Publisher's Page

I wish every member could have joined us for our 129th Annual Meeting and 13th Annapolis Seminar. While we had some negative news to report—primarily an operating deficit for 2002—the spirit and energy at this year's event were outstanding.

Highlights of the two-day event—texts of the Sea Service chiefs' addresses, "The State of the Naval Institute," Golden Life Members, Award Winners, and more—are on our web site: www.usni.org.

I found Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark's opening remarks to his address particularly encouraging and rewarding:

"If we were looking for reasons why we could have not been here today we have them—but this was something I really wanted to do. First, I want thank Admiral Tom Marfiak for the kind of support and the partnership that we have had with the Naval Institute this past year. Second, I want to, in a very public way, express my appreciation to the Naval Institute for the manner in which its staff members have helped us publish and communicate our vision for the future, our vision for the U.S. Navy in the 21st century—'Sea Power 21.' I believe that the Naval Institute has done a fantastic job.

"When we decided to publish 'Sea Power 21,' we were convinced that we needed to have a succession of discussions about this vision. We approached the Naval Institute to work with us on this and they agreed to do so. We are grateful for the partnership. I will tell you that the Naval Institute's staff have suffered with us in working with tight time lines and pushing publication dates. I hope it worked well for the Naval Institute; it certainly worked for us, and we appreciate it greatly."

I also am privileged to share with you here the words of our Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Editorial Board Chairman, and two prize winners:

Vice Admiral Al Konetzni, U.S. Navy—I have been the Chairman of the Board of the Directors only for a little bit of time, and I am just getting my feet on the ground. This will be one hell of a year. I guarantee you, however, we are going to make things work.

One of the things that always has appealed to me—and that is what I think about the Naval Institute—is that intellectual arguments eventually will carry the day. I really believe that. You might get beat up at first; people may not agree with your argument; and you probably will have to endure a couple of rebukes. But sooner or later, if it is right, if it will stand up to questioning, you will win. I think intellectual arguments are what this organization is all about. Looking back, 129 years of intellectual arguments—good arguments—have been made in this forum. When you look at American naval primacy early in the 20th century, it is clear that this did not happen by accident; it was the result of intellectual arguments made by naval officers and others who dared to make those arguments.

Since those days, this place—the Naval Institute—has been the marketplace for arguments. My gut tells me that if we are to succeed as a Navy, and even as a nation, or at least be a heck of a lot more efficient and the like, we need to continue to use this venue as a marketplace as we set our course for the future. I think when decisions are made without open discourse and honest intellectual discussions, they are more than likely to be flawed.

Today, I am saddened by the fear of open debate in the military. I loved those days when we'd get around in a circle and just duke it out intellectually. Then we would come back the next day and say, "Well, you win. I was wrong." We seem to have lost that spirit. I am disappointed that many of the more controversial issues that we are wrestling with are not being discussed openly—particularly in the pages of Proceedings. I am discouraged by this situation. I can remember getting that rag when I was a midshipman, and the first thing I wanted to do was look at "Nobody asked me, but. . . ." Then I would read those responses to articles. It was good; it was wonderful. I may not always have agreed with those authors. Generally, however, I would say to myself, "Boy, what a gutsy guy." Every once in a while I would think, "Boy, what a dumb guy. He's going to get his butt kicked by his community."

It upsets me that folks like me, and more senior officers, do not want to hear intellectual arguments. My gut feeling is it is either my way or the highway oftentimes, and I do not like that. I think it hurts us. I think it is a tragedy—and that may be too strong a word—that naval professionals, in droves, have walked away from this forum. It really upsets me that we do not have, perhaps, the cadre of people who dare to speak and read and write and think openly.

I do not know what happened. I do not blame the Naval Institute. I think some of our problems started in the '90s. Maybe it started with the gun explosion on the battleship Iowa (BB-61). Maybe it did not help that we were downsizing, or that we had, in the early '90s, the Clarence Thomas hearings. It probably did not help that we had lots of bad press regarding the 1991 Tailhook Convention. Lots of things occurred. But I know one thing for sure: we changed. Instead of looking forward and saying this is the way it is and here is my intellectual argument, we started asking, "How am I doing? Okay? How do I protect my back?"

I think, as a result, some real problems occurred. Certainly our fleet size dwindled much more rapidly than we wanted it to. It broke my heart to send ships away when they only had reached the midpoints of their service lives. No one raised his or her voice about maintenance and readiness issues. Too few complained in the mid-'90s about treatment of sailors and officers. We should have. Too few looked at attrition in our Navy. There were no great debates about readiness. And we never even talked in the '90s about recapitalization, and look where we are now—the smallest Navy since 1932. So I think the absence of those intellectual arguments, advocating a strong Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, had some very terrible consequences.

The good news is that we are past those times. The upswing has begun. Today, we are investing properly in readiness, and we are starting to look hard at recapitalization, future readiness, what the Navy should look like. We are doing great in the people business.

The issue today is the Naval Institute. The bad news for the organization is that we have not seen a real rebirth of intellectual arguments in recent years. We have forgotten how to make them. Those '90s were really terrible for this Naval Institute, as well. We have not rebounded. Go back and you see a steady decline in membership since 1991. We ran deficits the past two years. The bottom line is if we keep going this way, we are out of business.

Still, I believe we are at a good point, and I am positive about things. We will make the right changes. The staff and the Board of Directors are taking action, and we have to come up with strategic and business plans. The goals are simple. First, we need more members. And we are going to get more members; I do not care what it takes. Second, we have to sell more books. Third, both Proceedings and Naval History must attract more readers, both members and certainly subscribers. Finally, the Naval Institute Foundation has to continue to work to raise more funds.

But our plan really means little without leadership. We can blame lots of things—the economy and the like—for our situation. But we have to look ourselves in the mirror. It breaks my heart that many flag officers are not members. Quite frankly, they should be members; I think they have an obligation to support this organization. It is critical that every naval officer—and that is Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officer—be a member of the Naval Institute. If some do not like the Naval Institute, that is fine; get out a pen and make it better. It is our forum. We are not turning down good articles; we are not getting enough articles that debate the tough issues.

So how do we all help? We have to put the word out. We have to dare. We have to dare to read and think and speak and write—i.e., get those intellectual arguments out there. We have to challenge—certainly us in uniform—our fellow leaders to encourage and reward those who are willing to speak out and write the truth. You all can help by giving us advice on how we can improve. How can we make this wonderful organization more relevant to a rising generation of military leaders? We all can get the word out and let other folks know their obligation to the Naval Institute.

Make no mistake, it will take an awful lot of work. If we fail to restore those intellectual arguments, then I think we will continue to hurt our own culture. In the end, it will hurt national defense.

It really is an honor to be with you. I am very proud to be in this position. I swear that I will do everything I possibly can to try to correct some of the things in this year ahead.

Rear Admiral Pat Stillman, U.S. Coast Guard—It certainly is apparent that a sense of history and purpose is absolutely assigned to the institution that all of us in this room hold in our hands, and that is the Naval Institute. To experience the gifts of your intellect, your pens, your perceptions, and your sense of purpose is unquestionably a gift of the good Lord, for not only myself but also the other members of the Editorial Board.

I had the opportunity to command the Eagle, which is a tall ship of 23 sails, 21,350 square feet of canvas. It was a very interesting experience for a naval officer to rationalize the fact that, although you had 23 sails, the reality was 6 provided 90% of the drive. For the Naval Institute, it is safe to say that our driving sails are grounded in the opportunities that are afforded you, and those like you, who truly dare to think, speak, and challenge, as well as embrace the roots of our profession.

Undoubtedly, Ron Chambers and the Press are of instrumental importance to our success. We will be gifted to interact with the authors in this room that take full advantage of that institutional driving sail. Of course, you cannot begin to imagine or plan a voyage unless you know where you have been. And Naval History under the gifted leadership of Fred Schultz is instrumental to that undertaking. Naval History, in turn, is complemented by the gift of Fred Rainbow's leadership for Proceedings. The innovation that now accompanies Proceedings with our seminar program truly permits the men and women on the deck plates to engage in all manners and fashions to ask the hard questions and to grow in the experience. You then complement these sails with entries in the essay contests, which now number five and we hope to grow. It would be grand to once again reinstitute essay contests for both the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard.

We thank the sponsors of our essay contests: Northrop Grumman, the Arleigh Burke Essay Contest; Boeing, the Joint Warfighting Essay Contest; Booz Allen Hamilton, the Enlisted Essay Contest; and the Vincent Astor Foundation, the Leadership Essay Contest. We also recognize the Navy Federal Credit Union's sponsorship of our annual photo contest.

If you combine those driving sails together—those anchors to windward, if you would permit the use of that metaphor—I think we have the right magic to truly dare to think, write, and engage, to serve not only the needs of this institution, but also the virtues that all of us hold dear.

Arleigh Burke Essay Contest: Second Prize Winner, Captain Sam Tangredi, U.S. Navy—I would like to thank every member of the Naval Institute for your support for the open forum that has built our magnificent military that is defending us today and bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. I'm reminded of the words of Sun Tzu, the great Chinese sage, many years ago who said that the victorious army wins the victory even before the battle; the defeated army fights the battle with only a hope of winning. Building the force that we have, in the open debate, contributed to the magnificent military forces of the United States. That, I think, has ensured our ultimate victory. And the Naval Institute and its members have all been a major part of it.

I often have said how much a role this institution plays in the decision making of the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard. You do not see that on the surface; it always happens below the surface. I think we always must remind ourselves how important it is. I think of the wonderful words that Admiral Konetzni has given us this morning, and I contrast that with a not-too-long-ago boss of mine—a flag officer—who said, "Anybody who writes for Proceedings is disloyal." I would like us to remind ourselves, and to thank you for allowing those people, who some may think are disloyal, to get some of their ideas forward. Because I think this debate is what contributes to building the magnificent force we have today.

Arleigh Burke Essay Contest: First Prize Winner, Captain Chris Johnson, U.S. Navy (Retired)—Admiral Konetzni's remarks restoked a fire in me that has been going since 1970. It is that any organization that will not actively embrace criticism and new ideas digs itself into a rut but thinks it is flying high at the same time.

When I was an ensign I would take "new" ideas to my lieutenant, and he would say, "Chris, write them down and give them to me." Then they would disappear, of course. I would say to myself, "Well, we're busy." Then when you became the lieutenant, you realized that "Write them down and submit them" really meant, "Don't you have something better to do? We don't need these new ideas here."

It was at that point in my career when I was deciding whether to stay in when I discovered the Naval Institute. I realized there was an avenue to bring great ideas—even dissenting ideas—to the forum and have them published and gain a lot of interface with other people who were in the same boat with you, who thought there were real issues to be solved. It was such an enormous reassurance to me that that avenue existed. I stayed in the Navy. I do not think I would have if I had not found Proceedings.

I think back to the article "Get Off My Back, Sir" (August 1977). I sat there with that article in my stateroom for months, saying, "If this can be published, by God, we've still got a sense of life in us," because the guy was right. Still, no one would admit it until that article came out. So special thanks to the Naval Institute for the courage to publish that article. Special thanks for the midshipmen and junior officers who may stay in the Navy because of that, and serve their country and do the things that we all honor in this society, the protection of our freedoms.