Admiral Tom Marfiak's proposal in the Publisher's Page of the February Proceedings to publish certain pieces anonymously to protect writers from vengeful seniors should shock the readership. The implication that vigorous and honest debate is not possible in the Navy for fear of professional retaliation should appall all naval officers because it suggests our institutional health is poor.
I believe such fears are overstated. There is, however, sufficient recent precedent that they cannot be dismissed out of hand. The 1990s in the Navy was, as the old saying goes, a "low, dishonest decade" in many ways. Take the intellectually dishonest and politicized manner in which women-in-combat policy was implemented: lack of significant service and public debate concerning possible effects on combat readiness created lasting distrust among many now-senior officers and made acceptance of women in combat units even harder. Similarly, the often opportunistic and cowardly way the Navy dealt with the Tailhook scandal spawned a deep cynicism that will take another decade to dissipate. And consider oft-repeated declarations that fleet readiness was good while the evidence made it glaringly obvious there was no necessary connection between official statements and reality. In those days, I was dismayed at senior officers looking over their shoulders to see who might be listening before they discussed such controversies. Indeed, the Proceedings' top editor was nearly fired for publishing a satirical article dealing with these issues.
To the extent it is true, fear of open and honest debate does not bode well for our future. First, in this day of 70% first-term retention, it is easy to forget the deep-seated retention problems of the late 1990s that were largely self-inflicted—working sailors into the ground to accomplish often ill-considered training and inspections and events, while asserting that the force had never been better. Sailors and junior officers, smart enough to believe their own eyes, walked away in large numbers. Things are much better now, with reduced workloads, higher pay, and post-11 September 2001 resolve to win the war on terrorism. Not least, the leadership style of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has helped restore trust in the ranks. But it behooves us to remember we can return quickly to deplorable personnel retention rates if this trust is eroded.
Second, whether or not we accept notions such as the "revolution in military affairs" and "transformation," the pace of technological, social, and organizational change has accelerated greatly in recent years. Innovative thought regarding warfighting should not be constrained by a priori limits on action and imagination, let alone intellectual intimidation. The ideas implicit in "Sea Power 21" are realizable only if the Navy fosters the "culture of innovation" advertised so widely. But those are empty words if bearers of bad news or new ideas get shot in the face by seniors afraid of threats to their programs and visions of the future. Perceptions of professional retaliation should be forestalled by the Navy's leadership before they take root. They must take immediate actions to punish senior officers who retaliate against or intimidate juniors for expressing ideas that run counter to the party line. Intellectual thuggery has no place in the Navy.
The CNO set the gold standard in this regard. When Vice Admiral John Nathman, as Commander, Naval Air Forces, Pacific, stirred up considerable controversy by speaking forthrightly about fleet readiness, many wondered what would happen to him. During his May 2000 confirmation hearings, one senator asked Admiral Clark whether there would be retaliation against Admiral Nathman for his public comments. The CNO replied to the contrary, underscoring Admiral Nathman's importance to the Navy's future. So it should be for juniors who "speak truth (as they see it) to power" in doing their part to improve the Navy.
For the good of the Navy, officers should engage in vigorous debate on controversial issues and encourage intellectual ferment in the Navy and among maritime enthusiasts. The Proceedings should be a marketplace of ideas. Senior naval officers should defend that role openly and laud the efforts of participants in debates—especially those who take on the most difficult issues.
Using writer anonymity because of fear of retaliation is dysfunctional because of what it implies about the state of the Navy and the honor of its senior officers. If we really are in such a sorry state, permitting anonymity in the Proceedings will make a serious problem much worse. Forcing writers to skulk through the intellectual underbrush fosters a climate of dishonesty and dishonor. They should stand by their views and senior officers should encourage them to do so. Only then can the Proceedings continue to perform its traditionally unique and vital role for the Navy and the nation.
Captain van Tol is the senior military assistant to the Director of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He is the prospective commanding officer of the USS Essex (LHD-2).
Using Anonymity Is Dysfunctional
By Jan M. van Tol