Home » Air » More Bushites Stay; Schwartz’s Gutenberg Speech

More Bushites Stay; Schwartz’s Gutenberg Speech

By Colin Clark Friday, February 27th, 2009 9:58 am
Posted in Air, Intelligence, Policy

The Obama administration nominated three senior Bush Pentagon appointees yesterday to remain in their posts, including the key positions of Air Force secretary and undersecretary for intelligence.

I first heard about Michael Donley, SECAF, staying on during a late afternoon press conference held by him and AF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. An obviously pleased Schwartz told us Donley would staying on, something that caught a number of industry and Air Force sources here off guard. I wouldn’t say they were displeased, but the pretty universal sentiment was, why doesn’t Obama put his own people in. Of course, now Donley, the veteran intelligence leader Jim Clapper and Mike Vickers, who holds the sensitive post of assistant secretary for special operations/low intensity conflict, can now all claim to be Obama’s people…

In other news from the conference here, Schwartz gave a speech that left many observers scratching their heads. Don’t get me wrong. Listening to an Air Force chief of staff talk about the story behind Gutenberg’s development of that amazing technology known as movable type, plus one about a Greek slave sculptor risking his life to unveil the image within stone, sure beats the dry fluff many of his predecessors have tried to pass off as insight.

And Schwartz clearly used the speech to keep rebuilding the service, telling the compelling story of an Air Force special tactics forward controller, Zach Reiner, who won the Air Force Cross for an action in Afghanistan where, despite being wounded three times he directed over 50 attacks by our aircraft on enemy positions from his perch atop a 60 foot cliff. “Does anyone doubt our Air Force is all in?” Schwartz challenged the audience.

But the coming “period of austerity” clearly has Schwartz worried and he tried to use the stories about Gutenberg and the Greek guy to impress his audience with the importance of continuing to push for technical innovations and keep good people working on them even though money may be tight. Schwartz clearly knew it was not one of his best speeches. When I asked him to clarify what message he was trying to send the troops and confessed the speech had left me somewhat bemused, Schwartz said his wife had had much the same reaction.

On the F-22, Schwartz told reporters that he had given Gates a revised production plan this week. Lockheed had threatened to begin shutting down the line on March 1 and this may postpone that.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Chief Houston February 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Sometimes the lessons to be learned from a speech do not come to you right away, especially ones that makes you think and read references for insight. Good ideas do not have a party, so I have no problem with Gen. Schwartz as long as he gives his best! I had a Latin teacher once Dr. Leahey, who periodically would put his head down and raise up in character reciting Ovid to us. It freaked us out because, we would be studying something else. He would come out of context on us. This demanded our attention in ways we did not understand then.
	Hitch Hiker February 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm When I ran programs in industry I could replace non-performers and “keep good people working on” innovations. Or I could provide the special training required. When I was supervisor to a mix of civilian and military engineers while on active duty I could not do this. If such constraints still remain in the USAF and I think they do, then the CSAF should be working to remove them. It’s hardly a total solution but it would help remove roadblocks to successful innovation.
	Cole February 27th, 2009 at 7:13 pm I respect Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz and Air Force Special Ops Airman enormously. I also respect the skills and service of other Airmen who know what it means to fight joint and provide close air support. I read that the Air Force will deploy 300 Strykers to landlocked Afghanistan. Bravo, and kudos to the efforts to keep the force supplied every day. But just as Airman Rheiner was honored for heroism, another JTAC died not long ago alongside 2 Army Soldiers in an IED incident in Afghanistan. In doing so, SSG Timothy Davis joined many thousands of Army Soldiers and Marines that have died there and in Iraq heroically serving…and don’t forget the countless thousands more who have been maimed both physically and mentally. The Air Force total deaths attributed to Afghanistan is 35 according to icasualties.org. Of those 35, 19 were non-hostile and 14 involved helicopter crashes (3 hostile). Seven Airmen deaths were attributed to IEDs and hostile small arms fire. Without a doubt, the Army and Marine totals would be much higher were it not for the superb efforts of Airman providing close air support…and this includes those JTACs humping on the ground alongside infantry and special ops brothers. For that, Soldiers/Marines are eternally greatful…but the Army provides helicopter close combat attack support, as well, and has suffered far greater casualties in the air. So it is disheartening to think that billions of procurement, construction, operations and support, and salary dollars go to Airmen who are not as much in harm’s way, nor do they deploy as frequently for long durations in harm’s way as do Soldiers and Marines. In coming tough budget years, we already know that the Army’s SOLE major procurement program, FCS will get slashed in size/scope. We have already seen the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter get slashed despite the fact that it would cost 1/7th the price of a F-35A, and 1/12th the price of a F-22 that has never served in war. Yet we know the ARH would be used everyday in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition the Army is offered the false choice of either resetting due to worn out current equipment or modernizing for current and future wars. They claim there isn’t enough money for both and for badly needed force structure increases to lessen the Army’s multiple deployment nightmare. Yet other services do not face such a choice…created by the very selfless service that has worn out so much equipment and career Soldier lives. So forgive me if I don’t get all choked up in recognition of Gutenberg’s accomplishments…because believe it or not, technology works on the ground, too. In addition, technology on the ground (and in aircraft controlled by ground forces)saves Soldier lives that should be worth every bit as much as an Airman or Sailor life. Judging by the fatality and maiming injury count, reset requirements, and deployment burden, it seems clear to me where much more technology, procurement, construction, salary, and force structure dollars should be going. But will it??
	BleedsPurple March 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm 7+ years of conflict and we are now dropping the ball to keep the USAF & USN modernized & well equipped.
	Chief Houston March 4th, 2009 at 1:19 am Let’s stay focused here gentlemen, isn’t this about the Air Force? Nobody said that Army, Marine or any other service did not need what they could use best. We better work this out. It is “Perfect Battalion” time! Noboby said someone’s life is not as important as someone else’s! It is time to expect the best from each other and our leaders. Are we really this secular or can we truly function as a multi-tasked juggernaut using EVERYTHING that we have to battle the enemy !?
	JDAM March 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am Thanks, Chief, for refocusing. There are other parts to DOD, after all, than the infantry, and each has a unique job that they tend to do extraordinarily well. Dying is not the object of war, and neither should it be the object of policy. We should, in fact, be trying to do what the American people want, which is LESS dying while getting the job done. Constantly waving the bloody scarf does not move the debate forward. Despite all guys on patrols exposed to IEDs, the fact is that most all of the al Qaeda leadership has been taken out by…the lowly Predator. Last time I checked, this is supposed to be a joint team where we respect each other for our UNIQUE contributions. I appreciate the contributions of the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy and respect that they have different jobs and worldviews. I don’t understand why the Army breaks every time there’s a war, since that’s their job, but in any case, I respect what they do in combat. A little respect in return for what the Air Force does would not be expected, because you see precious little of it, but that would be the right thing to do. The Air Force understands air superiority, which is the essential precondition for all US military operations–they are the only ones who do it for the entire joint team. Armchair Pattons should concentrate on what they understand and leave air superiority to the experts.
	King Harry April 10th, 2009 at 4:09 am It isn’t Bill Clapper. It’s Jim Clapper. Get it straight.
	Colin Clark April 10th, 2009 at 7:38 am King, Thanks for pointing this out. It’s fixed.