In this era of "rightsizing" and intense media scrutiny, the Navy's policies must be reexamined and carefully defined. Naval service is a unique job, which cannot be defined by civilian standards or political whims. Military necessity should underline naval policy, and winning wars should be its goal.
I was part of a joint task force last year during Exercise Purple Star, in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The purpose of our armed forces was reinforced for me as artillery rounds whistled over my communication post and pummeled the hulks on the impact area below me. When the artillery stopped, helicopters began launching rockets, creating terrible devastation in the target area. The sheer violence of the attacks reminded me—in no uncertain terms—of the purpose of our military: to fight and win wars.
We in the U.S. Navy do not go home to our families every day at 1700. We are warriors who have volunteered to go in harm's way in defense of our national interests. U.S. taxpayers pay us to fight their wars for them. But just because Sailors are on the public payroll, does not mean they should be subjected to every social experiment our government may devise.
If Iraq had conquered Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the lives of U.S. citizens would have been turned upside down, with Saddam Hussein controlling the world's oil supply. Our Navy played a major role in pushing Iraq's army back across the border. Clearly, power projection and control of the seas are imperative in the defense of our nation's interests. It is our job—and our duty—to enforce our national policies through unmatched sea power, guided by sound naval policy.
The standard against which our naval policy should be measured is whether or not it will increase or decrease our military effectiveness. It is difficult for civilians to understand that the military is unique in its priorities. The Navy's first priority must be in preserving its ability to fight, and not its suitability as a social laboratory. Should homosexuals be openly accepted into our ranks? Should women be deployed on combatant ships? Certainly, we should adopt these policies if this will increase our military effectiveness. If they will not, however, the Navy should resist such policies, regardless of "social conscience" and civilian practices.
Naval programs stress psychology and leadership skills, but what about the Navy's mission—to fight wars? It is important to develop your subordinates, perform counseling, and keep accurate records, but all of that means nothing if we can't win wars.
The real ability of our Navy to fight is all that matters. With a gaping hole in the side of the ship the point is driven home that it is more important to have well-trained damage control teams than it is to have perfect records.
It is the moral duty of Navy leaders to ensure that its men and women remain focused on their ability to fight and win wars, and therefore less likely to be wounded or killed in action. A Navy concerned with public opinion, social experiments, or hurricane cleanup is a Navy that is distracted from its primary mission of fighting wars. Furthermore, a Navy trying to carry out an ambiguous mission will never be as effective when wars need to be fought—and too many of our sons and daughters will make the ultimate sacrifice, because they were not prepared for war.
Chief Monaghan is the Communications Officer at Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Six in Charleston, South Carolina.