There is in our insular world, a bit of a dustup underway. In this age of social media and networking, it has gone "viral", and I have received a number of inquiries from thoughtful people about where I stand. Additionally, I have had a number of telephone calls with people directly and indirectly associated with the matter, including two with our gracious blog host Galrahn. To each I have steadfastly maintained my desire to "stay out of it". Clearly, this post ends that policy. A man I respect immensely indicated to me that "silence implies consent", and I wish to imply no such thing. Nor though, do I wish to imply opposition.
It must first be understood that I write and think about the advancement of American Seapower. If the Naval Institute is helpful to me in that goal, then I am happy to provide it with content. If the Naval Institute decided that my thoughts were somehow out of step, I would seek other outlets. If the Naval Institute were to close shop tomorrow, I would believe the world somewhat diminished, but it would have no real impact on the matters about which I advocate. Said differently, I do not have a dog in this fight--at least not a tangible one.
I would very much like for there to be a powerful and effective organization dedicated to the advocacy of American Seapower. Some say we have that now, in the Navy League. I question the power and effectiveness of the Navy League, though I do it with respect for the other worthy things the NLUS accomplishes. Some want the US Naval Institute to become that powerful advocacy, and such a theme was picked up and run with by some members of the Board of USNI. The result is the ballot measure before us, and the e-insurrection currently underway.
This conflict is unfortunate, as there are none among the disputants who believe other than that American Seapower is a cornerstone of our national greatness, that American Seapower deserves study and inquiry, and that there is a place for great institutions in the advancement of America Seapower. There is though, a decided difference of opinion in how those beliefs should be supported, in this case by the Naval Institute.
Some thoughts then, on both sides of this issue.
1. There exists among a number of those in opposition to the proposal, a sense that the USNI is now and has always been, a pristine example of "independence", and that it is today, what it was 138 years ago and always has been. Several of those writing on this blog and others from whom I have been forwarded emails seem to conjure an image of an organization that has been immutable and timeless, that somehow the suggestion that it evolve today is inconsistent with a century and a half of tradition. I am no expert on the history of the Naval Institute or the Office of the CNO, but if memory serves me, there have been stretches of time in which the CNO had an actual role in the governance of USNI.
2. The revulsion for "advocacy" is historically incongruous. The Naval Institute is now and has always been, an organization dedicated to the "advancement" of the knowledge of Seapower. Advancement means many things, but I find no meaning in opposition to "advocacy". Go to the USNI website and read their own history: "The U.S. Naval Institute has been a fixture at the U.S. Naval Academy since its founding in 1873 by a group of 15 naval officers who began meeting to discuss the serious implications of a smaller, post-Civil War Navy and other matters of professional interest." So unless we are willing to consider the possibility that this group seriously considered further diminishment of American Seapower as a preferred alternative, we are left with the high likelihood that the founding myth of the Institute was one of advocacy.
3. The notion that CHINFO and OLA "advocate" for the Navy is also misplaced. They are expressly forbidden by law from many activities that fall squarely under the definition of "advocacy". When we were doing the Maritime Strategy "Conversations with the Country", we had to run a huge gauntlet of legal issues and opinions wielded by those who sought to ensure that we did not engage in "advocacy". We "educated". We "listened". But we did not "advocate". Because we couldn't. That task is for other organizations. Additionally, I've written enough here and in Proceedings about the danger to Flag Officers of even APPEARING to advocate for one's Service in the post Goldwater-Nichols era, that the subject need not be repeated.
4. Objections on the grounds that a change in charter might do harm to USNI's relationship with the Department of the Navy are equal parts urban myth and sound legal conjecture. The lack of clarity on the issue works against proponents of the charter change, as they haven't seemed to mount any defense of their initiative. A "controlling legal authority" opinion would be helpful, if one could be obtained.
5. Additionally, the impact of the change on where USNI could be physically sited is also steeped in misinformation. One would HOPE the Board thought this through and sought legal counsel, but that is not clear, and the lack of clarity only fans the flames of the dispute.
6. I am a big fan of "if it ain't broke, make it better." ( much to the consternation of two decades of subordinates) , so I have no problem with USNI evolving into something other than what it is. But this initiative appears to be tone deaf to not only the objections of the membership, but the possibility that any objections could actually exist. We have the testimony of one board member here on the site, so clearly there was someone standing athwart history yelling "Stop"; one wonders why the Board didn't feel there might be others. There was no attempt to engage the membership in a dialogue, to state the "problems" such a change to the charter might address, what the alternatives might be, and so on. In an age of instantaneous world-wide two way communication, the Board fumbled and didn't communicate. No it must face the consequences of its failure.
So, what's to be done?
1. Consistent with the Institute's by-laws, the Board should gather immediately and discuss its options. If rescinding the ballot measure is among those options, it should be taken--immediately.
2. The election for members of the Board of Directors should also be postponed, if such is consistent with League by-laws.
3. If both of these steps are possible, the Board should undertake to host forums--online and around the country--designed to discuss this initiative with the membership. Do the homework, get the answers to the legal issues, get the story straight on why you think forceful advocacy is not inconsistent with continuing to do really good things, and then sell it. Make your case--and then have the election, when the issues have been vetted and misconceptions--about both the initiative and the history of USNI--have been cleared up.
4. If these steps are not possible, I'm afraid the Board will have to suffer the consequences of its actions, which may include defeat of the measure and removal of several Board members. The CEO of the Institute should immediately begin planning for such an eventuality, to include constituting a new Board slate for election.
How will I vote on this? That is no one's business but my own. But the stakes involved in pushing forward the centrality of American Seapower are too great for this organizational conflict to create a schism among the faithful. It is time for cooler heads to come together and figure this out.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment