There may have been a time when the U.S. Naval Institute and Proceedings served the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps well, but our professional association's contributions are no longer relevant, warranted, or appropriate for the modern sea services. Proceedings is little more than a breeding ground for discontent among our younger officers, promotes disrespectful attitudes toward senior leadership, and is incompatible with good order and discipline. The Naval Institute and Proceedings are the antithesis of our modern naval ethos, and it is time to disassociate from these obsolete and archaic relics of the past.
Though the secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps will strongly disagree, the above passage is the Navy's and Marine Corps' message in deeds, if not words. Despite specific and explicit calls from senior leaders to think, write, and participate within our professional service journals, the message rings hollow. This should come as no surprise as we have failed to communicate the very purpose of our professional associations and journals to a misguided minority who perceive discourse, dialogue, and debate within Proceedings as either professional disloyalty or a threat to their own personal ambition. Failure to believe we have a problem is a large part of the problem.
Whether rooted in malicious intent or simple ignorance, institutional retaliation on those who question ideas and concepts championed by senior leaders debilitates our transformation and degenerates the health of our officer corps. The Naval Institute risks losing relevance and viability when its contributions are required most for continuing evolution and relevance. Worse, this insidious form of censorship threatens constitutionally guaranteed liberties so essential to our free society that even for service members legitimate infringements are explicitly defined, narrowly tailored, and by exception only. As defenders of the constitution and servants of our nation, we must ensure our actions are guided by only the highest ideals of service. Upon recognizing institutional self-behavior that does not meet this pinnacle standard, we must summon the moral courage to confront the enemy within.
Founded in October 1873, the U.S. Naval Institute boasts a long and proud tradition of service to both the Navy and Marine Corps. With secretary of the Navy George Robeson as sponsor and Admiral David Porter as president, seven admirals and one Marine general formed the first governing body and lent credence and institutional support to "provide an open forum for the exchange of ideas, to disseminate and advance the knowledge of sea power, and to preserve our naval and maritime heritage."1 The first Proceedings article was written by Navy Captain Stephen Luce and published on 13 November 1873; his milestone article recommended improvements in the manning of the Navy and Mercantile Marine.2 Brilliant leaps in doctrine and capabilities in carrier aviation (1920s-1930s), amphibious operations (1930s-1940s), low-intensity conflict (1960s-1970s), and littoral warfare (1980s) were introduced, developed, and facilitated through the pages of Proceedings. For 131 years since Captain Luce's article, the Naval Institute and Proceedings have contributed directly to the creation and evolution of the world's greatest naval power by challenging the status quo and establishing the conditions for innovation and evolution.
As war and warfare evolve, the power of ideas grows exponentially in importance. We do not know where our next battles lie, who our next adversaries shall be, or precisely what future combat will consist of. We are certain that the naval services must be adaptive, learning organizations that champion the free exchange of ideas to promote evolution and relevance. Our efforts at transformation are predicated on a willingness to challenge old thinking and introduce new concepts. As retired Marine Lieutenant General Van Riper recently wrote in Proceedings, "We have to create an open process where all ideas are welcomed and subjected to the test of honest debate in many venues."3 Bold, daring, and even revolutionary ideas must be welcomed not only within service schools, but also in open forums and professional journals. To achieve success in the chaos of war requires sailors and Marines with the mental agility and moral courage developed by challenging the status quo in peace. Our professional associations and journals are ideal vehicles for such intellectual rigor and institutional growth.
In both word and deed, personal example from our most senior officials has been nothing short of exemplary. In the November 2002 Proceedings, secretary of the Navy Gordon England wrote, "Challenging assumptions and conclusions and causing a measured and factual debate in the 'Independent Forum for the Sea Services' fosters the positive spirit of mutual support and development."4 Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has set the pinnacle standard for moral courage and constitutional service in this regard. When the Commander of Naval Air Forces, Pacific, stirred considerable controversy by speaking bluntly about fleet readiness, Admiral Clark vigorously defended his subordinate all the way to the U.S. Senate.5 He praised his fellow naval officer for providing a tremendous service to the Navy and to our nation by speaking not what others may want to hear, but rather what they need to hear.
As might be expected, the message to write for our professional journals was stated most bluntly by Marines. Former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles Krulak stated, "[O]riginal ideas cannot be bought or trained; they require fertile ground in which to grow and develop. The Naval Institute has long been as it is today, that fertile ground."6 Former Assistant Commandant General Michael Williams wrote, "We challenge the status quo, and we encourage our young officers [and Marines] to do the same. ... We publish our thoughts without fear of controversy or contradiction. That way we stay the best in the world. Think. Write. Participate."7 In 2002 alone, no less than 41 Proceedings contributions were authored by active and retired flag and general officers.8
As our Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush has provided his own guidance and intent when he recently stated, "I am committed to fostering a military culture where intelligent risk taking and forward thinking are rewarded not dreaded . . . to ensuring that visionary leaders who take risks are recognized and promoted," and that "new ideas don't always work. If you pick up this mantle, some of your ideas may fail. But we need to give you this freedom, and we will."9
The mandate from the President, secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps is powerful and clear: bold and daring innovation and experimentation by men and women of character, courage, and vision are our center of gravity and the source of our greatest strength.
Why then, do pockets of resistance choose to disobey and attack the Navy and Marine Corps from within? That this occurs is immediately apparent by the current debate as to whether Proceedings needs to publish anonymously to protect officers from institutional retaliation.10 Considering the clear and consistent message from our nation's highest officials, this contradiction between our words and our actions casts doubt on the health of our officer corps.
Anonymity is normally a bad policy because authors must have the courage of their convictions to stand behind their words. However, the naval services have a corresponding duty to ensure that those who demonstrate the moral courage to "think, write, and participate" are not attacked for their efforts.
Unfortunately, and almost unbelievably, there are officers among us who retaliate against subordinates who follow the implied, specific, and even explicit guidance of senior officials. Furthermore, this misconduct occurs more often than we might be comfortable admitting. Even the most cursory search revealed (1) a chief warrant officer's fitness reports became less competitive compared to his peers immediately following his article;" (2) a naval aviator was blatantly threatened with "negative career implications" if he submitted his article;12 (3) an intelligence officer received hints and threats that his article was not well received by more senior officers;" (4) a Marine captain was threatened that his article angered the reporting senior's boss and "involuntary reassignment" was likely.14 And now for the most extreme incident discovered to leave absolutely no doubt that this misconduct is a real and serious problem. The secretary of the Navy recently penned "One Team - One Fight," in which he called on naval officers to challenge the status quo and create debate specifically within Proceedings.11 How ironic therefore, that an article doing just that in the same issue of the magazine resulted in adverse counseling, a letter of reprimand, and a deliberately unjust and punitive fitness report for the officer who wrote it.16
Ignore for a moment that these actions completely disregard the words of our senior officers. Far worse, these actions make a mockery of our President's statements and completely contradict the explicit guidance of the secretary of the Navy. This blatant disobedience and deliberate defiance threatens constitutionally mandated civilian oversight and absolute control over the military. History demonstrates that military encroachment upon civilian authority starts with but a single tiny step and travels a steep and slippery slope indeed.17 As an officer corps, we ought to be outraged and ashamed.
How could we have sunk to this point? The notion that officers would launch their own personal crusades to destroy our own professional associations and journals against the wishes of our most senior civilian officials and military leaders is chilling. The governing body of the Naval Institute consists of senior officers who recognize and embrace the nexus between the naval services and the professional associations. An editorial board reviews each article considered for publication; our own brother and sister naval officers are the ones who select those best suited to promote innovation and evolution. Has careerism and zero-defect mentality created an officer corps of reporting seniors so timid and fearful that we choose moral cowardice by lashing out at those who display the moral-courage to seek institutional improvement?
We do not discard our constitutional liberties on entering the military.18 In deference to our unique role in the national defense, the Supreme Court has held that the military may narrow certain constitutional rights if a compelling interest exists and the specific restriction is precisely tailored and narrowly drawn in the Uniform Code of Military justice (UCMJ)." Regarding free speech, Article 88 (contempt toward officials), Article 89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officers), and Article 117 (provoking speeches or gestures) are applicable law.20 Unless a written article within Proceedings violates these very specific and extremely narrow parameters, legal justification is nonexistent. Article 133 (conduct unbecoming a commissioned officer) is inapplicable. Finally, Article 134 (general article) offers no legal justification unless the text itself is proven disloyal to the United States. Absent justification in the UCMJ, any effort to either restrict or punish free speech is unlawful.
Lacking lawful authority, unjust "damn with faint praise" fitness reports therefore become the retaliatory weapon of choice. This form of censorship hides behind the thin veneer of fitness reports and attacks conduct specifically encouraged by senior leaders protected by the First Amendment and Constitution. This misconduct is unethical, immoral, and cowardly. This misconduct is against the law.
The sad reality is that our Navy and Marine Corps benefit tremendously from the introduction and interplay of ideas within Proceedings, yet fail to protect the professionals who drive the evolution and transformation they facilitate. We must do better. Leaders must take action against those who retaliate against or intimidate subordinates who write for our professional journals; even the perception must be eradicated. The Naval Institute and Proceedings, as well as those who "dare to read, think, speak, and write"21 within them, have provided honorable and faithful service to the Navy and Marine Corps since long before any of us were born, but they are only as relevant as our weakest officer allows them to be. If we fail to champion bold and daring ideas, then we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves without bold and daring officers. Perhaps it is worth reconsidering whether the ideals and vision initiated by secretary of the Navy Robeson and Admiral Porter more than a century ago are so antiquated after all.
Our founding fathers recognized that the greatest threat to our constitutionally guaranteed way of life was not external, but internal; not a foreign invasion, but our own self-imposed erosion of the liberties we proclaim to protect. More recently, Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas reminded us that "restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions . . . it is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."22 Perhaps we should reconsider what it really means within our oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
1 www.usni.org/welcome.htm.
2 Stephen Luce, "The Manning of Our Navy and Mercantile Marine," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1873, p. 1.
3 P. K. Van Riper, "Preparing for War Takes Study and Open Debate," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 2002, p. 2.
4 Gordon England, "One Team - One Fight," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 2002, p. 96.
5 J. van Tol, "Using Anonymity Is Dysfunctional" U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2003, p. 48.
6 Charles Krulak, Marine Corps Gazette, September 2003, p. 52.
7 Michael Williams, "Observations from the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps," Marine Corps Gazette, April 2002, p. 23.
8 This includes 8 articles by four-star admirals/generals, 19 by vice admirals/lieutenant generals, and 14 by rear admirals, major generals, and brigadier generals.
9 President George W. Bush, address delivered at the U.S. Naval Academy, May 2001.
10 For example, see February through June 2003 Comment and Discussion in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings.
11 Richard Beauchamp, Comment and Discussion, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2003, p 18.
12 Mike Boettcher, Comment and Discussion, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2003, p. 20.
13 Joseph Mazzafro, Comment and Discussion, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2003, p. 18.
14 Author's interview.
15 Gordon England, "One Team - One Fight."
16 Author's interview.
17 For example, see David Evans and Mark Peattie, Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1997), especially pp. 296-98 and 451-64 for the barely perceptible initial steps taken by officers in the Imperial Japanese Navy to exert pressure on the established civilian government, and how, over time, these officers were emboldened by their success to make ever greater grabs for power until they had superseded and usurped power from lawful authority.
18 Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 810 (9th Cir, 1980); see Phillips, 106 F.3d at 1426. Also, High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 572 (9lh Cir. 1990).
19 For an outstanding legal analysis of constitutional law as applied to the military, see Beds with Sheets but No Covers: The Right to Privacy and the Military's Regulation of Adultery, by Jim Winner.
20 Manual for Courts-Martial and Uniform Code of Military Justice, 2000 Edition, NAVSO P-6064, chap. IV, pp. 17-18, 62, 93, and 94-126.
21 Quote by President John Adams. For an interesting read on the former President of the United States and his contributions to our nation, see www.house.gov/resources/107cong/parks/2001junel2/mccullough.htm
22 Justice Douglas in a speech delivered 3 December 1951. Recorded in the Neiman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1 (January 1953), p. 20.
Major Ukeiley has commanded at both the platoon and company levels and is the incoming executive officer, 2d Force Reconnaissance Company. He has earned bachelor's, master's, juris doctor (law), and master of philosophy degrees.