I bet you could say all or nearly all of these bad-sounding things about the US military or any randomly selected Western military. There is surely some crank out there patrolling a SAC installation on horseback. The US certainly has capital ships that don't work and have to go right back to the shipyard. The US still operates 1950s-era aircraft that have been repurposed from airlift to bombers to mine layers to signals intelligence to tankers. "Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per month, or even less[1].
Overall I'm not sure who this author is arguing with. It reads like pure strawman stuff.
>"Elite" pilots of the USAF, many of whom are in fact in the ANG, also fly 10 hours per month, or even less[1].
Often ANG pilots are even better than the full-timers because they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari. These commercial pilots get thousands of hours per year of flying, which is often much more than a full-time Airman would get.
That being said, I agree that some of the author's arguments were very weak. For example, the suggestion that hosting morale boosting activities in the middle of a training exercise is somehow a sign of mission-failure. With the possible exception of North Korea, everyone does that. Hell, there was even a group of terrorists that played soccer daily inside a hostage-filled building surrounded by teams of special forces and law enforcement that wanted to kill them.
> they tend to be commercial pilots that joined the Air Force part-time because flying an F22 is the pilot equivalent of driving a Ferrari.
It often goes the other way. Becoming a commercial airline pilot requires many hours in the cockpit. A great way to accomplish that is to become a USAF pilot. Your flight training is paid for (in fact, you get a salary to attend). You have a commitment (if you did ROTC it works out to 7-10 years total, flight training takes up the first part of that). Then you can get out, join the guard or reserve and work full-time for 6 figures, and part-time to earn a second retirement (a modest retirement, but gov't service is one of the few remaining sources for pensions).
EDIT: Also, a huge difference between heavies (commercial aircraft, cargo aircraft, refuelers, bombers) and fighters. They handle very differently, and pilots confusing the performance of one for the other can cause serious problems.
It can definitely work out in the opposite way as well. My father was a flight engineer in the navy, from his experience, the best pilots he ever worked with were part-timers looking for something exciting fun to do.
The handling characteristics can vary wildly, but I'm sure most pilots know that up front. My father's crew flew P3's, which is more closer to a civilian plane than a fighter jet, but there was still probably a pretty big difference.
It's more that ANG pilots were active duty military pilots who were great pilots but wanted to have a "real life" rather than remaining in the military. The best pilots stay ANG; the lesser ones are more likely to separate entirely. Older pilots are generally better, anyway (due to more experience), especially in the military which does "up or out".
Are you serious? The U.S. has successfully fought wars in the recent past. High ranking officers are routinely sacked when they lose touch of soldiering and their mission fails. The U.S. version of party political indoctrination is just a little silliness like lesbian sensitivity training.
I'm sure your general point is somewhat correct, but how is "This is my rifle" political? It seems more like a commitment to professionalism, like the Hippocratic Oath, but inverted.
Overall I'm not sure who this author is arguing with. It reads like pure strawman stuff.
[1] http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents... page 13