just as a point of order. No such organization as the "US Air Force Auxiliairy" exists or ever has existed. There is a CAP that acts as auxiliary to the Air Force, but that's not our name. You need Congress to amend the charter allowing us to also in addition to CAP to Do Business As (dba - very common in business) US Air Force Auxiliary or appropriate abbreviations thereof, under rules defined by SECAF in AF regs. Which I still don't think would get it on your tapes, but at least then it'd be up to the AF, right now they say they can't do anything about it cause it's in Congress' hands.

We are not members of the USAF.    If you want [subdued] rank and patches and qualify...enlist in the USAF.    If you want CAP to look like the USAFR or Air National Guard, sorry.  We don't need to mock our servicemen by pretending we are one with them when we are not.

No disrespect to the Warfighters,  [/quote]
DIS-respect? Actually, I'm of the opinion our uniforms should better parallel the AF to buiild solidarity & show that we are really part of the team working our tails off to get the AF's job done so money is freed up to buy gear for warfighters.

The only reason it would be considered disrespectful by anyone is cause the people inside those uniforms aren't worthy. Well, some of that's BS & just needs an education campaign, but some of it's a legit point. To the extent that it's true I take that as a challenge to transform our force into something more useful in the world that right now seems to be advancing beyond us.

We ARE A PART OF THE USAF FAMILY, Thus we are a member of the USAF. We are part of the "TOTAL FORCE" - to take a phrase from my ROTC  training- AD, Guard, Reserve,Civilian AND Auxiliary.

(In fact in the ROTC class we were listed before 'civilian' and were described by the Instructor as serving " in a manner parallel to the Reserve working to meet domestic missions, in an effort to free the warfighter for his mission") [In putting this in another thread I left the warfighter bit out]

To ME that description says something) [ It says the Air Force WANTS us in the fold IF we can get our act together] -

The problem here is that the USAF is treating us like a stepchild because they have"
A- forgotten us (in terms of mission capability)
B- found that we are unworthy of attention
C- because of 'CAP INC' and some in the membership have created a buffer and even gone so far as to state " we aren't part of the Air Force" .
OR D- put us on the back burner because the Army Air Corps didn't create us and someone somewhere has a case of NIH - not invented here- 

Well, we are part of the Air Force. We are the Air Force Auxiliary. Air Force is in the title. And last time I checked my ID said Air Force Auxiliary. We've all taken AFIADL 00013 and tats an Air Force correspondence course. Same with many others who take the SOS, ACSC etc. Even our corporate classes are held on base. Our HQ is at an Air Force Base, not in a civilian office high rise.

Total Force!!! Right, that's where we're shooting to become more fully integrated, by increasing our quality control & training to reach a degree of interoperability necessary for our people to do the job on the same team - not play a minor role on the preiphery, but working hand in hand on critical projects & objectives of the AF. That's where we're needed & where we have to go.

We are lucky to have what we have in wearing an AF style uniform at all.

Absolutely True.
....
That may be, but in the CG-Aux, I can earn and wear AD ribbons on my Coast Guard Uniform. I augment at AD coast Guard units and I carry a Coast Guard Identification. - Again taking a page from the Coast Guard:
The Coast Guard .mil website lists the Auxiliary. Where is CAP on AF.mil? - [/quote]
Very bottom on the right actually, take a look: http://www.af.mil/ Had some pretty serious coverage from 1AF coming out of Katrina, coverage we probably didn't deserve compared to the role we played. They've run a couple CAP stories on AF.mil for toehr things too, mainly the 65th. They do pay attention, but they don't like CG think of the Aux as another unit of the force & the website reflects our position in their world. That's to be expected. The CG is tiny & the CGAux is stationed right there with them working beside them on most of the same missions, with the option to integrate & augment like SDFs do. By necessity & mission the CG has  adifferent relationship w/ the CG Aux than is possible for us w/ the AF. We aren't going to be flying cessnas over Iraq spotting targets FAC-style, and domestic missions just aren't a big part of their psychy.

Some argue that we aren't USAF or we would carry weapons... 
Do we carry weapons? No. But neither do 99% of Airmen on our stateside bases . They don't need to, neither do we. If the mission called for it they would. And if the mission called for us to have depth charges on our Cessna's I'm sure we can find a way.

It just Inflames me to hear someone accuse a CAP member of "playing Air Force" when in fact, we ARE Air Force, but have just forgotten.(remember the depth charges-from the 40's)

Are we Active duty, Guard, Reserve? no   BUT WE ARE THE USAF-AUXILIARY

Per-SOS, 60% of AF officers are in a job not related to combat, direct combat support, or requiring deployment to a combat zone. Only 4% of officers are pilots. You can run some numbers but the large majority of the AF is in no way related to combat. From an Army perspective it's not a good thing when you give airmen guns cause they mostly don't know what they're for (joking, but it's a popular joke).

The AF works extra hard, especially in its PMEs to make everyone understand that these auxiliary to combat roles jobs (that's the word used in the USC) are critical to the combat AF, that we all have to have that driven warrior spirit or the warfighting doesn't happen. CAP is very much a part of that in that the money we're reimbursed comes from O&M, the money we save by being good at our job & efficient in our work goes back to warfighters. This is what I mean by solidarity & commitment to mission.

HOWEVER  Lets think of something else: The Coast Guard uses its Auxiliary so effectively in part, because it is the smallest service. It cant meet all its commitments with its personnel. Thus the Auxiliary is used "AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER" Whereas The USAF IS big enough to do our job, it would just be a severe PITA.  So From that perspective ...

Do we now, and can we in the future prove of value to the USAF its mission and its strength? I believe it can and should. 
We are more akin to the Reserves then one might think.
We meet roughly as often as they, both have civilian jobs, We take AFIADL courses, as they may be called up and sent to -Stan, so we too may be called up at 3 am to get an ELT, or help with a flood or hurricane or whatever.  It is not that anyone is better or worse. We have a separate mission. 

And I feel that we can rework ourselves to discover a million and one ways to remind the Air Force that It can still use US as a FORCE MULTIPLIER OF ITS OWN
HLS being one category.  We would need to be an Auxiliary reborn though- look at IOWA-  [As an example. ]  Then work to gain Reserve/ Guard-like items; such as job protection while on missions, and POSSIBLY per-diem pay for AFAM's.
And we would need to grow. OR AT LEAST STOP our losses in membership.
We would need to get PD revised and make all the little changes discussed in all our threads.

We just need to perform up to the expected level of professionalism so that we as a whole as an Auxiliary may become worthy of that mission.

We have - " A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION STAFFED BY VOLLUNTEERS"
We provide: " LOW COST ALTERNATIVES FOR THE AIR FORCE IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: CADETS, HLS, SAR etc...."

Good points throughout. I think the big thing between members of the military is seeing each other as facing a shared risk. In that case going to -stan. However, the AF is an aviation-centric force & know well about losing crews to crashes. We lose people to, a lot more people over the years than anyone would like to say. Some in the course of duty & lots more flying outside CAP to stay current or moving around to/from CAP related stuff. We do face shared risks as aviators & on the ground in disaster zones, and we do it w/o the possibility of being armed, even though there's a lot of times someone needs to be with us that is. It'd be nice if we could fix that about CAP, but overly complicated.

Deployment is a bigger issue. We really more than anything need a national employment protection law. The reason we don't have it is because we're free to say we don't want to report for duty, but CAP's not as strong as it was before 9/11. We're spread really thin these days. Some of the discussion on NIMS typing involves an idea that maybe for the top level teams we could have set teams w/ contracts requiring them to deploy. I mean we're going to spend some money getting & keeping a limited number of people to these higest levels & if they aren't avail in an emergency then there's not a legion standing behind them to do the job. Such a concept obviously requires employment protection & reasonable per diem when deployed. You get it where at least some CAP members HAVE to respond to the call & may get paid (as FEMA or Red Cross volunteers do) when called to duty, that's putting you more on par w/ the reserves & they'll see that shared burden & committment you're taking.

[SAR-EMT1]

Thank you for the feedback so far...
KEEP IT UP!

Let me steer the thread a bit now:
Two things: 1) How do we get a job protection plan in place?
                    2) What jobs aside from those we do already COULD we 'take over' to truely act as a force multiplier? AND, to a lesser extent, what services could our (Senior) membership render ON BASE?

[aveighter]

To avoid the risk of re-inventing the wheel (or at least a large portion of it) I would suggest a call to the good fellows of Iowa Wing.

They have managed to address some of these very issues you seek guidance with.

In all the palaver around here their real accomplishments are too often overlooked or given short shrift in the rush to explain why what they have already done couldn't possibly work. 

It is mildly amusing, however, to read all the criticisms and the we'd do it this ways written by people who have achieved precisely dick in their own area of operations directed at a group of people who have quietly pulled off a small miracle.

Anyway, I would suggest a call to Lt Col Critelli if you are serious in your quest.  Go West, young man.

[mikeylikey]

To avoid the risk of re-inventing the wheel (or at least a large portion of it) I would suggest a call to the good fellows of Iowa Wing.

They have managed to address some of these very issues you seek guidance with.

In all the palaver around here their real accomplishments are too often overlooked or given short shrift in the rush to explain why what they have already done couldn't possibly work. 

It is mildly amusing, however, to read all the criticisms and the we'd do it this ways written by people who have achieved precisely dick in their own area of operations directed at a group of people who have quietly pulled off a small miracle.

Anyway, I would suggest a call to Lt Col Critelli if you are serious in your quest.  Go West, young man.

Perhaps IOWA could post specifics on thier website.  I am sick of hearing all about IOWA, but no one ever mentions specifics. 

Iowa is small, too bad all wings are not as small with the limited amount of funding and resources they have.  Why must we do as Iowa has done.  I seriously doubt it would work in all wings.  Please inform me of what MIRACLE (or miracles) Iowa has pulled off. 

[DNall]

There's plenty threads about Iowa with plenty details & they have published documents here & elsewhere that've gone to NHQ.

Job protection requires congressional action to grant it. The primary inhibitor is that we are not a govt agency & we are free to say no when the emergency call comes. Obviously both of those are a bit unrealistic & a stonger case needs to be made w/ some education. A couple region commanders as i understand it have been working the issue. Don't know that any progress has been made. i'm not in a great position to pitch ideas anymore. Hadn't heard of anything remotely about to make the agenda.

Lots of threads alos on what we can do... from augmentation (couple threads on the varrious aspects of that including specific jobs), to non-traditional missions (just mention cyber here as an example that'd be particularly well recieved (see also AWC & 8AF), to expansions on our current mission specs (HLD/s - CRBNE being the big one). Some disaster stuff, some medical stuff. NIMS on some of that, awaiting congressional action on med.

[aveighter]

Yes mikey, as Dennis says, they have written extensively on their program with specifics.

One specific is that in the state of Iowa, they DO in fact have job protection when called for duty on a mission.  State law signed by the Governor.  Not to shabby, eh?  Has your wing managed that?

You don't hear much from the IAWG guys recently and I think your post is a perfect example of why.  You easily trash and completely dismiss the accomplishments of a group of people and a program that you yourself admit you know nothing about.  And to a significant degree, that does seem to be the analysis standard around here when it comes to new ideas or methodologies or actual accomplishments.

I think that one of the most fundamental things they did was to have an honest look around at what CAP has become and be clear about the things, some of them painful, that must be done to make a directional shift.  Then they set about doing it.   That, in and of itself, is pretty impressive. 

[mikeylikey]

   redacted

[aveighter]

Wow......you are correct, one reference was provided.  We have indicated that complete, in depth information is available here and elsewhere.

If you need help in such basic research just say so.  I'm sure there are several here with enough time on their hands to do all the work for you.  Just ask.

If all that fails, IAWG has a phone number.  I'll look that up for you too if helps ease your suffering.

[SAR-EMT1]

I believe we all know that Iowa has done a good job reinventing itself. And I DID mention the Iowa wing in my introduction. I am going to leave it at that in hopes of ending these nitpick attacks.

However, Iowa hasnt come close to many of the things I mention above. (To my knowledge) For Example: Actual base augmentation: Im not talking abou helping at a car wash or anything a Chaplain might do. Im talking about CAP Personnel/ Admin types serving with AF personnel / Admin Flights, CAP Comms Personnel working with AF Comms, CAP Legal working with AF Legal, OR having a CAP IC serve as a watch officer at AFRCC etc...

OR, reminding the AF and Congress that there are many roles in HLS that we can perform.

Discuss...

[aveighter]

I'm not sure who you think is making  nitpick comments there young Lt. Edgar, but if it is my posts you think are an attack then I offer you my most humble apologies.

I laud your motivation and desire to accomplish great things for the organization.  All the things you reference, however, require as a standard (not here and there, hit or miss) a CAP professional able to function at a very high level in all aspects in a military operating environment.  At least on par with the average active duty personnel you want to rub elbows with.

Like it or not, IAWG has actually addressed these issues and is creating a format to produce the quality of CAP individual, as a matter of course rather than a matter of luck,  that can indeed move seamlessly into the roles you describe.  Officers that are worthy of the title and can testify before congress, integrate fluidly with military personnel or other agency leadership.

My main point is that there is already a functioning model with some impressive and proven results.  Why waste your time on pipedreams with no realistic method of implementation?  Take what is demonstrating  proven results, copy and modify to your specific variables and move forward to actually accomplish something.

Now, if this is just a rhetorical exercise, by all means dream and postulate till the cows come home.

[DNall]

steady there fellers.

Iowa has done the best they can within the limits of our national program. Anything more significant (ie what we need to do as an org) takes a more comprehensive step of equal magnitude on a national scale, and the attending significant updates to our training & programming. That's obviousyl been discussed extensively as well.

I think while Iowa can provide inspiration, any conversation we have should not necessarily need to lean on them so heavily. Exchanging the inside of one box for another isn't a solution, it's just another set of limits. We have to step outside & live there despite the roaring protests of change you'll get form lots of people.

There's lots of innovative thinking laying around on this forum & elsewhere, and the AF has asked in several places for ideas (not from us, but they're going to get them anyway).