-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
ADM Stavridis writes
- Thread starter wink
- Start date
I don't know what you mean by the "strategic ensign". I wouldn't expect an ensign to be taken too serious when writing about high level issues such as the force structure out to the next generation. But JOs do have insights that are valuable. Who else is going to have an opinion on whether he was properly trained for the fleet? Who else is going to report on the level of moral in JOPA? Who else is going to take the responsibility to bitch about a screwed up PQS or advancement system that effects their troops. As to jumping chain of command, used to be there was a bit of guidance on how to handle that in every issue of Proceedings. Fact is, Proceedings is not an official Navy publication. It is a professional journal where the official Navy encourages debate. Tailhook used to be a place where JOs could stand up before Flag Officers and speak their minds. I was involved in a conversation with DCNO (air), or whatever he is called these days, where we effectively killed the thought of a V-22 replacement for the S-3. Just 3 or 4 JOs. I don't suppose Tailhook it is quit like that these days. So where else are you going to have that kind of input? You guys may not read Proceedings, but the elephants in DC and Millington do. You get the Navy you are willing to put up with. Respectful debate in a professional journal is not something you should be hammered for in a fitrep.
Nice try, but your original comment refered to simply reading Proceedings or writing for it, once. I never implied one should write as many articles as the Admiral or any one JO should. You said a guy would be pummeled for simply reading the magazine. If that is the case, then yes, we are screwed because professional development, academic inquiry, and critical debate is being stifled, and by the JOs themselves. You don't have to lecture me on what goes on in ready rooms. I would be willing to bet that given all the nannying I hear you current JOs complain about, my ready rooms were more brutal. But guess what, we could take it. It didn't deter a couple guys I know from writing, and some wrote critical things. Most of us read the magazine. So are you saying that the current crop of JOs are intimated by some good natured ribbing from their peers to not read, let alone write, for a respected professional publication? For whatever reason a guy from your ready room might not contribute today, I don't think that is it. Try again.
The continued lectures on how to be more like you and your individual experiences are tiresome. I suspect the extent of this thread's utility has been found.
Wrong again, I am trying to encourage guys to speak up for JOPA, their sailors and their profession INDEPENDENTLY, not to be like me, or their skippers. I am trying to get guys to disagree and be respectfully disagreeable. Lord knows, the Navy doesn't need a bunch of JOs like me.
Write (or say) something that doesn't jive with your boss (or his boss) and their outlook on things? Expect to get flame-sprayed. The unfortunate reality is that COs, etc. select those that are most like them to succeed them, which, everything else being equal, translates into monocultures of thought.
Of course I can't say this doesn't happen today, or even in my time. Two points though. First, have you seen this happen first hand? I never did. Second, what CO is interested in molding JOs after his own image when they won't be around to succeed him for many career shaping years? My experience, as both a JO and senior reporter, was that the CO was happy to have hard charging JOs do their jobs competently in the squadron and what they thought about any given subject didn't matter if they didn't break jets, arrived over the target on time, ensured their sailors were trained, and kept their admin house in order.
hubirs...
Who is Hubirs?
My feeling is that unless you actually write an article called,"Why my command is fucked up," you should be largely unafraid of retribution. Most contributors write about bigger picture issues than their immediate superiors can affect, anyway.
I've written a few articles for professional publications, a couple of which could be taken as criticizing some parts of the leadership, or at least how they run things. I have only gotten positive feedback, at least that which I've gotten personally. Maybe there are some senior officers walking around, thinking, "If I ever see that guy, I'm going to ruin his day." Actually, maybe that explains a lot.
I've written a few articles for professional publications, a couple of which could be taken as criticizing some parts of the leadership, or at least how they run things. I have only gotten positive feedback, at least that which I've gotten personally. Maybe there are some senior officers walking around, thinking, "If I ever see that guy, I'm going to ruin his day." Actually, maybe that explains a lot.
So, with this in mind I took a look at what ADM Stavrdis wrote about as a JO. In the 6 years between 1977 and 1983, from Ensign to Lieutenant, 3of the eight published pieces were in Comment and Discussion (the letters section), and two were submissions to the annual leadership essay contest. Here is what the ADM wrote about as a JO:
- He praises the training of other communities and suggests that SWO training could be improved and one way would be to make better use of SWO training facilities that were mis-placed and not available to SWO School. Clearly a subject appropriate to a JO.
-Addresses JO retention and offers reasons why retention and moral is low. Only a JO could write about that, and could today at that.
-Experience handling the then new Spruance Class DDG. Who else will write that, an O-6 DESRON C.O? Who would a JO reporting to a Spruance for the first time want to hear from, a JO or hinge?
-Leadership for an Engineering Div 'O'. Clearly the providence of a SWO JO
-Promoting the idea SWOs should be CV XOs to better mentor and train first assignment and junior SWOs assigned to CV ship's company. Again, a JO perspective where it is germane.
-A leadership article heavy on the history. If a USNA grad and experienced SWO DIV 'O' can't comment on leadership, what have we thought them?
-Cuba, Moscow, and the U.S. OK, here he takes on a General in criticizing an article the General wrote, but it is respectful and reasonable.
-On leadership, JOs and NCOs preparing sailors for war in a time when most all Navy personnel had not seen armed conflict. Again, a JOs perspective meant for the junior officers of the day.
I just don't see where a lack of "street cred" limits a JOs list a subjects he can constructively address.
A lot of the issues may result more from 'how' something is said, vice what is actually said.
If you write an article that comments on ways (in your opinion) to improve TTP for naval warfare, address changes to training processes, modify a career path or update doctrine, then it should (never say "will") be received well.
Write an article in which you state how stuff is F'd up and point out specific instances of where stuff (like a specific command) is F'd up and you may get shat upon.
I've seen lots of papers on a variety of topics that have been published and most are looking to change issues that the author views as being messed up. Most take a professional tone and the thoughts accepted as a professional opinion on a given subject.
However, there are others that have an ax to grind. The opinions expressed are usually not done in a professional manner and the author may actually call out specific units as the culprits. When that happens you can't be surprised when the sky falls....
The tone of the article will usually determine if the recommendations within are taken seriously or if the author is simply calling out his boss for a difference of opinion.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
For a more recent JO writing, my Proceedings articles were well received by the CDR and higher crowd, mocked by most JOs and the Shrub Club had a mixed reaction.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of JOs supported the effort to retain AWGs. Did they expect senior leadership would read their minds? I am hoping that most of the mockery was good natured, although it isn't like there isn't enough about you to mock that they had to pick on such a worthy effort.