From many quarters, the United States has been warned that it is entering a difficult era of its history. The rise of China, a destabilizing and aggressive Russia, war in the Middle East, a resurgence in authoritarianism, and the complexities of artificial intelligence (AI) and the machine age top the long list of challenges. For most of history, the United States has had a favorable wind at its back thanks to its economic power. Today, it may stand at an inflection point in the longer course of history in which its historic advantages are less meaningful as today’s world order is challenged. This is the new world into which the U.S. Naval Academy launches its graduates.
A Cold War Philosophy
Midshipmen spend 47 months on the Severn River preparing to become the next generation of leaders, not only for the Navy and Marine Corps in the near term, but also in the longer run for the nation. Whether in uniform or as civilians, these young Americans will have an outsized influence on how the United States engages with the world in the next half century. Today’s curriculum in Annapolis, however, is not based on these 21st-century challenges. Instead, it is based on challenges from 60 years ago: a bipolar Cold War and the start of the atomic age. It is time for a hard look at what midshipmen are being taught and how they are being prepared for the future.
For more than six decades, the Naval Academy has produced a particular type of officer shaped by the rapid expansion of technology after World War II. This concept of naval professionals as “masters-of-technology” was shaped by the technological advances embraced by the warfare communities as information technology, the missile age, nuclear power, and precision strike shaped the fleet in the 1960s and 1970s.1
A New Era
However, the world has changed and so have its challenges. The mission of the Navy across the Cold War and post-Cold War years was defined by Congress and the President as a warfighting mission. Today, however, the Navy also has been tasked with “the peacetime national security interests and prosperity” of the nation. Technology has continued to advance, but the challenges of that technology have changed. Beyond the difficult questions of how to design and safely operate new technology, the contemporary world has added fundamental strategic, ethical, and human questions about why, where, and when the Navy should be using technologies such as AI and the cyber domain for the best tactical, operational, and strategic advantage. The Cold War has given way to a multipolar period and a return to great power competition, a world in which applied history and international affairs are critical to future success in a new maritime statecraft.
Other aspects of American society and the U.S. military have moved on from the 1960s. The Naval Academy has seen some curricular adjustments with courses occasionally added to the core curriculum and less frequently removed. Yet, when the Education for Seapower Study was published by the Department of the Navy five years ago, it became clear that naval education was lagging the challenges of the current age. The study also noted it has been a long time since the naval education system has taken a hard look at what is taught and why. Now is the time for a deeper look at the education being provided to future leaders in Annapolis. The American people expect the Navy to challenge itself anytime it reviews the Naval Academy curriculum, not merely affirm the status quo.
Just as important as the question of “why” the Navy and Marine Corps would benefit from a broad, deep, and searching review of the curriculum is the question of “how” it should be done. However, naval officers are largely not professional educators and often do not approach questions of education with the same understanding of learning and personal development as higher-education professionals. On the other hand, college and university educators rarely have the experience to understand the complexity of naval operations on the world’s oceans and the practical applications of the knowledge imparted to future officers. Neither group has deeply studied which present-day trends will have the greatest effect on the future. For these reasons, a rigorous process taking inputs from multiple stakeholders will be vital to the effort.
The Education for Seapower Study asserted that the United States and the Sea Services are entering a new period. A long view of history suggests the same. In addition to geopolitical challenges around the world, and an accelerating proliferation of technological capabilities, the study suggested that the United States is entering a “cognitive age.” Engaging with this new reality will be “vital to assuring success in war, peace, and gray zone conflict.” It requires “officer and enlisted leaders of every rank who think critically, communicate clearly, and are imbued with a bias for decisive and ethical action.” It is time to reassess the Naval Academy’s educational program to better support its graduates and prepare them to navigate lives of leadership in this new era. A well-defined process, guideposts to the future, the needs of the services, an arms-length look at the current curriculum, and a synthesis by educational leaders to recommend well-founded changes where needed, is key to meeting 21st-century challenges. Yes, it is time.
1. Mark R. Hagerott, Commanding Men and Machines: Admiralship, Technology, and Ideology in the 20th Century U.S. Navy (PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 2008).
