DARE 2018 brought together 60 forward-thinking uniformed personnel and civilians to address two issues presented by Marine Corps Commandant General Robert Neller: alcohol and resiliency.
The Marine Commandant whispers. Eight mid-level officers and senior enlisted sit ramrod straight behind a table, just across from General Robert Neller. I’m off to the side, so I have to lean forward to catch his words. General Neller had just heard the first of two reports issued by a task force called DARE 2018. Both were seriously challenging and provocative.
The first question the task force was asked to address was “How should the Marine Corps deal with its alcohol problem?” Notice the Commandant did not ask whether the Corps had a problem. He bypassed any niceties: We have a problem. What do we do about it?
The second question was a higher order, more global challenge: “Does this generation have the resiliency to fight a major war with a real peer adversary?” (Not like in Iraq or Afghanistan.)
This was the third year the Naval Institute had convened such a group, with the support and active participation of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandants of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard and, this year, sponsorship from USAA. Sixty people—including civilians and military professionals hand-picked to attend by their commanding officers—convened during the Naval Institute/AFCEA WEST conference in San Diego in February and spent two days addressing the questions posed by the Marine Commandant. (Next year, the questions will be posed by the Coast Guard Commandant.)
Alcohol
Within minutes of the introductory “design thinking” exercises—smartly refined by Professor Michael Meyer of the University of California, San Diego, who has facilitated two of the DARE sessions—the alcohol team had refined the problem. Yes, the Marine Corps has a drinking problem; we are not going to blame it on the larger societal alcohol problem; and we should distinguish between excessive drinking itself and the complications that ensue when a Marine drinks too much, gets into a fight, gets stopped for driving under the influence, or abuses a spouse. There is bad and worse, and we have to deal with all of it.
For two days, four teams of seven or eight people attacked the question. The design thinking process is carefully structured, with discrete assignments and tight time limits. At first, participants are encouraged to think broadly and creatively. Then they are instructed to refine ideas and eliminate options, even voting on other teams’ recommendations. What emerges are ostensibly the best-of-the-best. On day three, some of these folks would be required to brief their results to the Commandant. What they did not know was that General Neller would bring along Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft.
The alcohol team began its recommendations with what at first seemed an obvious comment: the need to have an open dialogue. But it was necessary because some of their more granular recommendations would be controversial.
The group made clear to the Commandant that “pregaming”—excessive drinking before going out with friends—is more the norm than the exception. The message that needs to be conveyed, they said, is not abstinence but that responsible, social drinking in moderation is just fine. The first message to the Commandant was if we fear the consequences of a zero-defect mentality, we will never discuss the subject or deal with the real problems.
What the group wanted to talk about next was the need for—and difficulty in incorporating—demonstrations of responsible drinking. How is an 18-year-old Marine (still three years shy of legal drinking age in the United States) going to learn responsible drinking? Rules against fraternization make it unlikely that younger Marines will have many opportunities to see senior enlisted or officers in a “natural” social setting.
From the start of the session, General Neller was fully engaged. He listened, asked questions, and at times allowed an awkward silence to envelop the room while he thought about what had been discussed. Occasionally, he (and Admiral Zukunft) pushed back, such as when the group raised the question of the seemingly inevitable legalization of marijuana.
There also was the occasional outburst of disbelief, such as when the DARE presenter recommended allowing Uber and Lyft onto Marine bases, rather than having inebriated Marines drive their own cars. “They’re not allowed?” asked a clearly surprised Commandant. Before the briefer could continue, Admiral Zukunft weighed in: “My wife and I recently came back from vacation and took an Uber from Dulles. Even though I was in the car, the driver wasn’t allowed onto the base. The driver had to let us off, and we had to walk the last mile.”
General Neller looked at the two aides who had accompanied him with a look that said, “Find a way to fix this.”
Other alcohol-related recommendations ranged from professionalizing each command’s substance abuse control officer to conducting “change the culture training” similar to what has been done for sexual assault prevention. When the group suggested having more “controlled” environments where Marines would be allowed to drink—and thus be more likely to drink responsibly—the Commandant surprised everyone by saying he had thought about putting beer vending machines in barracks. Easy availability mitigates the appeal of the forbidden fruit.
As this part of the session ended, it was noted that a core strength of the Marine Corps is the pride in what it means to be a Marine. There needs to be a small but critical shift from excessive drinking to responsible drinking. And if the Corps can find the linchpin that links moderation of one’s personal behavior to a Marine’s immoderate effectiveness on the battlefield, that war will be won.
Resiliency
“We need a God of war.” Of all the insights and recommendations that emerged from the DARE resiliency group, none stood out more than the overwhelming agreement that the Corps—indeed the entire U.S. defense establishment—needs an unpredictable disrupter in its war-gaming exercises. If the Marine Corps is to strengthen its resiliency, which the group defined as the cyclical ability to get stronger and bounce back from continual and stressful impacts, it must change training in one significant way.
Building on the premise that the Corps should train like it fights, the group argued for incorporating more uncertainty and randomness into the training environment—in short, “injecting chaos” into standard training programs and exercises. It needs to be ready to face a peer adversary whose battlefield options are unrestricted and an unpredictable environment.
From my vantage point, it looked like General Neller almost smiled; the group had touched a hot button.
Interestingly, the resiliency group considered and rejected the Commandant’s initial suggestion that this “generation” might not have the resiliency necessary to fight a major war. Resiliency, they concluded, is not a generational issue. It is, however, a societal one. And there was real concern that while there is public support for the Corps (and the entire military), there is very little understanding or support for what the military is training to do.
Whether that eggshell-thin support is a function of 17 years of continuous engagement in Afghanistan and the Middle East or a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans having a family member in the service was discussed but not addressed in detail. What was put forth was the wishful-thinking proposal that the Department of Defense and Hollywood create and distribute public service and social media campaigns as a way to better engage the American public.
These media campaigns would range from discussing the threats to a free and open society to explaining the military’s role in national security. Specific reference was made to the World War II efforts of such brilliant movie directors as Frank Capra, who created the “Why We Fight” films.
The last set of recommendations touched on how to get the Marine Corps (and Navy) to reward smart risk taking by officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted men and women. There was recurring concern that the zero-defect mentality—and its impact on promotion—stifles innovation and learning from failure.
Exactly what or whether the Commandant will choose to implement any of the groups’ recommendations is unknown, but having observed two DARE exercises, I am convinced of several things.
• First, the design thinking methodology is a productive approach to problem solving. Compared to what I have seen over 35 years in “creative” businesses as an operator, consultant, and entrepreneur, it yields far better disciplined thinking and productive recommendations than, say, traditional “brainstorming.”
• Second, the exercise itself—composed of people from different services and leavened by some civilians—is good for the participants and good for the military. They stretched their minds, broadened their perspectives, and believed they would be heard.
• Third, participants demonstrated an overwhelming respect for and frustration with their individual services. Whether Marine Corps, Navy, or Coast Guard—and no one doubts it would apply to the Army and Air Force as well—service members want to see more rewards (or at least no punishment) for smart risk taking.
Mr. Cohen is an attorney in New York and a former member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Naval Institute.