The Naval Review provides the opportunity to reflect on and document important naval operations and activities of the past year through our six feature review sections authored by subject experts. This annual review also assembles handy naval information in one place. The flag and general officers’ and senior enlisted leaders’ photos and titles have been and continue to be mainstays of the issue. We have included all three Sea Services’ leaders this year.
In addition to these features, the Naval Review delivers regular monthly Proceedings content. The first three articles, all authored by serving naval professionals, address current issues. Two articles in this month’s lineup won prizes: Marine Captain Martin Wetterauer was awarded first prize in the General James N. Mattis Writing Award; Navy retired Lieutenant Commander Jonathan Vandervelde won first prize in the Emerging & Disruptive Technologies Essay Contest sponsored with Leidos.
This month’s departments feature vintage Proceedings fare. Retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hoffman’s Leadership Forum contribution examines just how much Chief of Naval Operations (and once–Naval Institute President) Admiral Arleigh Burke accomplished and how he went about it. Four authors in a special commentary section examine the recent controversy surrounding the Honorable James Webb’s decision to decline accepting the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association’s Distinguished Graduate Award, for which he had been selected. Finally, three Proceedings readers comment on the April feature “Are There Just A Few Good Men?”
All this quality content is made possible because we are blessed to work with impressive authors who “dare to write.” In addition, we have an outstanding Editorial Board whose members meet monthly to discuss and vote on articles and contest submissions. And the outstanding professionals on our staff are dedicated to the Naval Institute’s mission and the authors. From the editors to the designers to the photo editor to the administrative support staff and the advertising director, every member on this team gives 100 percent—the May issue requires even more time and energy.
We hope you enjoy the results.
Fred H. Rainbow
Where We Were
May 1917 Proceedings – With war breaking out, Marine Colonel Dion Williams authored “The Nation’s Greatest Need.” “While many millions of dollars are being expended to provide all the material elements called for by this policy of preparedness, including warships of every class, great guns for ship and shore, aircraft of all types, and increased reserves of munitions and supplies, no law has yet been enacted which will ensure that a suitable reserve of trained men will be ready should war come and inevitably bring with it the urgent necessity for a very great expansion of personnel in both the Army and the Navy.”
May 1967 Proceedings – In “NATO Strategy Flexible Response,” Captain Carl H. Amme chastised President Charles de Gaulle for pulling France out of NATO and stressed the importance of allied strategy in confronting the Soviet threat. “European leaders recognize that the United States depends on nuclear deterrence for its own survival. They also understand that the limited war concept of flexible response—as it serves to protect the allies—is based on the logic of U.S. self-interest. They see nothing wrong in having a choice of conventional as well as nuclear options to deal with various contingencies.”
May 1992 Proceedings – In his essay “Beyond the Cold War,” Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral David Jeremiah wrote, “Any realignment of U.S. military power should follow a coherent strategy for the future—not just a blind urge to reduce defense spending. Just five months after Japan’s surrender, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz complained that the United States, by itself, had ‘done what no enemy could do, and that is reduce its Navy to impotency . . . . [Today] your Navy has not the strength in ships and personnel to carry out a major military operat
A. Denis Clift
Golden Life Member