This is not an optimist v pessimist discussion. I would like to agree with you’re line of thinking – that leaders, with good intentions, designed an officer development system to create leaders in the field vs the classroom and everything works out for the best in the end. However, take a look at the criteria to get into that classrom, how earning DG or not impacts a career, that an officer has to have a sponsor “protect them” and set up a series of assignments that look great on paper…, and then tell me the system is working as it was designed to produce the best leaders possible.

The problem, I think, is that senior leaders cannot see anything wrong with the system that delivered them into leader roles. It’s too difficult to acknowledge your own short comings and weaknesses as a senior leader because all along making mistakes was a career ender. Dealing with and learning from mistakes, and allowing others to do so as well is not is not a priority.

There’s no need to parse and dissect the OPs article as if you’re an expert on supporting arguments and as if this was a detailed thesis. – What you complain about is a sign that you cannot meet the author where he is and discuss on equal footing. – A dodge that only the ranking privileged have as an option – everyone else has to endure the consequences of leaders ignoring perspectives that don’t conform with the leaders’.

‘Col Stark’s’ comments may not be what you want to hear but, thank you for your service, it is what many in the service want to say and hold a discussion about with leaders in the AF today. Whether weak leadership is real or perceived makes no difference – the response “trust me we’re ok with the leaders and leader development model” is not going to make this fundamental concern to the AF go away. The AF does not have great leaders if it doesn’t have followers who believe in them.

The best thing for Pakistan is to fence the Afghan border, repatriate Afghan refugees and let the Americans and their buddies figure it out.