More Thoughts on Captain Honors

I was too busy tailgating in my living room for the Sugar Bowl to bother with watching the media coverage fade into oblivion as the Navy acted on the issue of Captain Honors. Before moving on to more interesting topics, I want to revisit the issue one more time.

Alfa Mike Foxtrot

First things first. Apparently my posts have made my position on what action the Navy should take unclear to some, so a bit of background. For those who aren't in the Navy and apparently aren't familiar with the term, Alpha Mike Foxtrot stands for Adios M----- F----- and you can surmise for yourself what M and F stands for. I used the term in each post to highlight my thoughts. I was just keeping it raunchy, but apparently that was also a way to keep my position on the matter concealed in plain sight.

Captain Honors committed several sins in the video that were mortal wounds to his career, and the media attention that followed justifies without any doubt that what ADM Harvey did was exactly right. The unforgivable sin revealed in the video involves his violation of professional standards that Naval officers are held to, and most importantly, hold themselves to. The executive officer of a ship must insure that lines of communication between XO and the crew are unobstructed, and in several instances Captain Honors disrupted his own command climate.

The first instance is with the women in the shower issue. If a naval officer publicizes women on a ship as a sex object with innuendo, whether intended as humor or not, that naval officer disrupts the lines of communication necessary and obligated under his responsibility to deal with issues involving women and sexual issues of substance on a ship with 6000 shipmates. By ridiculing his critics he sent a clear signal that ultimately undermined his authority on the subject, insuring disconnection in the lines of communication between the XO and crew.

The XO of any ship sets the standard for the crew on the ship, and these videos were likely the only time many in the crew actually saw the face of the XO. This blog discusses the Navy in the context of communication frequently - it is one of those issues I beat drums on - and a video communication of this type establishes the wrong atmosphere of acceptable standards for the ship.

The attitude in the videos can be described as narcissistic, and many have gone the Dr. Laura route towards analyzing Captain Honors solely on the content of three videos. I won't go that far. I don't have enough information to apply some label to his character or suggest his motivations. The only line of relevance he is guilty of crossing in my opinion is terrible judgment, and there is a clear link in this case between his terrible judgment and his ability to command. The media attention dominated solely by a one sided media narrative that was out for blood completely undermined his ability to command the Enterprise, so analysis of all the specific instances of poor judgment in the videos quickly became irrelevant to whether Captain Honors should be relieved of command. Captain Honors was a Tailhook era aviator who apparently didn't learn a thing.

For folks who believe the Enterprise videos represented some kind of political social or culture war, my only advice is that any such culture war was decided long ago when the Navy decided to hold officers to a higher moral and professional standard than previous generations of officers. Some have argued that traditional standards in the Navy are far below the professional standard that was applied to Captain Honors. I would agree, and I think the Navy is better that those traditions are no longer acceptable. Captain Honors disregarded the professional standards and in fact acted as if they didn't apply to him, but the reason they apply to him is because naval officers cannot effectively enforce professional standards among others if they themselves do not uphold them.

That is why I very much appreciated the words of ADM Harvey in the statement put out by Fleet Forces Command when he relieved Captain Honors of command.

"The responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her command is absolute. While Capt. Honors’ performance as commanding officer of USS Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.

The foundation of our success in the Navy lies in our ability to gain and hold the trust of our Sailors, including through personal example. This responsibility is so important that it is written into Navy Regulations. When confidence and trust are lost in those who lead, we fail. After personally reviewing the videos created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in Capt. Honors’ ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for poor judgment and the inappropriate actions demonstrated in the videos that were created while he served as executive officer on Enterprise," said Harvey.

"It is fact that as naval officers we are held to a higher standard. Those in command must exemplify the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment which we expect our Sailors to follow. Our leaders must be above reproach and our Sailors deserve nothing less," said Harvey. Capt. Dee Mewbourne will be permanently assigned as the commanding officer of Enterprise. Captain Mewbourne most recently commanded USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and while in command he completed two successful combat deployments supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Capt Mewbourne is currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy Cyber Forces and will assume command of USS Enterprise this afternoon.

"We will support and work with Capt. Mewbourne and the crew of Enterprise to keep them forward focused on their upcoming combat deployment. This is a difficult situation but the men and women of Enterprise are outstanding Sailors who have completed a very challenging and comprehensive predeployment work-up period in a thoroughly professional manner. They are well-trained and I have full confidence in their readiness to execute all missions during their deployment," said Harvey.

When the Navy relieves a commanding officer, too often the words 'loss of confidence in the ability to command' get thrown around casually. In this case, I believe they apply directly and emphatically to Captain Honors.

The Investigation Continues

There are some issues that Captain Honors Facebook fan base, and perhaps a few reporters, need to understand. I am not incredulous that the Navy... placed Honors on “temporary” suspension, as Spencer Ackerman suggests, rather I believe the Navy handled being a front page headline poorly and missed an opportunity. The video of an aviator taking a casual approach to command with sexual innuendo dug up several thoughts that date back to Tailhook. My thoughts have also drifted back to Tailhook as it relates to the way the Navy handled the media coverage, because the publicity of the video drove action choices by the Navy who in turn quickly and publicly took a position to appease critics, especially the media. During crisis the Navy tends to say nothing so nothing can be held against folks later.

The problem is, that never works because it concedes the message, and I believe it is important for the Navy to always try to own the message. When the Navy is in the news, my wife - an attorney who works way too much as a corporate attorney for a giant law firm - becomes an excellent litmus test.

• Did she see the videos? She saw bits in the news reports.
• Did she know what the XOs job is on an aircraft carrier? Nope.
• Did she know what the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was doing at the time of the videos? Nope.

But as soon as I asked those questions, she was interested in the answers. Even more interesting to me, she also asked if there were more videos and whether videos were common on a ship. Something tells me the Navy has plenty of videos, and I'm sure many of them presented in a public venue like the NBC Nightly News without context would be seen as just as offensive as the ones by Captain Honors. Indeed, there are probably enough videos of JOs being stupid to generate an enormous Navy video scandal complete with Congressional hearings on the topic.

When the Navy dominates the news for three days on any subject, at some point the Navy public affairs folks need to be instructed to run towards that fire. I've looked around, and it is noteworthy that not a single active duty public affairs person was on a single TV news report anywhere to discuss the issue, but ironically a retired Navy public affairs individual was on CBS. Public affairs on the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) helped create the videos in question, but when the Navy is the lead story on every major newscast the public affairs folks can't get out and talk about the Navy?

Is this about one man or is this about the Navy? Professional standards, I think, are about the Navy - so why in the world would public affairs not get out there and point out in person the high standards the Navy holds itself too, discuss in detail the process, educate regarding the role of the XO of a ship, and discuss the professional United States Navy that leaves an impression of high standards to contradict any messaging in the video demonstrating lower standards? This entire incident is about communication - and the specific communication is the video. The video will be the only message the public will remember about the Navy in this incident, because by the time the incident moved off the front page nothing else was said by an actual Navy officer on camera.

CDR Sims became the primary Navy official in print because he was the only Navy public affairs person named explicitly, and his statement represented nearly the entirety of the official Navy position over a period of days due to the absence of the rest of the public affairs apparatus putting a name behind content. Some say this incident did not provide an avenue for the Navy to communicate beyond the 'raunchy' content of the video. My counterargument would be that only by saying and doing nothing can that point be proven true.

For now anyway, the mainstream media attention has moved on while Fleet Forces Command continues their investigation. According to the AP, the investigation will continue by looking further up the chain of command for accountability. What is unclear though is whether the Navy investigation will look into who leaked the videos. The rumor is the investigation isn't looking into that aspect of the incident. I think the investigation should. There is a rumor going around that a fired PAO was who leaked the videos. I can confirm that it is completely not true.

My first problem with not investigating the leak of the videos is that it would be inconsistent with the approach to Wikileaks. That isn't the biggest issue here though. If the Navy doesn't investigate who leaked the videos, then it sets a precedent sure to be followed. Whoever leaked the videos clearly had an interest in destroying the career of Captain Honors, because it is inconceivable in today's US Navy command structure the person who leaked the videos had no avenue in the chain of command to report the videos, not to mention the IG route.

By not investigating the person who leaked the video, the Navy insures that the media will be preferred over IG whenever damning material is uncovered. IG may or may not be capable (I'm sure they are), but nothing is more certain to be damning to another sailors career than public media attention and the associated 'outrage' that bubbles over. The Navy either believes in the process for handling these issues by going after the leaker, or leaves open the option for the next individual to ignore the process and run straight to the press. Considering the press includes the "Classy" Navy Times...

Final Thoughts, For Now

This issue isn't over, only the Captain Honors portion of the issue is over. There are still a lot of questions that will be raised from this incident. For example, was the video episode potentially missing from Captain Honors FITREP because any mention and review of the videos would have potentially incriminated the judgment of the CO at the time? That is one of dozens of legitimate FITREP questions that will get asked, and those questions potentially open a huge can of worms regarding the FITREP process just as major magazines are discussing military leadership, like Proceedings and The Atlantic.

This is my suggestion for all sailors at any level in the Navy. In my current organization we have a work policy that I believe is quite smart. Every video made must meet a minimum standard - that if it was published to YouTube it would professionally represent our organization. The same standard is applied to PDF and PPT, if published to Scribd the content must, in every way, professionally represent the organization. This professional standard exists for several reasons, but primarily because we want to encourage creativity in our multimedia, but we want that creativity channeled in a way that reflects well on the organization in any setting.