Mr. Lind accuses our Officer Corps of a hollow, cavalier attitude that would suggest they neither recognize nor wrestle with the threats of tomorrow or the mistakes of today. Ask any moderately informed officer on their thoughts about cyber-war, the F-35, LCS, insurgency, the utility of carriers, the proliferation of anti-ship cruise-missiles, etc.. and the opinions will be heated and varied. The Center for International Maritime Security has featured an entire week debating the merits of the Navy’s,“Air Sea Battle,” concept. The United States Naval Institute archives decades of articles relating to the debate over carriers. Small Wars Journal is a running testament to the continued debate over insurgency and irregular ground conflicts. There are also sometimes-anonymous outlets, like theSailor Bob forum, Information Dissemination, or the wild wonderful world ofCommander Salamander’s blog; they are quite popular in -light- of the often unique and critical perspective taken by writers.
The majority of these articles are written by officers, with the approval or non-interference of their leadership. Of course, not all military leadership is necessarily embracing criticism, but that is natural to any top-down organization. We’ve made great strides. The Navy released theBalisle Report on its critical issues with maintenance. CDR Snodgrass’ 24 page study on retention is now a topic of wide debate encouraged by VADM Moran, Chief of Naval Personnel. If, as Mr.Lind describes, our officer corps had a comical “hulk-smash” reaction to suggestions of US Military weaknesses or institutional flaws, we’d have long ago beaten ourselves to rubblein the haze of an insatiable rage.
Matthew Hipple is a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer. A graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, he is Director of the NEXTWAR blog for the Center for International Maritime Security. While his opinions may not reflect those of the United States Navy, Department of Defense, or US Government, he wishes they did. Follow him on twitter: @AmericaHipple.
Beltway Escapee 
Matt,
In my opinion, you’re confusing the volume of forums and people griping on the internet (keep reading, I’m not being pejorative at them) with the amount of real, substantive, institution-affecting dialogue going on at the levels of the institution where the rubber meets the road. I’m a huge fan of these forums and those participating in them. As you know, I’ve participated as well. Do these forums have an effect on the beast? Not much. Once in a while, an article will get attention and be circulated at higher levels, but for the most part, the people with the juice never even see this stuff. Those that do are already fighting (and losing) the good fight.
In my writing, I only got the attention of a GO a few times. Some of those were positive and very personally rewarding discussions, but have had little long-term impact on the organization.
More to the point, the only time I really got the attention of the “institution” was when I wrote a very short piece on my own blog questioning just how critical STOVL was to the Marine Corps. This got picked up into several other forums where it eventually came to the attention of the brass. In short order, I’d been warned via a friend at 3d Marine Air Wing that my post had made the CG’s morning Ops/Intel brief that “some Herc guy wrote a post about the F-35 and the Deputy Commandant for Aviation is not happy.” In short order, I’d been counseled by two O-6s who made it clear that both the Commandant and Deputy Commandant for Aviation knew my name, were not happy, and had directed that I be counseled. As luck would have it, LtGen Waldhauser was visiting MARCENT that week and also wanted to counsel me. The Chief of Staff said I’d been duly informed to cease and desist, so he let it go.
But I digress. Sure, we’re not a complete echo chamber. Sure, CDR Snodgrass’s white letter has gotten some attention. But name a Boyd. A Wyly. Someone who isn’t just writing, but actually waging institutional insurgency. I can’t think of one. Maybe there are, but I’d question just how much a few people can do in this beast.
Also, in the end, the Boyds and the Wylys made significant and lasting impacts. But overall, how much “reform” actually happened? There’s no epiphany. They just faded into history and left behind some thoughts that are incredibly important, but all too often have become slogans that completely misunderstand their underlying meaning.
What would Boyd have to say about the F-35? How much real maneuver warfare will the Corps do as its budget is swallowed up by incredibly expensive aircraft (both to procure and maintain) and its leadership spends the precious capital of institutional focus and esprit on an increasingly embarrassing and bizarre set of initiatives that have nothing to do with a combat mindset…
Keep fighting the good fight, Matt, but don’t expect too much.
Sir,
Agreed… then the critical->(but) for our Boyd, or our Wylie, or our Mahan… they were remarkable, but as much as I love their verve and critical intelligence, I would argue we have wider nets today. Perhaps our new snags are much higher price-tags; I am sure the cost of ending the F-35 is slightly more than engaging in Sims’ continuing-aim-fire model.
Do we despair for exceptional individuals? Perhaps, but that is why they are the exception. No matter, we’ve had our Powell, our Riper, our Schwartzkopf, our Mattis, our Stavridis, and others. Our Boyds may be working as we speak in a 3-D printing lab somewhere in Picatinny or San Diego. Our Wylie’s may just be washed out in a sea of other Wylie’s, since while our debate may not have the depth of our strategic forefathers… it is far wider and more crowded.
I don’t disagree that we are a slovenly and slow institution, but an institution is, in the end, it’s people. I’ve seen dumb and curmudgeonly people who wear the same navy Khaki that I do. Maybe that group does fit Lind’s description… but the majority of people are breaking out of the lifelines and bringing what they find back inside.
The first step was accepting we have a problem, and I think the forums I cite show that we do. The larger these outside discussions become, and the more they creep into our institution (Picatinny Arsenal’s 3-D printing lab, CNO’s rapid innovation cell, hell… service chiefs paying attention to their facebook pages), the more they will effect the leaders of tomorrow.
There’s a JOPA patch out there that says, “You either die the hero, or live long enough to become the villain.” I look at guys like Zumwalt or Mattis and think,.”that’s not true at all.” You may not get traction with the GOFO, but the GOFO of tomorrow is reading you now. We’ll get better, I promise.
*GOFO’s of tomorrow.
I definitely was not presuming to talk about myself!
There’s a corollary to this argument on the civilian side as well. I saw very little institutional interest among very insightful staff members in being the nail that stands out. I was also counseled to not speak up, and to accept that I should keep pushing softly for 30 years in the hope of maybe making some institutional change. But look at Chuck Spinney, or Van Riper. Or the smart military folks that go through Andy Marshall’s office. Some have a big moment, like MC2002, but I’ve seen almost no evidence of anyone in senior leadership pushing for a real, institutional self-eval. Yes, there is a lot of great blog commentary out there today. But who’s out there putting their reputation on the line to ask uncomfortable questions.