Q: What’s the Difference between the USAF and the NHL?

A: The Air Force has a larger and more influential base of fans.

In this morning’s New York Post Ralph Peters trains his rhetorical guns on the Air Force’s persistent denial of contemporary realities:
“… Former Air Force Secretary James G. Roche, who resigned last month to evade a corruption investigation, has just been cited for ethics violations in dealing with the defense industry. The service’s top acquisition official, Darleen Druyun, is in prison for her role in a corrupt tanker-leasing deal. … The Air Force’s top lawyer got the boot for sexual shenanigans with subordinates. The service continues to demand the nearly useless, $300-million-per-copy F/ A-22 fighter, …”

Last Friday WaPo sportswriter Sally Jenkins wrote about the National Hockey League’s inability to resolve its labor disputes:

In 142 days of the lockout, a total of 775 games have not been played. And you know what? The life of the average American sports fan has not been shattered -- in fact, the hockey audience has found other things that it likes better.

I see a similarity between the two situations. Both are cases of Institutionalized Denial. The Air Force leadership has managed to overlook internal corruption and the changing nature of warfare. NHL executives and labor leaders seem oblivious to their loss of fans. Institutions, just like persons can deny reality for long periods of time.

The difference is this: If – when – the NHL collapses, the only people who will be hurt will be owners, players, employees, and those few fans who still care. The Air Force, on the other hand, won’t collapse. It has a large public base of support. It will, however, experience failures. These failures will harm large numbers of people – many of whom don’t even know that they have a stake in the well being of the United States Air Force.