Posted on Dec 3, 2018
Where’s the beef? Should air crews’ crude phallic drawings have cost B-52 commander his job?
794
5
2
3
3
0
I feel commanders today are pulled in half when it comes to sexual morals. This article from AF Times demonstrates the puritanical "pull" which destroyed a successful career with silly phallic stick drawings which he did not make or condone and NOT ONE person complained about. At the same time, commanders are expected to show not just tolerance but acceptance, admiration, and even pride for all sexual proclivities and activities that might fall under the ever-broadening rainbow of PC protection. Which is it?
Where’s the beef? Should air crews’ crude phallic drawings have cost B-52 commander his job?
Posted from airforcetimes.com
Sexual Harassment
Morals
Morale
Ethics
LGBTQ+
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
The most telling part of the article:
"“Lt. Col. Goossen failed to be above reproach ... to display exemplary conduct, did not show himself as a good example of virtue, failed to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command, failed to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral [underline in original] practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Air Force, all persons who are guilty of them," the report said."
He wasn't fired for the drawings. He was a scapegoat because the drawings could potentially embarrass BRAND USAF.
I've talked at length about "protecting the brand" especially when we get into silly things like Tattoo policies, and what not, but in this case he got caught in an immature group joke that went too far. This is no different than a Marine BN Commander getting relieved because one of his snipers gets an SS/Lightning Bolts tattoo (brand back in my day) which could be misconstrued as more disruptive than it actually is.
However, in Big AF's defense, an outsider looking in wouldn't know "all in good fun" and "stress relief" among a young Force. They think of us as the ultimate professionals UNTIL something goes wrong, then they latch onto EVERY instance of tomfoolery to say why it could have been prevented in advance.
All about protecting the Brand.
"“Lt. Col. Goossen failed to be above reproach ... to display exemplary conduct, did not show himself as a good example of virtue, failed to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command, failed to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral [underline in original] practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Air Force, all persons who are guilty of them," the report said."
He wasn't fired for the drawings. He was a scapegoat because the drawings could potentially embarrass BRAND USAF.
I've talked at length about "protecting the brand" especially when we get into silly things like Tattoo policies, and what not, but in this case he got caught in an immature group joke that went too far. This is no different than a Marine BN Commander getting relieved because one of his snipers gets an SS/Lightning Bolts tattoo (brand back in my day) which could be misconstrued as more disruptive than it actually is.
However, in Big AF's defense, an outsider looking in wouldn't know "all in good fun" and "stress relief" among a young Force. They think of us as the ultimate professionals UNTIL something goes wrong, then they latch onto EVERY instance of tomfoolery to say why it could have been prevented in advance.
All about protecting the Brand.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google