In the Sailor’s Creed, all Sailors attest that they “proudly serve . . . with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.” This seems a ringing affirmation of what the Navy refers to as its “timeless core values.” Further cementing the abiding nature of these values, we are told, “From those early days of naval service, certain bedrock principles, or core values, have carried on to today.” One might presume that honor, courage, and commitment have been both the Navy’s and the Marine Corps’ core values since 1775.
With respect to the Navy, however, these three values have been “timeless” only since 1992. Before then, honor, courage, and commitment were the core values of the Marine Corps. Between 1955 and 1992, the Navy’s “core values” were professionalism, integrity, and tradition.
Following the 1991 Tailhook scandal, the Navy determined it was necessary to reexamine its tenets. Regarding this process, then-Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy John Hagan wrote: “The words (Professionalism, Integrity, and Tradition) were not working for us. Mostly they were gathering dust in some lofty places where Sailors rarely ventured. There really was no reason to object to adopting new words to inspire and guide the Sailor.” According to Master Chief Hagan, General Walter Boomer, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, said of the Marines’ core values: “We like them; they are working for us; and we are not going to change them!”
It was at this point that the Navy simply adopted the Marine Corps’ core values in toto. As an added bonus, honor, courage, and commitment became the common values of the entire Naval Service. Yet somehow the Navy felt no obligation to use or even consider the Marine Corps’ (or anyone else’s) corresponding definitions. When the Navy finished its work, the words were the same, but the meaning attached to each was profoundly different.
For example, the Marines define commitment as follows:
This is the spirit of determination and dedication found in Marines. It leads to the highest order of discipline for individuals and units. It is the ingredient that enables 24-hour-a-day dedication to Corps and country. It inspires the unrelenting determination to achieve a standard of excellence in every endeavor.
This definition is shaped to closely align with the Corps’ mission.
Compare the Marine approach to how the Navy defines commitment:
Demand respect up and down the chain of command; Care for the safety, professional, personal, and spiritual well-being of our people; Show respect toward all people without regard to race, religion, or gender; Treat each individual with human dignity; Be committed to positive change and constant improvement; Exhibit the highest degree of moral character, technical excellence, and competence in what we have been trained to do. The day-to-day duty of every Navy man and woman is to work together as a team to improve the quality of our work, our people and ourselves.
Respect comes through, perhaps, but not commitment.
The Navy’s explanation of commitment, like those it has formulated for honor and courage, smacks of an insular, politically motivated group creating a definition without respect for the integrity of the term, instead attaching to it whatever admonitions seem most expedient for its own purposes.
The Navy succeeded in having every Sailor recognize as core values the words honor, courage, and commitment. On the other hand, it is unlikely that any Sailor could define these words in a way that even remotely mirrors the official service definition. Is that useful? The Navy’s elaboration is so profoundly different from the Marines’ that it is simply untrue to claim that the two services share the same core values. The Navy needs to more closely tie the definitions of its core values to the reason it exists: “to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations at sea.”
While John Paul Jones had much to say about honor, courage, and commitment, he likely would have been bewildered by the modern Navy’s moralizing admonitions, which seem better suited to the clergy than Sailors. It seems Navy core values have been hijacked by those more interested in making the service a “safe space” than in defining a modern warrior’s ethos. Suddenly, professionalism, integrity, and tradition are sounding pretty good.
Captain Eyer served in seven cruisers, commanding three: the USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51), Shiloh (CG-67), and Chancellorsville (CG-62).