Maybe It Is Just a Coincidence...

Have you seen this interview with Admiral Stavridis? If not, it is a good read in full. This part jumped off the page to me.

Interesting. I haven't heard that comparison made between Colombia and Afghanistan before.
Both are insurgencies seeking to topple the government, both are drug fueled. In Colombia it's a political insurgency. In Afghanistan, it is a deeper, more cultural, religious-based insurgency. But insurgency is something I've studied and learned about and I'm comfortable I can be a contributor. I'm very encouraged with the selection and conformation of Gen. Stan McChrystal to be the commander of ISAF, which is the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, the NATO command in country. I think he's a perfect choice. He has deep, deep tactical experience in insurgency and I think between him, myself and Gen. Petraeus working with our allies, I think we will do our very best in Afghanistan and that will be very central to what I'm thinking about.

It's interesting that you mention Gen. Petraeus. He is one of a group of thinkers in the military that you are also seen as one of, officers that actually shape the way we think about national security. You're one of the few Navy officers, though, viewed that way. Is that a weakness in the Navy?
I don't think so. I think we have many extremely bright Navy thinkers at all ranks. You only have to pick up a copy of Proceedings magazine or Naval War College Review.

But many of those articles are written by retired officers.
Many are, but I would argue a fair number are not. I point for example to Cmdr. Jerry Hendrix's recent article about reshaping the entire size and structure of the United States Navy. Or to a recent article that Capt. Mark Hagerott wrote about the officer corps and how to train and educate it [pdf] in the War College Review. I would say there's quite a bit of good writing by others, and I'm proud to be part of the Navy people who are writing and thinking. I recently wrote an article in Proceedings called Read, Write, Think and Publish [pdf] on this exact subject. I think the Navy is a forward-thinking, strategic-oriented organization. Our new strategic concept that Adm. Roughhead published [pdf] I think is spot on. I think there's been a great deal of focus in this world of publishing and writing, correctly, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Navy has been quietly writing and thinking about many larger strategic issues as well: counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, counter-insurgency, seabasing. I could run the list for you there. I think we're holding up our end of the strategic thinking bargain.

Tom Ricks, call your office, because you are missing a story if you assume for a moment this discussion is about you. Let me explain.

By now the entire Navy community has weighed in with an opinion regarding the comment Tom Ricks made in his book The Gamble, and it is almost guaranteed the reporter asking the questions was thinking about the dialog Tom Ricks generated regarding Navy strategic thinkers when he quipped his comment. What may have been missed in the answer though is that The Gamble is in part a story of an uprising within in the Army by a bunch of highly educated Army officers with bold, unpopular strategic ideas that aligned the strategic means with ends in the Army.

Well, I want to point something out that I see here that others may not. Did Admiral Stavridis unintentionally, or intentionally name these two officers in his answer? Here we have ADM Stavridis, a PH.d., highlighting two specific naval officers as strategic thinkers, both of whom also happen to have a PH.d that happen to be promoting big, likely unpopular ideas in the Navy.

What is my point?

I'm talking about something that both critics like Tom Ricks, and Tom Ricks' critics might be missing in this answer. You see, among the 52,400 active duty officers, there are only seven active duty Unrestricted Line officers with a PH.d, and three two of the seven are named in this post. Oh wait, isn't that a different Tom Ricks controversy?

Anyway, having never personally met any of these officers, I just appreciate the strong opinions and bold ideas they produce from an experienced perspective. I have found their work typically leads to constructive friction in the comments, resulting in a healthy debate of important issues the Navy finds itself continuously evaluating. All good things in my opinion.