A Myth, A Man, A Legend, A Navy PAO

Today Captain Cappy Surette will retire from the US Navy, indeed this blog post is intended to run an hour and a half before his retirement ceremony. I often get invited to promotion and retirement ceremonies, and I try to make the ones close enough to drive to, but I truly regret not being able to attend Cappy's ceremony today. DC based retirements are hard for me to make.

Many, if not all of you, likely saw the profile of myself and Information Dissemination on Wired Magazine's Danger Room. Like all profile articles in media, it cannot possibly tell the whole story, indeed journalists write articles for publications, not books. From my point of view, it is difficult to tell the story of Information Dissemination without mentioning Cappy Surette.

The first Navy public affairs officer to reach out to me as a blogger was Cappy. A few years ago CDR Salamander told me Cappy was one of the first to reach out to him as well. This was long before social media was popular, long before the Navy integrated social media into their own activities, and long before the trends in news information were notably trending towards social discussions. On more than one occasion, Cappy found ways to convince me that I needed to attend certain events, and he was very convincing.

I met Cappy in Durham, NC at the last of the Conversations with the Country tour of CS-21 in 2008. He wanted me to have lunch with Frank Thorp, CHINFO at the time, and wanted me to see what CS-21 was from their perspective. Later that year, he was who pushed for me to get on USS Freedom (LCS 1), basically making me the first 'blogger' the Navy treated like media. Keep in mind that this was still at a time where I was writing under a pseudonym - the world still only knew me as Galrahn, but to Cappy I was Raymond.

Like every interesting sailor, Cappy has great stories. For those of you who run into Cappy as he moves on to the next chapter of his life, should you see him - ask about the picture above. Yes, that is a beret. The ship is off Iraq in 1994, and the number of stories he can tell about that tour are likely endless, and can lead to any number of stories related to job, love, and life.

I wish Cappy the very best. This blog would never be what it is today if it wasn't for people like Cappy, who pushed experience, offered credibility my direction, and enabled my exposure and learning process with the US Navy in ways that the information highway simply can't do. The popularity of Information Dissemination is a manifestation of a lot of circumstances and people. USNI has had a huge influence in promoting the Navy online and Information Dissemination in particular, but indeed people in the US Navy are responsible as well - and it is in part because public affairs folks like Cappy Surette did little things along the way like elevate a small blog with an anonymous author by lending it the credibility of the Navy Information Office, and treating the blog and author as an equal among established media.

Have you ever seen a blog post in CLIPS? If you have, thank Cappy Surette, who long before the Navy dominated military discussions in non-news social media, argued for the inclusion of blog articles in a CHINFO establishment that didn't care much about social media at the time.

In the complex fabric of social network design and how that impacts the credibility of information sources, what Cappy did for Information Dissemination and the greater Navy social media community dating back to even before I met him in 2008 was at least as important as everything we the community were trying to do, and I hope he understands how much I truly appreciate his efforts, because in my opinion he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the active visibility and engaged community the Navy has today through social networks like Information Dissemination that he helped promote as part of the Navy Information establishment. It may not have been his intention, but the results are what they are.

Congratulations to Captain Cappy Surette on a very successful career. You have long been a visionary among Navy PAOs and based on the results of my research into the subject, and you should be rightfully credited as the first Navy PAO to truly challenge the Navy on issues related to the impacts and benefits of social media, and the PAO who engaged the Navy online community in a meaningful way. The Navy enjoys a very strong traditional information market because of folks like United States Naval Institute and news magazines like Navy Times, but I also believe the US Navy enjoys a very healthy online discussion other services do not, primarily because of the work Captain Surette did to develop and foster opinions related to social media inside the Navy, even when they weren't necessarily being accepted by his superiors at that time.

The New York Times Takes Note...

Interest in maritime affairs goes mainstream:

The Obama administration first waded into the treacherous waters of the South China Sea last year when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared, at a tense meeting of Asian countries in Hanoi, that the United States would join Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries in resisting Beijing’s efforts to dominate the sea. China, predictably, was enraged by what it viewed as American meddling.

For all its echoes of the 1800s, not to mention the cold war, the showdown in the South China Sea augurs a new type of maritime conflict — one that is playing out from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arctic Ocean, where fuel-hungry economic powers, newly accessible undersea energy riches and even changes in the earth’s climate are conspiring to create a 21st-century contest for the seas.

China is not alone in its maritime ambitions. Turkey has clashed with Cyprus and stoked tensions with Greece and Israel over natural-gas fields that lie under the eastern Mediterranean. Several powers, including Russia, Canada and the United States, are eagerly circling the Arctic, where melting polar ice is opening up new shipping routes and the tantalizing possibility of vast oil and gas deposits beneath.

The article isn't interesting so much for its content as for its existence; most of the readers of this blog will be familiar with the basic arguments and disputes. However, it's one a relatively few serious peaces in a major mainstream newspaper to tackle maritime affairs. That it comes from the NYT White House correspondent suggests that there may be some policy discussions afoot that someone in the administration wants to shed light on. Indeed, this might represent an initial effort to pushback against some of the Army arguments that Leon Panetta has seemed receptive to.

Like a lot of others, I'm interested to see whether we'll be entering a new era of inter-service conflict. Phil Ewing has a good piece on the public disputes between the Navy and the Air Force in the late 1940s. The services have, in contrast to their British counterparts, managed to avoid serious public confrontation since the 1960s, instead confining conflict to elite levels. It seems, however, that some of the players are at least considering stretching or redefining the rules.

Fiction and Policy

My WPR column this week references Riddle of the Sands, an Erskine Childers novel about a nefarious German plot to invade Great Britain. For those who haven't read it, the novel really is quite good. Childers is also a pretty interesting guy, dying before a Free State firing squad in 1922.

Journalists, experts, scholars, policymakers and politicians have the same susceptibilities to fictional and artistic portrayals as the mass public. Ronald Reagan is said to have found "The Day After" television mini-series depicting the aftermath of a nuclear war so compelling that he decided to pursue arms control with renewed vigor. The "24" series undoubtedly convinced many within the Bush administration and the CIA of the essential justness of their cause and their methods. Historically, the novels of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne helped set the parameters of what was considered possible in terms of airpower doctrine. The vision of cities destroyed from the air, pioneered by Wells in the novel "War in the Air," helped prime the imaginations of aviators and stoke the fears of civilians and policymakers.

On roughly the same subject, see Erich Simmers' response to my short article on last semester's COIN class. Given that the ability of the Navy to market itself has become a major topic on this blog, I expect to start a series soon on depictions of seapower in fiction. I hope that this will include not only such works as the Patrick O'Brian books and the egregiously awful looking "Battleship," but also portrayals of naval power in games such as the Civilization series.

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.

The Usual Public Posture that Demonstrates Reactionary Paralysis

Virginia-Pilot has posted some more XO Movie Night Videos from USS Enterprise (CVN 65), so I figured I would share them here.

Also check out this video from CNN.

Several thoughts.

1) I'm sticking with Alpha Mike Foxtrot. It will be called temporary, but the Navy isn't fooling anyone.

2) The Navy has learned absolutely nothing from Wikileaks, and Navy Information is too slow for today's news cycle. I hope folks are paying attention to the lessons here, and not being distracted by the content of the video.

3) The movie quality doesn't surprise me. If you go back to 2006, CENTCOM didn't allow much in terms of information get out when it came to the Navy - for whatever reason. All those public affairs folks on a ship had little else to do.

4) Has anyone seen a single PAO on TV? Does anyone else think it is embarrassing how the Navy is running away from the camera during a rare moment when everyone wants to talk about the Navy? Either throw the CO under the bus or don't, that isn't even the issue anymore, the issue is that America is suddenly more curious about life on an aircraft carrier and the Navy doesn't have anyone on the Today show ready to discuss those topics with Matt Lauer. If CBS news was to put up a poll and ask what the job of the XO is, what percentage of the American public would get the question right?

5) I'll like this without comment.

Something tells me that when the Navy is finally ready to talk about this issue, the media will no longer care. In my book that will make this entire public episode another wasted opportunity for the Navy to share their story. The worst part of it is, the story of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in 2006 represents one of the very few times the Navy could discuss on national TV their contribution to the wars and the mainstream media would actually be interested in listening.

What does it mean? It means that the Navy salvaged nothing while the hull cracked and the ship sank under the pressure.

CHINFO's Twelfth Commandment

"A large and growing number of our Sailors, their families and friends are employing any number of information sharing systems in their professional and personal lives. These environments are in many cases ungoverned, and while our service members gain tremendous benefit from them, it isn't without risks to our people and our operations."

- Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert , Vice Chief of Naval Operations

I have never met RDML Dennis Moynihan, Chief of Information for the US Navy, but it is one of my goals for 2010. The year is not over, but I admit it has not been the year I envisioned in regards to my consistency for blog contribution. Like many in the Navy I get Rhumb Lines every day, and like some of that many I actually read it every day. It is a great format with useful information, and in my opinion it should be posted every day to the US Navy's official blog.

Why? Because like I tell my authors, establishing routine and expectations is critical to establishing their brand on this blog - consistency is important. I only wish I did a better job practicing what I preach.

Thursday's Rhumb Lines was about social media, and contained some very important information. These guidelines are critically important to examine - because almost all of it is very important safely information.

When posting information on social media sites it is important understand:

1. Everything online is potentially available to everyone in the world, including co-workers, adversaries and criminals.
2. Information posted online can remain there - forever. It can then be used in ways its originator never intended.
3. Individuals are personally responsible for what they post online.

All three of these points are important. The internet is written in ink, not pencil. On the internet you are defined and evaluated by what you say, not who you are. Social media is a reputation based industry where credentials are established by your content. It is actually why a blogger with good content can be anonymous and yet relevant, but also why not being anonymous means your reputation will be determined by your content.

Ways to Mitigate Risks in Social Media:

1. Even if you aren't using social media, others can still post information or photos of you. Be aware of this. Let your friends and family know if you would prefer your information and photos to remain private.
2. Use recommended privacy settings for Facebook and other social networking sites.
3. Don’t “friend” strangers.
4. Never discuss information online that could jeopardize operations security (OPSEC).
5. Don’t share personally identifiable information (PII) that can be used to impersonate you or steal your identity.
6. Don’t click on links that go to unfamiliar sites.
7. Choose applications wisely. Many applications share information with marketers and others.
8. Use anti-virus and anti-spyware at home.
9. Use a different, strong password for each online account.
10. Don’t share any passwords with third-party sites.
11. Carefully consider sharing your location, because it indicates when you’re not at home and vulnerable.
12. Don’t share Navy information that hasn’t been officially released. Err on the side of caution.
13. Review training resources on OPSEC, safety and official guidance.

Numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven are all guidelines that focus on Facebook and membership to other social/interactive communities. I think these are very important guidelines.

Number eight, nine, and ten are Computer 101 guidelines - if any sailor is too stupid to understand these things, then they will be too stupid to work in the private sector when they fail out of the Navy. These guidelines are now taught to elementary school children in the United States - indeed passwords and password privacy was the first library lesson for my kindergarten daughter. I thought is was interesting - understanding it reflects the 21st century she is being educated to compete in. These guidelines belong in every corporate policy regarding computer use on the planet.

Numbers eleven and thirteen are Navy specific organizational policies. I think number eleven is too broad and could use some work on the margins, but generally a good policy. Number thirteen on the other hand is important, and while it is specific to the US Navy in this case - is also a guideline one would find in unique form for every competitive corporation with trade secrets in America.

Then we have the Twelfth Commandment, which I hate as worded, and reads like:

Dear Sailor,

Are you a PAO? If not, STFU.

V/r,

The Admiralty

That may not be what the intent of the twelfth commandment is, and it is fair criticism of me to suggest I am taking it to a bit of an extreme - but that is what #12 reads as to me. I think #12 could use some work, because I think the twelfth commandment is confusing, at minimum. I see the twelfth commandment as a tactical liability in the information space the US Navy is competing in today. The twelfth commandment doesn't imply allowance for leaders at the mid officer level in the US Navy to be flexible in the information space in order to achieve successful strategic communication to intended audiences - and based on my read of Rhumb Lines that is part of the Navy's overall strategy for social media.

The problem with the twelfth commandment is that it doesn't reflect the way information moves today in social media. It doesn't reflect what makes information interesting in social media specifically because it robs the Navy of the important narrative component that adds value to information shared by social media. I think it might just be the way it is phrased, but the bottom line is the way it is phrased - frankly, sucks.

As I read the twelfth commandment, the purpose of this guideline appears to be central control of information, which I find strange because it does not seem to align with the intent of the social media guidelines as outlined in the key messages. In 1990 central control of information was important and the twelfth commandment made sense, but in 2010 central control of information is a liability. The twelfth commandment reflects a hierarchical information structure where the limitations are exposed and exploited when competing for mind share in a flat world.

Rhumb Lines suggests the intent behind social media use by Navy personnel in the Key Messages section listed at the bottom.

Key Messages

1. Navy personnel are encouraged to responsibly engage in unofficial Internet posting about the Navy and Navy-related topics.
2. Navy personnel are frequently in a position to share the Navy’s successes with a global audience via the Internet.
3. There are risks to communicating online, but those risks can be mitigated by using privacy settings and thinking before posting.

If that is what CHINFO desires from social media use by US Navy personnel - I love it. It is brilliant, concise, and clear. But does anyone else see why I think there is some confusion regarding the 12th guideline above and the Key Messages that RDML Dennis Moynihan wanted expressed in Thursday's Rhumb Lines? I really loved everything about the safe and responsible personal use of social media document on Thursday - except that number 12 which sticks out as either poorly phrased or perhaps simply misguided.

The twelfth commandment makes all of this very confusing, but I want to shake out using an example how I think the guidelines are supposed to work - and maybe one of you crafty officers who read here can shoot RDML Moynihan a suggestion for how to reword #12.

Did you read Captain Alexander Martin's personal account of the Force Recon take down on the MV Magellan Star? You should have, I spoke with Mary Ripley over at USNI and they had well over 100,000 readers check out that post over the last week. I have less access to web traffic over at Battle Rattle, but their poopy pants angle of the story gave them the most incoming link traffic that blog has seen to date. That particular incident, specifically the USNI blog post, represents an excellent example of aligning internet social media use with both the intent contained in the Rhumb Lines 'key messages' and content that followed the guidelines.

Capt. Alexander Martin reviewed the social media guidelines of the Marine Corps before posting, then wrote the post - but he never asked for permission from anyone before posting. The US Naval Institute now has an official letter signed and sealed that says the US Marine Corps officially endorses that account by Capt. Alexander Martin, but when he wrote it there was some risk involved - particularly given the tentative way the US Marines have been officially regarding social media.

I would guess, if Capt. Martin were a sailor and not a Marine, that his interpretation of CHINFO's twelfth commandment would be that the information regarding the rescue had already been officially released, thus he was following the key messages portion of the social media guidelines by sharing his success with a global audience. Is that the right way to read the twelfth commandment? I don't know, because you are supposed to err on the side of caution...

The Navy needs to be very clear with their guidelines, because I have to tell you - there are 4,380 results in Google one week later when I did a search for "Captain Alexander Martin" and nobody on the internet besides us few here at ID had ever heard of the guy before last week. The event itself was interesting, but it was the narrative that turned it from a news event into a viral information engagement on behalf of the Marines with a massive engaged audience. The Marines official statement of the incident was informative, but Captain Martin's statement was engaging. The difference is not trivial.

The Navy faces a strategic communication challenge in the competition over narratives at home - for example - the value of a program like the Littoral Combat Ship, or the value of the Navy's Maritime Strategy to our nations economy and security. The CNO is fighting that narrative battle alone in his stump speeches, but he shouldn't have to. I don't know if it is the role of a PAO to engage the narrative space - some say it is and others argue it is not. Right now the Navy's formal information structure is built for event reporting only, and without a narrative capable of consistently countering challenges to official positions - the Navy will always find itself fighting a relentless assault of alternative ideas in the information space. I don't think that is a responsible or healthy way for the Navy to engage the information space with their support element, the American citizenry, in the 21st century.

And if the Navy can't engage the relentless assault of friendly competitors for mind share in the idea space at home, how will the Navy ever be capable of doing it effectively when necessary for engagement with populations in other countries? That last part matters a lot - the Army and Marines have learned that the hard way in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last several years, and the global littorals have a hell of a lot more people than those two countries.

Other than the confusing nature of the twelfth commandment, I really like the US Navy's social media guidelines and objectives as outlined in Thursday's Rhumb Lines. If Captain Martin's USNI post is an example of the right way to share stories within the context of these guidelines, then the Navy has good times ahead - assuming sailors actually tell their tales in a timely manner and have avenues available for sharing their experiences. There is a lot of untapped goodwill in social media the Navy can take advantage of - hell every time Bob Work or some Admiral shows up in this blogs comments I see the impact on the larger community here - highlighting how engagement matters.

----

Any sailor who does write about an experience reported in the news but doesn't have an avenue to share their story can send it to me, and I'll post it on the US Naval Institute blog under their name. Seems to me that is the logical place for these type of things to be recorded for purposes of naval history. And as always, guest authors are always welcome on ID - but no anonymous guest authors allowed (only regular authors have the right to be anonymous here).

Worse than Expected

A while ago, I noted that a feature film based on the boardgame "Battleship" was in the works, to be directed by Peter Berg and released in 2011. At the time, I wondered about who the enemy would be, and how the fleets would be constituted. It turns out that things are rather worse than I had imagined:

A couple of weeks ago Latino Review revealed that the bad guys in Battleship won't be another Earthly navy but in fact an alien fleet; that revelation is what spurred Berg and Universal to put this expedition together, as they wanted to get information about the movie - which won't start filming until next spring - out there to combat rumor, speculation and the natural skepticism that comes from hearing a movie is being made from one of the most plotless board games of all time.

Berg opened up the info floodgates, even showing us pre-production concepts of the alien ships. Designed by ILM, who will be doing the FX, the alien ships look like giant water bugs, with giant hydrofoil legs that race across the surface of the sea. They're huge, black and scary looking.

That's.... super. Regarding the constitution of the "Hero Fleet":

- The hero of the film is the Commanding Officer of a destroyer. The destroyer is the main ship in the film, and during the tour of the Sterett Berg told us (and the Sterett's CO confirmed) that battleships are mostly sidelined in today's Navy.

- There is a battleship component, but Berg won't explain how it works. However, he did mention that

- There is a WWII component as well. While the movie is set in the modern day and features the most cutting edge naval tech, a WWII element comes into play. I'm just spitballing here, but I bet that the alien's goal, as well as the enigmatic battleship, are connected to this WWII component.

Apparently one ship in the Hero Fleet will be Japanese; odds on whether this is the first friendly to go down? And here's Berg explaining the alien nonsense:

The idea of finding a credible context for that eluded me. The idea of a film where America goes to war against China, or a movie where America goes to war against England or Australia or Japan, one of the countries that has a credible navy, felt like it would borderline on some kind of jingoistic American military exercise I couldn't get my head around. I like the idea of something bigger, larger than life and the challenge it presented.

And so... your solution was to mashup Waterworld and Independence Day?

1915 USN Documentary

The National Film and Sound Archive has an eleven minute transfer of a USN documentary from 1915. The film is incomplete, but is thought to represent the oldest available USN documentary still in existence.

Early on, the Navy had recognized the power of moving pictures and collaborated with the Biograph Company on a now-lost series of 60 short films showing sailors and officers at work. The series screened at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair and 1905 Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition in Portland before being put to use in a Midwest recruitment tour. Naval facilities and ships also figured prominently in early newsreels and narratives. The service took care to ensure that depictions presented it in a favorable light and reserved the right, for commercial films shot with official approval, to reuse them for the Navy’s own purposes.

While the full story behind the enigmatic fragment—and how it ended up in Australia—may never be known, it was clearly filmed with permission and may even have been commissioned by the Navy from a newsreel crew. The documentary was probably made between 1914 and early 1915. (The “E-2” class submarine, pictured in the opening scene, was taken out of service in 1915 and the shells mentioned in a intertitle—“It costs the U.S. government $970.00 for each 14 inch projectile fired”—were added to the naval arsenal the earlier year.) The location seems to be New York Harbor, the site of several naval reviews during this period. Indeed, given the appearance of the presidential yacht and the number of battleships bedecked with ornamental flags, it is possible that this particular show of readiness was staged for the Commander-in-Chief.

"You Don't Go Out of Your Way to Make Sailors or Marines Angry"

Ray Mabus on the Daily Show:


Ray Mabus

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Interesting clip. Mabus and Stewart work through what I think is some general public ignorance as to what SecNav does, then talk about women on subs, training and recruiting standards, DADT, etc. Stewart is often a good interviewer, but clearly feels out of his depth here. Thoughts?

Battleship the Movie?

This sounds... uh, interesting?

Universal has set July 1, 2011, for the release of "Battleship," confirming Peter Berg as helmer of the live-action pic based on Hasbro's naval combat board game.

"This is a powerful brand, and in an era where brands have become the new stars, 'Battleship' is a big opportunity," said U Pictures chairmen Marc Shmuger and David Linde.

For Berg, the picture realizes a passion for ship-bound war stories that he picked up from his naval historian father.

"I've been consumed with doing one of these since I tried to convince Tom Rothman at Fox to make a film about John Paul Jones, the founder of the American Navy," Berg said. "As a kid, I was dragged from Navy museum to museum, and spent so much time on ships, listening to my father talk about the great battles of WWII, I did my high school thesis on the Battle of Midway. When this came up, it didn't take me long to find a take for a film that is filled with raucous action-packed naval battles."

Berg called the pic "a contemporary story of an international five-ship fleet engaged in a very dynamic, violent and intense battle" -- but he would not disclose any details about the enemy force.

The film will be the next directorial assignment for Berg, who last helmed "Hancock."

The mind boggles. A couple of thoughts....

• Battleship isn't exactly the most plot heavy boardgame out there; I'm curious about what kind of story they're going to use to link together the maritime battle scenes.
• "International five-ship fleet" sounds kind of twitchy, touchy feeley. I'm guessing that this isn't going to involve a thoughtful examination of the concepts set forth in the Cooperative Maritime Strategy.
• I wonder whether the "five ship fleet" will hold to the Battleship game pieces, and what that will mean in terms of ship models if it does. While Galrahn understands that an Arleigh Burke is a Battleship, I have my doubts that Hollywood will have the same sophistication. And if a DDG-51 were a Battleship, what vessels would play the role of Destroyer and Cruiser?
• In a related issue, will the film use actual ship models, or invent new types of vessel? If it's an international flotilla, I admit that I wouldn't mind seeing a Type 45 and a Sejong the Great...
• Who's the enemy? Battleship is the definition of symmetric naval warfare, so I doubt that pirates are going to be the focus. The Chinese? The Russians at least have a legitimate selection of the appropriate ship types, but the idea "international" fleet makes me suspect that the producers are going to be wary of offending anyone. Cobra, maybe?
• What will be the role of the USN in production and filming? This relates the question of what ship models will be featured; filming on a DDG-51 or an LCS would present, I think, a PR opportunity for the Navy.

In all likelihood, the film will be terrible. However, it would be nice if it made some money, and if at least some young moviegoers left the theater able to distinguish between and LCS and an Arleigh Burke.