On the Navy and Oversharing

Earlier this week I attended the Navy League's annual "Sea-Air-Space" Symposium, and among the thousands of attendees were a number of my friends in the Navy trade press. Quite independently, three working journalists each brought up what one of them called the "CNO's gag order"--recently released guidance by the CNO to Navy Leadership discussed yesterday by Sydney Freedberg in a piece that also features the CNO's memo. I was unfamiliar with the memo, but not with the sentiments CNO expresses in it. His dissatisfaction with the amount of information getting out has been a popular topic of recent conversation, but I wasn't in on the memo.  But now that I am, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Navy is "oversharing". There is also no doubt in my mind that it is "undersharing". There is furthermore, no doubt in my mind that the Navy is "inefficiently-sharing". The plain truth is that the Navy is incapable of figuring this out because it is not organized to address it. So when Freedberg opines in the column above that "many of my fellow reporters here at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference said they’d felt a chilling effect from the CNO’s memo", no one should be surprised at the wholly foreseeable reaction that CNO's memo caused among his flag and civilian leaders--even though he stated that "....I am not asking you to throttle back engagement with the media or with the public." In the absence of actual, specific guidance, their instinctual reaction is simply to clam up. This is how one avoids running afoul of the CNO, but this is not in the long-term interests of the Navy, American Seapower, or national strategy. Ultimately, the CNO must take responsibility for this and begin to advocate for necessary change. And that change must occur within the staff of his boss, the Secretary of the Navy, and within the OPNAV Staff.

Before I get to this weightier subject, some vignettes. In February of 2015, I had my hip replaced, and I was convalescing in an opioid-induced fog at home rolling through my Twitter feed, when I came upon this press release from the Naval Air Systems Command announcing that "Navy demonstrates synthetic guidance technology with Tomahawk missile". Had I been physically capable, I would have jumped out of my chair. In this test, what had previously been solely a long range land attack missile had demonstrated the capability to act as a long-range anti-ship missile targeted against a moving target. Having been involved in the creation of the concept of "Distributed Lethality" within the Surface Force, I found myself wondering how it was that this important component thereof found its way into the open press. Who made this decision? Why was it made? What was the process that created it?

Nearly a year to the day later, I was again at home rolling through my Twitter feed (ok, I spend too much time on Twitter) when I came across tweets from the OSD account announcing that the SM6 missile was being modified to provide a supersonic anti-ship capability. Knowing that -- or at least thinking that -- this information was classified, I began to write to some of my friends in the Pentagon wondering what was happening. Why was this capability being announced? Why now? As I watched my timeline roll on, more and more information ensued. Here is USNI's story on the subject from the very next day. 

Now, back to the problem and what to do about it.

The bottom line here is that we are re-entering a period of great power contention, but the Department of the Navy is still acting like it is 1996 and there aren't any real threats--at least at the level of how to communicate strategically.  In a post here on ID a little over a year ago (and just days before Secretary Carter spilled the SM6 beans), I advocated for a series of reforms of the Navy Secretariat, one of which was to bring some rigor to its strategic communications efforts. Clearly, if the Secretary of Defense decides he wants to declassify something, it is likely within his authority to do so. In this case though, there was no Service position from which to advise him. And this is because there is no formal or organizational method of achieving such a position.

If the Navy were serious about actual strategic communications, it would begin to think deeply about what it means to do so. The CNO's well-intentioned memo is the antithesis of effective strategic communications--in that the wholly foreseeable outcome of it is for the service to simply clam up, and in the process miss out on important opportunities to shape behavior of both potential adversaries and friends alike.

Effective strategic communications planning would necessarily involve (at a minimum) public communcations (CHINFO), legislative communications (OLA), executive communication (OSD), capabilities (SYSCOMS) and operational objectives (FLEET). This function would have a modest staff to serve as an administrative tool for teeing up subjects and tracking decisions to completion. The bottom line here is that a concerted effort to achieve message alignment requires both organization and action, and in their absence, lurches in unanticipated directions will disturb the illusion of calm created by enforced silence.

Every single program manager has a list of milestones for his or her program. Those milestones include tests and demonstrations of new or innovative capabilties. Every single one of these tests is an opportunity to communicate a message--yet we have no effetive mechanism for determining which ones should be released, which ones shouldn't, how information should be shared, what should be stressed, to what end, and how will that end be measured.

We need to get serious about this end of the business. There will be times where we want to rock our contenders back on their heels. There will be times when we wish to be coy. There will be times when we wish to remain silent. How we distinguish among these times should not be left up to chance. It is time for the Navy to get its strategic communications act in gear, and it isn't going to happen without the CNO making it so.

A Brief Update

When I restarted the blog, I was serious. I really do intend to write a lot in the near future. The hick-up in consistency is completely my fault... basically, work came to me the first week of February and said they would spend a whole bunch of money for me to take a certification exam on March 10th if I was interested.

I said yes.

Then the rule of three came fast and furious. Basically, three different family members had three very different, serious health problems over a three week period. Things are better now, but I am cramming for a test I will either pass because I'm both lucky and brilliant, or fail because I did not commit the time one would normally commit to be successful. Given the circumstances, I choose to be thankful health has returned to my family, and I'll live with the test results.

So forgive me while I cram work and studies through Friday, and appease me just once as I rant in the other post today. Things will get back to normal next week, or at least that's the plan.

Thank you for your patience.

V/r,

Raymond

Question of the Week February 27 - March 3, 2024

Each week Information Dissemination will present a Question of the Week for professional consideration and discussion. The question will remain at the top of the blog from Monday at 12:00am until Friday 5:00pm. Please scroll down for new contributions. This weeks question:

How should reduced manning concepts on ships and the move to unmanned aviation platforms impact graduating classes of USNA that currently graduate 1,200 students to fill pilot/NFO billets that will be directly impacted by reduced manning concepts being deployed to the fleet?

SECNAV Search Continues

The United States Naval Institute News service was the first to report that President Trump would appoint financier Philip Bilden to be nominated for Secretary of the Navy. USNI News was among the last to report Philip Bilden would drop out.

Financier Philip Bilden has withdrawn himself from consideration to be the next Secretary of the Navy, he said in a Sunday statement.

In the statement, Bilden said he would be unable to meet the requirements of the Office of Government Ethics requirements for the position without “materially adverse divestment” of his family’s financial interests.

“I fully support the President’s agenda and the [Secretary of Defense James Mattis’] leadership to modernize and rebuild our Navy and Marine Corps, and I will continue to support their efforts outside of the Department of the Navy,” he said in the statement.
“However, after an extensive review process, I have determined that I will not be able to satisfy the Office of Government Ethics requirements without undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family’s private financial interests.”

In a Sunday statement, Mattis said the withdrawal “was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests. While I am disappointed, I understand and his respect his decision, and know that he will continue to support our nation in other ways.”

Mattis also said, “in the coming days I will make a recommendation to President Trump for a leader who can guide our Navy and Marine Corps team as we execute the president’s vision to rebuild our military.”

Thanks to Major Garrett's twitter account, this wasn't exactly unexpected news. Basically, that was the moment the financial conflict of interest was discovered and it was only a matter of time before he withdrew his name from the nomination. Political activists, both on social media and the media, may try to make this into something it isn't, but the bottom line is that it was going to be very difficult for Mr. Bilden to divest himself from the wealth the gentleman had accumulated over his career in International Finance in order to meet the government ethics requirements related to financial conflict of interest.

Having personally run into similar ethical requirements related to financial interests and working for government, it's very hard for me to see this as a big deal. Someone like me who had a few thousand dollars invested in activities that created an ethical financial conflict has nothing in common with someone like Philip Bilden who likely had millions of dollars to deal with. Most people who comment on this stuff have never actually dealt with the issue.

In the end Philip Bilden's nomination and subsequent withdrawal has everything to do with the process working as designed. Philip Bilden's nomination came from the well attuned voices in both the Naval War College Foundation and the United States Naval Institute, both of which have very influential naval insiders who know the man as someone actively engaged and interested in naval affairs, and willing to put his money where those interests are. In that context though, it was unlikely Philip Bilden's supporters saw any potential private financial conflicts of interest as ever being an issue that would prevent his appointmnet, so when credible people recommended him to the President, it isn't hard to see President Trump appreciating the recommendation of an outsider with big name endorsements who General Mattis was also endorsing.

The Navy undoubtedly needs more people like Philip Bilden in their corner, but that can't override how the government undoubtedly needs people who can get through the financial ethics requirements related to offshore investments, and that goes double for this administration. From everything I have seen and heard, Philip Bilden is a great American, but the government financial ethics requirements are not really flexible when it comes to people with global investments. This would be true for most of the wealthy stars super of Hollywood, like George Clooney or Angelina Jolie, who have extensive  foreign investments likely disqualifying them from ever being Secretary of State, for example, just as it is true for Philip Bilden. Bottom line, in American government you are considered far more qualified if you blow trillions of dollars of taxpayer money on government garbage than if you have effectively earned and invested your own wealth resulting in a portfolio showing foreign holdings. Amusing how that requirement for government service is both logical and remarkably pathetic.

I look forward to seeing who General Mattis recommends for the new Secretary of the Navy. While Randy Forbes would have to be the top safe pick on everyone's mind, I'm still hoping the President's team throws the 102 mph fastball right over the strike zone and picks from among the top folks in the next generation who didn't sign that War on the Rocks memo... folks like Mackenzie Eaglen, Jerry Hendrix, or Bryan Clark.

Question of the Week February 13 - February 17, 2024

Each week Information Dissemination will present a Question of the Week for professional consideration and discussion. The question will remain at the top of the blog from Monday at 12:00am until Friday 5:00pm. Please scroll down for new contributions. This weeks question:

CSBA's new report Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy calls for smaller conventionally powered CVLs of 40,000 to 60,000 tons that would provide power projection and sea control capabilities at the scale needed for day-to-day operations and for SUW, strike, and CAS as part of initial combat, freeing CVNs to focus on high-end integrated multi-carrier operations. How much money would be too much money for a 40,000 to 60,000 ton CVL? Why?