What Does This Mean to You

It is worth giving a bit of attention to some comments made by ADM Mullen last week, because I think this is a very curious and will probably mean something different to different people. This Reuters article sets the tone with the opening paragraph.

The top U.S. military officer on Monday called for more innovative approaches to military challenges, saying that throwing money at new weapons programs wasn't always the answer.

Then finds the meat of the discussion with this:

Mullen said the military services needed to focus more on developing joint capabilities, and implementing lessons learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding for nonmilitary solutions, including diplomatic initiatives by the State Department, also needed to be increased.

The services also needed to find "very innovative, creative" approaches to meeting military needs such as growing demand for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, as well as helicopters, Mullen said.

If the nation is currently lacking enough "innovative approaches to military challenges" to suggest we need "more" then is that an insult to the think tanks? Are there no innovative ideas out there, or is Mullen lacking exposure to innovative ideas that are out there? What do we make of this? Is Mullen surrounded by folks unable to locate innovative ideas, or is the problem a lack of innovative ideas general?

Lets take the question to the next level and ask who is gatekeeper for ideas in the defense department today? Who is measuring the level of innovative ideas? Are there lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that the Navy needs to take advantage of?

I guess the heart of the question, for me anyway, is whether Mullen has read all of the materials that were written and floated by the think tanks during the presidential transition period, and if he did, what are his general impressions? If he hasn't, is the problem the lack of ideas, or his staff's ability to get new ideas delivered to him?

If he has read those reports, wouldn't this comment constitute a splash of water in the face of think tanks? I have read most of the reports, and admittedly I found unique ideas that I considered innovative in Dakota Wood's report (PDF), Bob Work's report (PDF), and Frank Hoffman's report as far as the Maritime Services go.

However, I don't think Mullen is talking about the think tanks. Besides Martin Murphy and a Jan Van Tol of CSBA, and Mackenzie Eaglen at Heritage, the Navy doesn't have a bunch of people out producing innovative ideas in the think tank community. That suggests Mullen isn't talking about the think tanks at all. Is Mullen complaining about the quality of innovative ideas originating from the Naval War College or Center for Naval Analysis to the press?

Is Mullen's comment a shot over the bow of the defense industry?

I don't have enough information to make any assumptions, just WAGs. I find Mullen's comment very strange, because he is either calling out his own staff for their inability to locate innovative ideas, or he is calling out professionals somewhere for failing to produce innovative ideas.

One thing is clear, ADM Mullen's statement suggests to me he doesn't read blogs. Perhaps someone on his staff should set ADM Mullen's homepage to the Small Wars Journal.