Well this isn't very original... read all three of these.
U.S. Navy protecting our nation's interests every day by Rear Admiral AsbjornsenI wonder if there is a "Rear Admiral's Memo" out there somewhere that instructs towards public engagement or if this is just a wild coincidence? Wait, no I don't, because we all know the answer...
Rear Admiral Asbjornsen is Deputy Commander, Navy Region Northwest.
Call them America’s ‘Away Team’ by Rear Admiral Pybus
Rear Admiral Pybus is Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command.
How the Navy protects America by Rear Admiral Klein
Rear Admiral Margaret DeLuca "Peg" Klein is Chief of Staff, U. S. Cyber Command.
These are not the same editorial, although you have to look very closely to realize that, and all three editorials clearly used the same set of talking points. A big part of me likes the active engagement by leadership aspect of these editorials, but another part of me wonders why everyone in the lower Flag ranks - who are otherwise interesting and intelligent - must resort to boiler plate templates to write about the US Navy.
I'm pretty sure the average member of Sailor Bob can execute 8 original paragraphs in support of the US Navy even if tasked after a 16 hour shift on the bridge wing during a hurricane, so why is it the average Flag Officer cannot manage 8 original paragraphs from their desk in an air conditioned office? I believe the reason is because one must practice to be good at anything, and these folks are out of practice. This isn't leadership, indeed these three articles collectively represent a good example of what not to do.
Rear Admiral Pybus comes from the SEAL community while both Rear Admiral Asbjornsen and Rear Admiral Klein are aviators. Rear Admiral Asbjornsen has a ton of experience in academics and education, and Rear Admiral Klein is Chief of Staff at US Cyber Command. These are otherwise remarkably interesting, well educated, smart Navy leaders - who are collectively - apparently - only capable of writing from the same set of talking points?
Strategic Communication by the Navy to domestic audiences can and must do much better than this, because the only reason I am even noting any of these articles is because they are all collectively the same boring article written in a different way... and I might be the only person who actually notes any of the three articles by the end of the week. This looks like assembly line communication - because it almost certainly is! Want to write Rear Admiral? Then tell your story, not only will the taxpayers appreciate that story 10x more, but those under your command will as well.
And now I will point out the obvious. Strategic Communications was absent in the NOC. It shows. I remember having a conversation with (then Captain now Rear Admiral) Mark Montgomery about STRATCOM being absent in the NOC after the NOC was released, and he acknowledged and very much regretted the absence of Strategic Communication in the NOC. He knew it was important, he fought for it, and he lost that internal fight. Sir, you were right, and even though you have moved on - your replacement now has very visible data points to make the argument for next time.
Templates are useful for newbies. 25+ years of Navy service combined with advanced education degrees should be enough to qualify every Rear Admiral to be original and unique when writing about the Navy they have given an entire career and life to. If for any reason that isn't enough of a qualification, then it should be stated outright those folks were not prepared during their career path to execute their role as a Flag officer in the modern US Navy, because Strategic Communications today is a critical, undeveloped and under appreciated aspect of leadership in the modern US Navy today - whether the audience is foreign or domestic.