A P-51D Mustang in the markings of the aircraft flown by Tuskegee airman, Lt. Col. Bob Friend in WWII, now on display at the Palm Springs Air Museum, in Palm Springs, CA. Such artwork would presumably offend in today’s Air Force because it isn’t gender neutral.
If Air Force officers responsible for executing a new directive from the service to broadly review its unit imagery, symbols and verbiage for politically incorrect content make decisions at odds with what loosely specified arbiters deem acceptable, there’s a question as to whether it could affect their careers.
The review of Air Force imagery/verbiage/symbols was promulgated by outgoing Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett, Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown, Jr., and Chief of Space Operations John W. Raymond. It follows the Air Force Inspector General’s Independent Racial Disparity Review published in December which asserted broad racial disparities within the service.
It also follows controversy involving MQ-9 Reaper airmen who, during a September, 2020 exercise, reportedly wore patches featuring the drone superimposed on a silhouette of China. The same month, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PAAF) released a video showing a simulated attack on a U.S. air base.
Air Force Magazine’s recent article on the directive provoked a strong reaction in comments from USAF veterans and others including the question, “What happens 10 years from now when an approved emblem is no longer PC?”
A previous 2013 review ordered the removal from all workspaces of images, calendars and unspecified materials that objectified women following controversy over a sexually explicit songbook circulated among fighter pilots at Shaw AFB prior to 2012.
A recent New York Times article cited a racially charged slogan associated with Army football, a German SS-associated lightning bolt symbol connected with a Marine unit and an investigation into racial controversy surrounding the dismissal of two African American aviators from their respective Navy/Marine Corps squadrons. It did not cite examples from the Air Force.
Some recently departed Air Force veterans said on background that the current directive is sparking resentment, unspoken thanks to career concerns and a climate of intolerance for anything that might be construed as potentially offensive or politically incorrect.
The latest directive specifies that commanders conduct comprehensive reviews within 60 days from Dec. 23, 2020. Beyond that, it specifies little else.
As national security analyst and former Air Force civilian staffer Rebecca Grant points out, the service is likely launching the review to get in front of the forthcoming congressional commission on military base names, symbols included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act.
But its instruction to review “all official and unofficial unit emblems, morale patches, mottos, nicknames, coins and other forms of unit recognition and identity” goes beyond the scope of the commission.
The definition of what is unacceptable and who decides such questions appears to have been left to unit commanders as does the burden of undertaking the review and the responsibility for these decisions.
Neither Secretary Barrett, nor General Brown would offer comment on the directive, leaving responses to Air Force headquarters representatives.
The most obvious question is what flies? What artwork, challenge coins, squadron patches, mottos or insignias can stay or must go?
The unit emblem of the Air Force’s 103 year-old 28th Bomb Squadron.
USAF
Air Force HQ’s response is that, “It is too early to tell if any will change. Questions on the technical aspects of a specific emblem or motto should be directed to that unit’s commander, historian or public affairs representative.”
What might unit commanders decide about a range of historic imagery from the 28th Bomb Squadron, the 4th Fighter Squadron, the 185th Special Operations Squadron or the 102nd Rescue Squadron for example?
Mottos like, In God we trust: All others we monitor associated with the 9th Reconnaissance Wing will presumably receive commanders’ attention as well.
On the question of who sets the uniform standard for derogatory or politically incorrect imagery/verbiage, an Air Force spokesperson replied, “Commanders were looking for any item that, in their judgment, could detract from a professional or inclusive workplace.”
The Air Force did not affirm that it has any data showing that unit imagery/symbology/verbiage is detrimental to unit cohesion. Nor did it confirm that it has received any recent complaints about symbolic content.
“Unit imagery and symbology is not detrimental in itself,” Air Force headquarters replied via email. “This is a review of good practices for the health and culture of all our personnel.”
The unit emblem of the USAF 4th Fighter Squadron, the “Fightin’ Fuujins”, named for the Japanese god of the wind, one of the eldest Shinto gods.
USAF
The Air Force likely expects this to be a relatively quick review that finds little to object to Grant opines. However she recalls working for the Chief of Staff on a previous (1993-94) review of Air Force heraldry.
“People had huge attachments to unit patches and it took the chief of staff’s lead to get the review done over a couple years.”
USAF HQ says that, “Commanders were directed to… make changes on the spot, where possible.”
The instruction to commanders to make, or forgo, changes “on the spot” gives them considerable latitude and responsibility. The service’s directive holds that they refer to emblem and motto guidance in Air Force Instruction 84-105, “Organizational Lineage, Honors and Heraldry” but the interpretation of such guidance will be theirs.
That potentially puts them, in micro-fashion, at the center of the culture war raging throughout American society. The array of formal and informal symbology within the Air Force is vast and it has strong personal associations for current and former personnel. The symbols and sayings aren’t random Grant points out.
“The lightning bolts, the wings, the colors and action figures, that’s all there for a reason. What’s in the [Air Force] museum in Dayton? Has anybody looked? If [the Air Force is] trying to work another aspect of the culture, they need to be clear about that.”
Failure to do so could have a negative spiral affect “far beyond the well intentioned quick review of the symbology,” Grant adds. “At some point Air Force senior leadership is going to have to own [Air Force] heritage and say, ‘We’re good with this. This is what we’ve decided with respect to this motto or that patch.”
It’s also logical to assume that decisions on content will vary with the commanders who make them.
“I think commanders are capable of making a judgment call on what flies and what doesn’t,” Grant says. But she adds the burden is not one that should be foisted upon them.
“I think this is something that General Brown needs to take on his shoulders and do at headquarters level. They’re a very busy force… I think the Air Force should not place this on the shoulders of overworked squadron commanders.”
Attempts to get on-the-record reaction to tasking of line officers with this review from current unit commanders met without success.
Questions to Air Combat Command (ACC) commander, General Mark Kelly, regarding what he’s telling his commanders about this review, why they have been tasked with it rather than senior leadership, and what career implications may unfold from their decisions on content elicited this response from an ACC spokesperson;
“ACC trusts their leaders to make thoughtful judgement calls and through that trust has empowered the squadrons ability to make decisions and conduct a proper review.”
Air Force headquarters likewise did not explain why it tasked unit commanders rather than senior leadership with the review. It also declined to comment on whether their decisions could have career implications.
AFHQ did say that if a commander disagrees with a recommendation that an image or phrase is inappropriate or incorrect, there is vague recourse.
“The process varies but unit commanders should consult their equal opportunity office, legal office and historian, as required, during the review.”
The Air Force mentions consultation with installation staff judge advocates as well which raises an interesting question. If these local unit equal opportunity specialists, historians and judge advocates are vested with authority as references in this review, have their roles become political?
Air Force headquarters did not offer an answer. It’s worth noting that overtly political roles for unit officers are in place elsewhere in the world. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has political officers (zhengwei/jiaodaoyuan/zhidaoyuan) assigned to regimental, battalion and company level organizations.
Rebecca Grant observes that the review creates more work for the above elements as well. “I have some good friends who are Air Force historians and some of these are undermanned [offices].”
The unit emblem of the 102nd Rescue Squadron of the 106th Rescue Wing of the New York ANG.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
In the 1970s, then Air Force Chief of Staff, John Ryan, called for a moratorium on nose art – artwork found on American fighter and bomber aircraft since World War One. Morale in the USAF, as in other services, progressed to a low point during the era, degrading readiness and combat effectiveness.
It rebounded in the 1980s with increased defense spending and more positive attitudes about the military – and the return of nose art – fostered in no small part by the Reagan Administration. In light of the current review and current aircraft nose art, that suggests a question.
If so inspired, would the 100th Fighter Squadron of the 187th Fighter Wing – the famous “Red Tails” of the Alabama Air National Guard – be able to reproduce the artwork pictured under the title above on one of their F-16s? The nose art was worn by a P-51 Mustang flown in WWII by Army Air Corps Tuskegee airman, Lt. Col. Bob Friend, who passed away in 2019.
Answering indirectly, the Air Force cites the need to comply with Technical Order 1-1-8, “which states that all proposed organizational emblems and insignia will be in accordance with the Major Command’s supplement to Air Force Instruction 20-114 or equivalent MAJCOM instruction.”
While noting that nose art is prohibited on F-22s and F-35s due to stealth coating concerns, one of the service’s guidelines instructs that artwork “shall be distinctive, symbolic, gender neutral, and in good taste.”
Another traditional art form within the Air Force appears to reflect more fungible standards. While the service’s latest guidance on tattoos describes prohibited artwork associated with gangs, discrimination and sexuality, a brief review of images from the Air Force’s base tattoo shop at Nellis AFB shows latitude that may be at odds with its description of markings which have a “tendency to incite lustful thought”.
One of a number of suggestive images on the Facebook page of the American Tattoo Society of Nellis AFB, an on-base, Air Force-sanctioned tattoo shop.
AMERICAN TATTOO SOCIETY OF NELLIS AFB
Would a new review of body art and decisions regarding its removal be made the province of unit commanders as with the heraldry directive? What span of time and how much energy would it require? And how would it be received?
If the pending service and congressional reviews produce changes, we may well end up with an Air Force that supposedly offends no one. But the energy invested by its officers to ensure that outcome may well produce resentment and lead many to question whether such a force can defeat anyone?
Leave a Reply