CDR Salamander

Spot the future Mrs. LBG

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:57:00 +0000

Blunt the spin

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:58:00 +0000

Just use pictures - most of these people are not capable of critical thought.

This is a great and just nation - regardless of the self-hating, confused and blinkered pundits out there that only seem to see one thing in everything.

UPDATE: Well - Texas sure ain't what it used to be.

Hat tip Barbarossa @ Jawa.

I want a dozen too, please ...

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:00 +0000

Seriously. Again - we can have a SSN/SSK mixed fleet.

Greg Combet, Acting Minister for Defence, has announced that a contract had been signed with the United States RAND Corporation to complete a Domestic Design Study for the Future Submarine Project, SEA 1000.

“As outlined in the White Paper, the Government has decided to acquire 12 new Future Submarines, to be assembled in South Australia. This project will be the largest and most complex defence procurement undertaken in Australia’s history,” said Mr Combet.

“The Domestic Design Study will examine Australia’s submarine design capability and capacity. Investigations by the Project to date have aimed at developing an understanding of the capability of the international submarine industry.

“The RAND Corporation brings internationally recognised expertise to the Domestic Design Study having completed similar studies for both the United States and United Kingdom governments,” said Mr Combet.

“The results of the Domestic Design Study will inform project strategy options for consideration by Government during 2010 and is an example of the Government’s careful planning for Australia’s next generation of submarines,” Mr Combet said.

“The Defence Materiel Organisation is undertaking a number of studies to identify and explore all the options to ensure we have the appropriate design capability to support our submarines throughout their life. The information we collect through this process will help to develop strategic options for the Government’s consideration,” said Mr Combet.

The report is to be completed by February 2010.

If we went in on a design/build with Australia and then brought in Taiwan in the mix - there is something to ponder. Heck, maybe Chile and Colombia might want a boat or two as well. That would bring costs down for everyone.

Would I trade a few LCS and two mission modules for one SSK? Of course.

Having just a hammer (SSN), an axe (SSGN), and a sledge hammer (SSBN) is no way to do business when sometimes you need an adjustable wrench.

Fullbore Friday

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:03:00 +0000

When we say a person's name and honor their deeds, like we do on FbF - we keep their name and their deeds alive. When we keep their memory, and we breath life anew into the lessons their sacrifice and example have to offer.

There are reasons that the great were written down from the beginning of time. There are reasons that the Egyptians chissled names off of monuments. There is a reason a Venetian Doge suffers Damnatio Memoriae. As such;

What is Fullbore?

Fullbore is those Army military and civilian security personnel who stopped that Ft. Hood terrorist.

Fullbore is those Soldiers who one minute were just waiting to get their dental, medical, and legal readiness taken care of and the next minute found themselves conducting combat lifesaving by the dozen in their own backyard.

Fullbore is those family members who lean in to help their neighbor who has lost everything when they thought they had it all.

That is Fullbore.

UPDATE: From our Canadian friends:

Corporal Tobin, (RCAF) and I along with all of our members, (which number just over 345,000) of Remembering our Fallen Soldiers, (cause on fb), would like President Obama, and all American citizens everywhere that we are deeply saddened and shocked about today's events. All of us send our deepest sympathies to all of the families and friends of these fallen heroes. We pray and hope that family members and friends of these slain precious people would be comforted in the days, weeks and months to come. Also that everybody's needs would be met, either for finances, looking after the children, or just living each and every day. Our thoughts and prayers also lie with the 31 people that were critically injured. We pray that while you are lying in your hospital bed, that you will be aware that we Canadians, really do love and cherish our neighbours to the south of us. We also pray that your broken bodies and broken spirits would be completely healed, that your relatives would also be healed during the difficult days that lie ahead. May God bless each and every single person that was touched by these scenes of carnage and absolute horror.

Respectfully yours,

for Corporal Tobin- Royal Canadian Air Force (creator) Rebecca Leah Duesbury- administrator

Hat tip SoldiersAngels.

The Potemkin Color Guard

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:01:00 +0000

Walk in somebody's shoes for a bit.

You have worked long and hard to reach a high profile position, as those who came before you had.

You did everything that was asked of you, and more. You believed in a system that told you all you had to do was work hard, pay attention to detail, excel in your efforts, show exceptional dedication, and demonstrate professionalism better than those around you. Do that, you were told, and you will be rewarded.

You understood that nothing was guaranteed - but you also knew that the system was a meritocracy based on fair, established rules that everyone agreed upon when they started.

Why wouldn't you believe that? Those in positions of authority, those whose word was gold, those who asked of you only what they demanded of themselves - they told you so. Because they said it was so, it must be true - it has to be true.

After countless hours of work, dedication, and sacrifice, you finally reached the position of service and honor you hoped for - you made it.

The team you are on is set to make a high profile appearance. You are ecstatic. Happy. You let those who are important in your life know, so they can watch you on TV and perhaps see the results of the hard work you put in for so long.

Then it happens.

The day prior to the event you are told that those in power decided to remove you and a friend from the position you worked so long and hard for. You wonder, "What did we do? Why?"

The reason is rather simple; those in positions of authority did not like your race and gender. Nothing that you did - no - not that. Nothing personal - just business, you know.

Simply by being born, you have been found wanting, and unworthy.

Crushed. Betrayed. Lied to. Those, perhaps, are just a few of the emotions you have.

So, is the above a made up story, or a generalization to make a point?

No. True story from last week.

On 29 OCT, the USNA Color Guard made an appearance at the World Series. The day prior to their appearance, two Midshipmen were removed from the Color Guard by senior Commissioned Officers in leadership positions at Annapolis for one simple reason; they were white males. That isn't a guess on their part - that is what they were told.

Before I go further, I want to detail a couple of things. I didn't think about running this story after the first notification I received. However, I soon started to receive multiple tips from multiple contacts associated with Annapolis, alumni, and parents.

Over the last few days, working with over a half-dozen very reliable sources, the following story started to flesh itself out.

The day before their appearance, the two MIDN were notified that USNA senior leadership did not like the fact that the Color Guard was not diverse enough. As a result, they were to be removed and replaced with someone with a higher melanin content in their skin, and a female. Boom - there you go.

BZ to the two MIDN involved - word is that they have not taken this blatant racism lying down. Thing is - we don't know what is going on now because the entire Brigade via Company Commanders have been told to refer all questions to the PAO. That is what it is. I have an email in to the USNA PAO's office. Went out late yesterday and I doubt they will reply so soon - but if they do I will update this post appropriately.

I would love to discuss this with the MIDN - but I am not going to ask them to put themselves on report.

Oh, and in any case someone is wondering; I have had no direct contact with either of the two MIDN involved. Nor have I received or asked for information from any MIDN after the squelch order took place; so leave them alone. It isn't about them anyway - it is about a policy that would do this; and the people who execute the policy.

This wasn't a secret over the weekend - the story isn't going to die quickly. Two can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead. Things like this spread like wildfire.

I would like to hear the full story from the USNA side of the house - as this is just plain racism - red in tooth and claw.

It would be great if this was just some great paranoia - some collective misunderstanding and misremembering. That would be a much better thing than officially sanctioned racism, wouldn't it?

Here are some questions the MIDN should ask their leadership if given the chance - any MIDN:
- If the Navy discriminated against two people simply on the basis of their race - at what other times in their career can they expect to be discriminated against?
- In a zero-sum game - does senior leadership realize that to give to one, you have to take from another?
- Is overt racism a valid method to pick one over another? If so, why?

In addition to the integrity of the USNA, the institution it serves, the taxpayers who support it, and the two MIDN discriminated against, there are two other victims of this - the two Diverse selectees. I feel sorry for them as well.

Everyone knows they didn't get there because they were the best - they were there simply because they were good enough to help show a Potemkin image of Annapolis. To do that, they had to steal-by-proxy their position from others based on race and gender. Not something to brag about.

What kind of lessons do we want to teach our future leaders?

- Are hard work, dedication, and working by the rules not the keys to success? No?

- All you need to succeed is to be "good enough," and to be born into one of the protected classes? Really? Is that where we are in the 21st Century Navy?

- If a MIDN is not of a protected class as defined by the Diversity Directorate, then should he consider himself a second class citizen? An officer less worthy simply as a result of his birth?
- Do we tell our officers, "Some people, you see, are more equal than others." - is that where we are?

Sad. But don't go away sad.

No, there is humor to be found even in the worst stories. This little side-bar also has a happy ending ... of sorts.

One of the Diversity selectees showed why he wasn't on the A-Team that day. He forgot his cover and his shoes. A rookie mistake to be sure, but again - says a lot. As a result of the rookie mistake - one of the two MIDN who were discriminated against took his place during the ceremony.

Half full? Yes. However, if your glass is half full of wine and half full of bu11sh1t - it still tastes like bu11sh1t.

UPDATE: Late yesterday, I asked USNA Public Affairs the following questions:

(Summary of the above)Could you please confirm the above information is correct.

Additionally, could you also comment on what if any protests have been made formally or informally by the two white male MIDN?

Are there other occasions where changes have been made on "the public face" of USNA due primarily to race, creed, color, national origin, or gender?

Have the MIDN been told not to discuss this issue? If so, why?

This AM, USNA Public Affairs offered the following response:

- The Color Guard is a voluntary extra curricular activity. All members must meet high standards of performance to participate. Members go through extensive training and they are all considered qualified once they are accepted onto the team. 28 midshipmen from all four classes comprise the individual teams that are normally made up of 6 members, but the team size can be adjusted for different situations. Members are selected for events based upon availability, qualification and level of proficiency.

- Background into World Series Event/Decision:
On 28 October 2009, we learned that the Color Guard had been asked to carry the colors at World Series game number 2 at Yankee Stadium. We were excited at the opportunity to represent the Naval Academy in front of our nation and looked at a number of options to ensure our color guard members were fully qualified and available to participate. Upon reviewing the different options, a preliminary option was discussed, but later modified to have a color guard composition of 8 members that would honor the proud work of our team members and highlight the tremendous talents of our many Midshipmen.

Prior to the team's departure on 29 October 2009, this initial course of action was discussed with some specific Midshipmen and because of their valuable insights the final modified plan was developed. Unfortunately, upon arrival at Yankee Stadium, a uniform inventory problem was discovered and therefore, only six midshipmen were present on the field (as even numbers are required). One of the members of the team that did not participate is a second class midshipman that will have opportunities to participate in future events.

Our intent to have all team members participate was not met because one of the midshipmen inadvertently travelled without a required uniform item. While only 6 of the 8 participated in the ceremony, all 8 midshipmen did attend World Series Game2.

Well, there you go.

UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: Well, we're getting the right readership today.

UPDATE III - Anthrax Vermillion at the ATM: Navy Times is on the hunt ... and hello to my MIDN Facebook linkers!

Diversity Thursday

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:02:00 +0000

What could possibly be second and third order effects from aggressively pursuing race and ethnic based "goals," AKA quotas?

LT James M. Carroll's (USN) thesis from NPS gives some interesting facts to chew on.

"On average, Non-Hispanic Asians and Non Hispanic Whites are more likely to attrite when assigned to a non-technical job than to a technical one; in contrast, most minorities are far more likely to attrite when serving in a technical job. Further research is recommended to explore these results and to suggest approaches that might assist in lowering attrition rates among minorities, particularly those assigned to technical occupations."

Could there be something where people are being put in fields they may not be academically suited for? In a zero-sum game, that may explain some of the numbers as no one wants to do something they are not good at - and for those pushed off - no one likes to be underemployed. Something causes it. Second and third order effects? Maybe. Culture? Maybe. Everyone else in industry looking for the same diversity candidates? Maybe. Beyond the ability of the Navy to change. Maybe.

There is all sorts of good stuff in here --- some of which needs to briefed to the CNO.

First of all, this nukes the garbage the Diversity Bullies feed him about the need to have the "right" color officers.

[W]ith respect to race, the black and Hispanic [high school] graduates are no more likely than whites to attrite. It concluded that there was no compelling evidence that after controlling for other characteristics, these black and Hispanic graduates are more likely to stay in service because of differentially lower discrimination in the military than the civilian sector.

As we all know, the key is the eduction level in the front door.

...education level tends to be a major determining factor in first-term attrition.

If you want more of certain minorities - then the guv'munt edumucation system needs to do a better job educating non-White and non-Asian Americans.

I like this too. As we all know - you know which ethnic group is All-American when it comes to the Navy. Man, we get the best bang for the buck from these guys and girls.

Asians tend to have the lowest attrition rate among racial/ethnic groups, and North American Indians/Alaskan Natives have the highest. Furthermore, the study identified Filipinos as having the the lowest overall attrition rate of the various racial/ethnic subgroups. He also found that attrition rates increase with AFQT from category IIIB to category IIIA for certain racial/ethnic groups and subgroups, such as whites, blacks and Filipinos. Again, Filipinos recorded the lowest attrition rates across all AFQT categories for all Asian ethnic groups.
...
Filipinos who enlisted under this (Philippines Enlistment Program) program exhibited high educational attainment levels and high AFQT scores. Maligat also found that Filipinos had high short-term and long-term continuation rates. His finding also confirmed low attrition rates of Filipinos in the Navy. Filipinos were found to advance more rapidly and have fewer derogatory reentry codes. Maligat’s findings led him to conclude that the program was valuable and should be reinstituted.

Seriously. Give me a ship full of them. I would bet them LBG's Little Black Book that the ship would be better, cleaner, have fewer problems, and more importantly - the food would be a lot better. That and I bet you could get Skippy to show up at every family picnic.

You should really take time to look over the whole thing - because near the end some very good points come out - mostly informed by some data summaries such as the next three tables that lead to the paragraph.

Examine the gap in educational quality between Whites and minorities to determine ways to make minorities more competitive for technical occupations. Efforts to narrow this gap might lead to placing more individuals in a technical occupation who might have otherwise been assigned to a non-technical rating. Conduct an in-depth analysis of the occupational assignment process, particularly for minorities. Questions to be answered could include: Are we assigning the most qualified minority group members to technical occupations, or do we find other, extraneous factors driving job assignment?

Yes. Very good question.

But my good LT - we could have done without this little bit of smack-a55.

In today’s competitive job market and economy, it is essential that the Navy continue searching for ways to retain the quality individuals who volunteer to serve our nation. It is even more essential to preserve the diverse composition of today’s Navy. As the Chief of Naval Operations states: “Our Navy must reflect the face of our nation, and that’s why it’s of interest to me to attract and retain young men and women of minority communities to come into the Navy, because only if we do that will we reflect the face of our nation.” 46 This is why the study of attrition among minorities remains important and relevant to the future of our nation’s military.

But I'll cut you some slack because you did a good job with your thesis - and as a LT, I probably would have done the same thing

As a side-note, if you think we will be looking forward towards a better way of dealing with Diversity in the military - well you would be wrong. I looks like the CINC has selected someone who, we see all to much - is a Boomer mostly focused on his personal story and '60/70s set perspective. Click here to find out more.

....and yes, I know what magazine that is. I "don't care."

Are we .... dysfunctional?

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:45:00 +0000

Something to ponder from the folks at the collective ... errrr .... AOL, 15 Signs Your Workplace is Dysfunctional.

This blogger would point you to #6. For those at PACFLT and USNA, you should like #3.

Ponder.

Sign No. 1: Conspicuously posted vision or value statements are filled with vague but important-sounding words like "excellence" and "quality"

These words are seldom defined and the concepts they allude to are never measured.

Sign No. 2: Bringing up a problem is considered more as evidence of a personality defect rather than as an actual observation of reality

In a dysfunctional company, what it looks like is not only more important than what it is, it is what it is. If you don't believe that, you are the problem. A surprising amount of information is classified. Dysfunctional companies have more state secrets than the CIA. Anything that might embarrass the boss turns out to be a national security issue.

Sign No. 3: If by chance there are problems, the usual solution is a motivational seminar

Attitude is everything, especially in places where facts are embarrassing or inconvenient. In a dysfunctional family, there's an elephant -- usually a drunken abusive parent -- in the parlor, but no one ever mentions him. To appear sane, you have to pretend that the elephant is invisible, and that drives you crazy. Businesses are full of invisible elephants, too. Usually they are things that might cause difficulties for people with enough clout to prevent their discussion. The emperor may be naked, but if you have a good attitude, you won't mention it.

Sign No. 4: Double messages are delivered with a straight face

Quality and quantity are both job one. You can do it both cheaper and better, just don't ask how. If you're motivated enough you should know already.

Sign No. 5: History is regularly edited to make executive decisions more correct, and correct decisions more executive than they actually were

Those huge salaries require some justification.

Sign No. 6: People are discouraged from putting things in writing

What is written, especially financial records, is purposely confusing. You can never tell when you might need a little deniability.

Sign No. 7: Directions are ambiguous and often vaguely threatening

Before you respond to a vague threat, remember this: Virtually every corporate scandal begins with someone saying, "Do it; I don't care how." That person is seldom the one who gets indicted.

Sign No. 8: Internal competition is encouraged and rewarded

The word "teamwork" may be batted around like a softball at a company picnic, but in a dysfunctional company the star players are the only ones who get recognition and big bucks.

Sign No. 9: Decisions are made at the highest level possible

Regardless of what it is, you have to check with your boss before doing it. She also has to check with her boss.

Sign No. 10: Delegating means telling somebody to do something, not giving them the power to do it

According to Webster's Dictionary, you delegate authority, not tasks. In dysfunctional companies you may have responsibility, but the authority lives in the office upstairs.

Sign No. 11: Management approaches from the latest bestseller are regularly misunderstood to mean what we're doing already is right on the mark

"Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," "Good to Great" and "Who Moved My Cheese?" all seem to boil down to, "quit griping and do more with less."

Sign No. 12: Resources are tightly controlled

Your department may need upgraded software, but there's been a spending freeze since 2006. Cost control is entry-level management, but in a dysfunctional company anything more sophisticated is considered too touchy-feely. Whatever you propose, the first question you will be asked is if it can be done cheaper.

Sign No. 13: You are expected to feel lucky to have a job and know you could lose it if you don't toe the line

Dysfunctional companies maintain control using the threat of punishment. Most will maintain that they also use positive rewards ... like your paycheck. A few people are actually fired, but most of those who go are driven to quit.

Sign No. 14: Rules are enforced based on who you are rather than what you do

In a dysfunctional company, there are clearly insiders and outsiders and everyone knows who belongs in each group. Accountability has different meanings depending on which group you're in.

Sign No. 15: The company fails the Dilbert Test

Dysfunctional organizations have no sense of humor. People who post unflattering cartoons risk joining the ranks of the disappeared. When an organization loses the ability to laugh at itself, it is headed for big trouble. If you'd get in trouble for printing this article and posting it on the bulletin board at work, maybe it's time to look for another job before this one drives you crazy.

Hat tip Steve.

Lt. Col. Salamander, USAF (Ret)

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:45:00 +0000

If I were an USAF guy ... I would be all over this.

From Noah at WIRED;

You’d think men and women who handle heavy weapons, fly the planet’s most advanced airplanes, and take care of multi-million dollar equipment could be trusted to go outside at night without wearing a day-glo safety belt. The United States Air Force would beg to differ.

Instead, airmen are ordered to wear the reflective accessories from the late afternoon on. That goes for domestic installations, and for war zone bases, too. Just like the rule about puttering around at 25 miles an hour or less in your military vehicle.

The whole thing has got airmen pretty annoyed, as you can imagine. So about 2,900 of them have taken to Facebook to stage an informal, online protest against the safety belt regulation — and to make all kinds of fun of it. 400 folks have joined in the last day.

It is over 4,000 now.

If you have gone through Manas, Al Udeid or any of the USAF occupied territory, we have all had to grab one from the "barrel of belts."

Go to the Facebook site and at least check out the pics and photoshops - they are pure gold.

My top three, but on a serious note - check out the caption here.

Waiting for a call of racism in 3, 2, 1 .....

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:04:00 +0000

Lucky you folks - we have a "Tuesday Twofer."

One subject - two authors. The first part of the post will be from me, then USNA English Professor Bruce Fleming will follow.

Here's my take. From Earl Kelly in The Capital.

Varsity athletes make up 29 percent of the brigade and commit 47 percent of the honor violations, according to Naval Academy data.

Women make up 20 percent of the brigade and commit 23 percent of the violations.

Whites constitute 76 percent of the brigade and commit 55 percent of the violations, while African-Americans make up 5 percent of the brigade and commit 19 percent of the violations, according to Naval Academy data. Asians and Hispanics make up 5 percent and 10 percent of the brigade, respectively, and commit 6 percent and 14 percent of the honor violations, respectively.

Midshipmen who serve in the military before coming to the academy, along with mids who attend the Naval Academy Preparatory School before being admitted, commit 37 percent of the violations, even though they make up 24 percent of the brigade.

In this is one of the worst excuses for honor violations I have ever heard;

(Naval Academy Commandant of Midshipmen Capt. Matthew) Klunder said time pressures, not deep character flaws, are behind most violations.

"It is very infrequent I see a malicious, dishonorable act," he said. "Most often it goes something like this: 'Exams are coming up, I'm juggling a million balls, I have six courses. ... I didn't plan well, I've got to do something.' Almost like clockwork, it's mismanagement of time ... nine out of 10 times."

Klunder said varsity athletes, in particular, have so many demands on them, they are more likely than other students to run into trouble.

"Those midshipmen who are in hugely pressured situations where their time is most severe, that is where most of the (violations) come from," he said. "Athletes don't have a lot of time."

Captain Klunder. Brother. Shipmate. Please.

If you think Annapolis is a pressure cooker - what will they do in the Fleet? That excuse is an unfair smear to those athletes who do it right. The problem isn't athletics or athletes- the problem is with the individual - and perhaps the exceptions we make to bring athletes into the Academy - simply for their athletic abilities.

Anyway, I thought we try to create a "no excuses" environment? Why are we making up excuses for them? How do we inculcate personal responsibility when we teach pointing fingers to inanimate objects as causes?

What are we feeding our seed corn?

Sigh. The vast majority of MIDN who are doing the right thing the right way deserve better - and deserve not to have the collective reputation of their institution be degraded by excuses.

Professor Fleming - over to you

The percentages wrung at the expense of so much FOIA effort from the clearly unwilling Academy (which, see Mr. Kelly's article, were given in a shambled and unhelpful a state and manner as possible--like the data on his earlier article on the tilt of Academy "justice" toward women) should be unsurprising to someone who understands how the recruiting system works for what I call "set-asides."

Set-asides are the categories that commit more than their share of honor violations: recruited athletes, racial minorities, and priors. What all have in common, to repeat the facts the Academy continues to deny in public (remember how long the Army denied that Pat Tilman's death was due to friendly fire?), is that these groups are let in via a fast track over a radically lowered bar: direct-admitted with minimal standards far below those of competitive white candidates.

These are recruited midshipmen, recruited because of specific qualities unrelated to smarts, or leadership, or even general athletics (many of the football players are overweight and are given exemptions). In guaaranteeing them their seats at Navy, we don't ask that they do or be anything (down to a certain level--even we have our minima) other than a football player, or a prior, or non-white. Not: smart (so far as grades and scores show this--and what else does?). Not: good leaders (we don't measure this for recruits). Certainly not: motivated to come to Navy.

Again: the groups with disproportionately high honor violations (and they are the ones found "in violation"--see below) are the recruited groups not held to our usual minimum standards. And they don't even have to want to come to Navy until we convince them they should. We go after them, not they after us.

We do "outreach" for minority students who had never thought of "serving" (as the Superintendent puts it in his Alumni Letter) at Annapolis: we convince them not only to consider Navy, but to accept our offer of admission. Non-white students are given a list of black high school seniors to cold-call, to convince them to come: pretty please, come to us! Meanwhile, a white kid who has dreamed of Navy since he was in the seventh grade, takes the right courses to prepare him- (or her-)self, pushes him- or herself to be a stud athletically, is rejected to free up the place.

Ditto athletes: because of the professionalization of college athletics in the last decades, we're competing with civilian schools to get kids to come to us. It's not an evident choice, in spite of what USNA boosters think. The really good ones won't come, because it's difficult to go pro after (not impossible). There's that service commitment at the end, and the restrictions we place even on athletes (they get out of a lot of them, which tends to feed what even football players have admitted to me is their entitlement mentality). If we hire somebody because he or she can play some sort of ball (or run, or sail), it's a lucky strike extra if that person puts Navy first, rather than the sport. Why should they?

As for priors, I love the old men and women, especially those divers or combat Marines we occasionally get. But that's not the average prior: the average prior was lured into Navy nuke school by being told that the chances of walking into Annapolis were good, spends less than a year in uniform, and despite poor grades and no leadership, is given a seat at Annapolis.

The competitive students, by contrast, are held to a high overall standard, and they come after us. They usually know about Navy, and want it. They're prepared, and committed. Of course they're going to have fewer honor violations.

So the pattern is clear: recruited direct-admit lower-standard groups are maxing out the honor system, which refuses to get rid of them. All mids enjoy room, board, and what potentially is a first-rate education, all at taxpayer expense. We turned down (we say) ten people for each one we admit, people who might well have given their eye teeth to come. But once we get the recruits, we're darned if we're going to boot them: the alumni love the football team, and the minorities have to make it to the officer corps so the Superintentent and CNO can look progressive, rather than like the 1968-era dinosaurs they really are.

In sum: our policy of "putting diversity first" and our insistence on having our football team play Ohio State and Notre Dame means we'll do anything to get the non-whites and the big boys. And then we'll do anything to keep them.

By the way, our "we forgive everything if you're an athlete/non-white/prior" means we'll scoop up other odd fish in the net too. I've had autistic students, bipolar students, students with other learning disabilities that were behind their low GPAs in high school: if they'd been white, they'd never have gotten in.

We've made a perfect storm for ourselves with the groups we recruit too: the really super ball players (this is a generalization; there are exceptions) won't typically come to us, for above reasons. The really stellar minority kids won't tend to either (a generalization again): why should they when they'll get offers from Ivies? Plus we are apparently aiming at 40% minority and Division I supremacy: we want these more and are getting fewer. So we're doing anything it takes. To solve the problem we should accept playing schools like, yes, the Ivies, in football, and accept that the non-white percentage of the service academies is not going to be the exact mirror of the non-white percentage of the enlisted corps--it seems to be only the dinosaurs who think this is a problem.

Meanwhile, we've ruined Annapolis. Our obsession with recruiting based on officer-neutral (skin color) or officer-negative (the entitlement mentality of some big sports players) criteria has rotted the honor system. I hear this daily from disillusioned midshipmen: they can tell dozens of stories of minority students and/or ballplayers with multiple honor offenses whom the system won't even try, much less convict.

Some, as I say, aren't even found technically "in violation." Last year I put up the clearest case of plagiarism I've ever seen in 22 years (the student turned in a paper I hadn't even assigned, in an older version he couldn't have known about from the syllabus)--a minority athlete. I was told I didn't have to be at the adjudication; I couldn't in any case because that was my time to get my boys off a school bus. Then they changed the date and time at the last minute to another time I couldn't make: I was told that was not a problem. Yet my absence was precisely the reason given (after my Division Director, the senior US Marine on the Yard, went to bat for me), for the fact that the student was found "not in violation," i.e. innocent: a professor's word was brushed aside by midshipmen taking their guidance from officers. And, I heard, Professor Fleming "didn't even care enough to show up." Even if I had, it's clear to me the administration was unwilling even to find guilty someone a professor could show was guilty. Sure, even I can be wrong: then convene a group of three other professors to see if Fleming knows what plagiarism is and if this constitutes it. (If it's not, I might as well resign right now.) I saw this midshipman in the hall the other day. He gave me a smirk. That's what's going to join the fleet.

If we make diversity our "number one priority" and recruit priors with no particularly good qualities, and insist on competing with civilian schools whose students are not going to be officers in the Navy and Marine Corps (most recruited ballplayers even at major schools don't even graduate), our honor system will be the first casaulty, as Mr. Kelly's figures show. We are told that the emphasis now is on "remediation, not separation." In fact, it's retention, graduation and commissioning of sub-pa material at any cost. Then comes the staggering lie that we don't have "two-track admissions." Recruiting our three categories is two-track admissions. Or do you have a better term for it?

It's writing things like this that cost me my merit pay steps for last year, incidentally: the newly-arrived Dean, I'm sure under orders from our Superintendent, admits to having gone out of his way to deny me the raise my department voted for me so as to make clear that saying things like this had to stop. (Yes, actions like his are illegall, and I've made a whistleblower protest.) Somehow it hasn't stopped.

Why leaders must speak ....

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:56:00 +0000

The acute shortage of helicopters in southern Afghanistan has been an issue for years - as has been the relatively poor kit the British Army is given to fight with. Both in classified and open source it has been a sore subject.

Not just the Brits, but the Canadians as well - and the smaller nations that are with them like the Danes and the Estonians - the helicopter shortage has been a huge challenge. The USA has helped since '07 to fill in the gaps when NATO force generation couldn't, and "Jingle Air" using civilian helicopters as relieved some of the load for cargo as well; but on average the Europeans are still waiting for someone to come through the Fulda Gap.

However, sometimes a tragic story can help move a support issue. I think this might be one.

The most senior soldier to be killed in Afghanistan foreshadowed his own death in a damning memo about the shortage of helicopters.

Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe told his superiors that British troops would die because they were being forced to make trips by road.

Less than a month later, he was blown up by a roadside bomb.

In his final despatches to commanders in London, classified 'Nato Secret', he had dismissed helicopter operations in Afghanistan as 'not fit for purpose'.

The leaked email, seen by the Daily Mail, dramatically undermines Gordon Brown's claims that helicopter shortages have not caused the deaths of troops fighting the Taliban.
...
Colonel Thorneloe, 39, commander of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, died with Trooper Joshua Hammond on July 1 when their convoy set off an improvised explosive device (IED) during a patrol north of the town of Lashkar Gah.

On June 5, he had chillingly predicted the circumstances of his own death in his weekly report to the Ministry of Defence.

Headed 'Battle Group Weekly Update', it reads: 'I have tried to avoid griping about helicopters - we all know we don't have enough.

'We cannot not move people, so this month we have conducted a great deal of administrative movement by road. This increases the IED threat and our exposure to it.'

Colonel Thorneloe goes on to spell out in graphic terms how he had 'virtually no' helicopters of the type which would allow him to move troops by air rather than road. He added: 'The current level of SH (support helicopter) support is therefore unsustainable.'

"Fair" or not, because of his seniority, his death will get more attention. Perhaps this will help turn the attention towards the funding the British Army needs. Perhaps.

Even in death, there are ways a leader can continue to help his soldiers. Perhaps his family's loss can be mitigated in some small way by the fact that through his death, perhaps he can help bring support to the soldiers he also loved.

I don't know; but it is something. Let us hope the British government will have some followthrough.

A Very Valour-IT Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:49:00 +0000

It is time to begin the 2009 edition of Phibian's "Get your shopping out of the way" drive early.

My yearly drive to get people to buy the right books to give as Christmas presents - or to get for yourself - was officially to kick off next Tuesday. However, we will start a week early, as there are some great gift opportunities available that will directly support the Valour-IT drive, and not all these goodies are books.

Get 'ye to the Valour-IT eBay page and see what is on offer from Team Navy.

From a signed copy of Destroyer Captain by Admiral Stavridis, to signed litographs by Foss and Fluckey.

There is much more - you cannot go wrong - and the cause is about as good as it gets.

UPDATE: Jeff Bacon of Broadside fame has a great Valour IT post on his blog well worth your time. Check it out.

Caption Contest!

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:16:00 +0000

Pelosi and Emanuel.

Hat tip HufPo. Yes, HufPo.

Nation of laws vs. Nation of people

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:01:00 +0000

We are mostly familiar with the concept that a nation of free people results from a society run by laws, not run by people. A basic Common Law idea.

We often think of it in the larger sense - as in macro-national problems. We also need to see it at the micro-local issue, even down to your city government to the local school's PTA.

The rule of law keeps a society on an even keel. Though imperfect as all human things are - it smoothes out the edges and promotes civil, non-violent problem resolution. Slow and clunky at times - and blessedly inefficient, it is still the one things that keeps a civil society, well, civil.

Without fair, just, equal, enforced, and followed laws - things will always devolve to the use and abuse of power where those in a position of authority will exert their will regardless of fairness, justice, equality, or balance. There will not be a civilized discussion of issues - things will elevate until the thugs get their way through the surrender of their opponent - or escalated further towards the application of the police and/or mob power the thugs control.

They will do all they can to maintain their power, promote their positions - but nothing is more important to them than to keep their ego intact from those who might challenge its sense of self-importance derived from the possession of power; power great or small.

The smart are good at hiding the subversion of established law - be it the Constitution or the by-laws of the PTA. When the clever act, it is hard to see the Thugocracy in action.

However, when you have small-minded people, who wield their little power in a ham-fisted and clumsy manner, the tendency and methods of a Thugocracy are clear to see.

Another characteristic of a Thugocracy is that they will do anything to destroy someone who shows them for what they are. Anyone who stands up to them. They will do all they can to pressure you to back off. They will try to destroy you personally, professionally, and emotionally. They will come after your job, your wife, your children - trying to find your breaking point. It does not matter if you are right - you are "They." "They" must be destroyed because they disrupt "my" power.

If you want to see the Thugocracy in micro - go over to fellow milblogger CJ's place to see what I am taking about.

Prof. Rubel on Lean Manning

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:07:00 +0000

Back on 20 OCT, Phil Ewing at NavyTimes had and article, Lean manning saps morale, puts sailors at risk, that we covered later that week.

In an email circulated earlier, Professor Robert C. Rubel, Dean of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College, put out his thoughts on the subject that I thought were very well put, and added some good perspective to the topic.

With Professor Rubel's permission, I have turned his email into a guest post. The rest of the post below is his.

The point of my remarks below is not to level criticism at any particular personnel policies or decisions but to raise an issue that I ran across in my research attendant to a chapter I wrote in a forthcoming book on the history of naval aviation. There are some sentences in the Ewing article that caught my attention:

Overall, the Navy has adopted a culture of making do — of permanently covering for people who are “temporarily” gone or were never there at all, sailors said.

That mind-set is taking its toll.

“Every commanding officer will make mission — people will always get the job done,” Hatch said. “You’ll work them to death, but what’s the cost? Fatigue, [low] retention and potentially, damage.”

“In the past, we’ve kind of had this heroic mentality that says, ‘We’re well trained, we’re drilled, we’re professional,’” Davenport said. “‘Yeah, we’re gonna be tired, we’re fatigued, but we know how to manage it.’ But the science, in fact, shows us that’s not true. As people get more and more fatigued, they do have degradation of their performance in a whole variety of ways.”

These statements indicate the effect of organizational culture on safety. In the early 50s both the Air Force and Navy were experiencing ruinous aviation accident rates. The Air Force took a draconian approach to accident investigation, including imposing consequences for pilot error. They also imposed strict rules on crew rest, training, assessment, etc. Their accident rate plummeted to a small percentage of what it had been and has remained more or less at that low level ever since.

Naval aviation resisted a centralized and directive approach to safety for decades following; not as a matter of policy, but as a function of individual decision making on staffs and in units. Although great gains were made in safety, for instance the introduction of angled deck carriers halved the accident rate, the Navy mishap rate remained way above that of the Air Force until about 1988.

In going through old issues of Naval Aviation News and the memoirs of 50s, 60s and 70s era naval aviators, I found indicators that the corporate culture of naval aviation was a significant factor in the higher Navy mishap rate. The culture of self reliance and thinking for oneself -core values of the Navy officer corps - led to resistance to standardization, subjecting aviators to unreasonable risks and other related pathologies that contributed to the accident rate.

I was a card-carrying member of that culture (A-7s) from 1971 to 1985, when I left the fleet for a couple of years. I came back as XO of a Hornet squadron in 1988 and immediately perceived a different atmosphere than I had been used to. There was less pressure to "go fly" than in the past - risk was definitely linked to payoff and need. The Hornet is certainly a safer and more reliable airplane than its predecessors, but I believe a shift in naval aviation culture had a lot to do with the low accident rate we now enjoy.

Organizational culture also affects headquarters decisions. The Navy has always focused on command, not staffs - and we are proud of that. However, it has painted us into a personnel corner. Back in the late 70s when DOPMA was being developed, the services were required to submit figures for the numerical end strength tables in the statute. For large, medium and small officer corps (reflecting various sizes of drawdowns) the law contains the specific number of O-4s,5s and 6s a service can have. The numbers indicate that the Army and Air Force clearly understood that if they drew down the number of units, the number of staffs would remain the same and other functions like attaches would also remain constant. Thus they would have to get more top heavy as they got smaller overall. Not the Navy.

The Navy numbers reveal that its rank pyramid stays substantially the same shape as the service gets smaller - or at least gets more top heavy slower. Thus the Navy found itself in the 1990s having to gap key senior officer billets while forcing many senior officers into early retirement. Since nobody wants to reopen DOPMA, the Navy has had to resort to bandaid end-strength waivers on authorization bills. This indicates to me that in the late 70s, the Navy culture focused on command of units, not staffs. Successful command at sea was the sine qua non of professional success; being good at staff work was nice but no self-respecting naval officer would value it over command. I think this kind of outlook still underpins some of the decisions that have come out of the headquarters in the past few years, only it is ships at the expense of sailors.

I fully understand the dilemmas the CNO and senior admirals face, but I also think that the framework of organizational cultural values they grew up with influence their decisions - invisibly. The Navy DOPMA planners truly believed they were doing the right thing; the insidious thing about corporate culture is that it works below the level of consciousness - at the level of values.

It is too terribly true that personnel costs dominate the Navy's TOA. Reducing ship manning is a logical way to try and solve the problem, PROVIDED THAT IT CAN BE OFFSET by automation or other labor and presence reducing measures. We can put terrazzo on decks to reduce painting and we can install more computers and sensors on ships to reduce human scut work, but we cannot extend useful human conscious time. At some point, captains must say they cannot get underway safely - because their crew is tired. This is very hard because of the stigmas - corporate culture - associated with such a thing. It used to be the same way in aviation - downing an airplane for "piddling" gripes was cause to question a pilot's manhood; I used to go fly without anything remotely resembling adequate sleep. Stupid. Not in the F-18 community and probably nowhere in naval aviation today. Operational Risk Management rules.

Nobody wants to put sailors or ships needlessly at risk, but the culture puts insidious pressure on people from the individual sailor to the ship captain to the flag officers. If we recognize this, then we can deal with it.

Hat tip Chap.

MUC: ain't what she used to be

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:48:00 +0000

Boomer rule in full bloom. Everyone gets a trophy.

Yep, time for the quote again.

An ingenuous mind feels in unmerited praise the bitterest reproof.
- Walter Savage Land

Hat Tip, Tecumseh's Caddy.

Sunday Funnies

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:54:00 +0000

Keeping an eye on the Long Game: Part XXVIII

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:34:00 +0000

You know 'ole Salamander has an eye on the long game .... and now you know that RDML Kevin Donegan has one too.

A U.S. Navy admiral expressed new concern Friday over China's military buildup and urged Beijing to be clearer about its intentions.

With China's military growing at an "unprecedented rate," the U.S. wants to ensure that expansion doesn't destabilize the region, Rear Adm. Kevin Donegan told reporters on a visit to the Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

Donegan referred to China's expanded weaponry. His remarks echoed the concerns of other U.S. military leaders who have said the growth in China's military spending — up almost 15 percent in the 2009 budget — raises questions about how Beijing plans on deploying its new power.

"When we see a military growing at that rate, we're interested in transparency and the understanding of the uses of that military," said Donegan, commander of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier strike group, a key part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

I first read it in IBD FRI - then Drudge SAT night. Good.

This will scare you ....

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:35:00 +0000

... and your children out of guv'munt skools.

... a (MASS.) mother testifies about 11-year-old children given a homework assignment to draw an erect penis ejaculating.

See Anne - you are way ahead of the crowd. This also explains why if you exclude poor immigrants, Massachusetts has a decreasing population .... and an exodus of two-parent, native-born families.

Hat tip No Pasaran!

Blogger's block

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:29:00 +0000

Sometimes even your humble blogg'r gets blogger's block. Some things bother me so much I can only think one word I don't use at all anywhere;

"M0th3rf^ck3r!"

Please visit Chuck, Matt and Greyhawk for the details.

I can't think of anything more to say.

UPDATE: GatewayPundit is worth your time a well.

Rubio on Cavuto on fiscal conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:32:00 +0000

More evidence that Marco Rubio is needed in the Senate.

Hat tip HotAir.

Fullbore Friday

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:35:00 +0000

A little something different today. While we cover the bold face items for FbF - it is rare that we get the opporunity to get a more personal view of what happens every day in the middle of huge events.

Here is CDR Bob Woodside, USN (Ret) as he narrates some 8mm color video he took during what sure looks like WWII flying float planes off the USS PROVIDENCE (CL-82). It looks like a OS2U-3 Kingfisher.

In addition, Bob was founder of the Naval Air Station Jacksonville Yacht Club in 1956 and passed away, recently. He was 89.

He was an avid sailor and Coach of the Naval Academy Sailing Team. The people we walk by at the NEX ..... and don't even know.

Sorry I missed you CDR Woodside.

Hat tip BARCO SIN VELA II.

Diversity Thursday II: Electric Boogaloo

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:24:00 +0000

Unintentionally for CNN methinks - this is a partially good report from CNN.

You can see the PC knee-jerk reaction and formula in action --- but I want you to listen to the Cadets West Point sent up. I am not sure the CNN reporter got it -- but what I hear is, "I am an individual and will not be run up as a token to satisfy your guilt."

Well, that is what Cadet Williams sounded like to me. Then again, she has the classic new immigrant ideal of, "I am me. Let me succeed on my own - I don't need your help or advice, get out of my way." I like her, a lot. Clone her too.

The two males gave off a, "I hate being treated like the pony in a dog and pony show - let me get back to class please."

Those are the young men and women that I am talking about. Unlike the belly-button picking Boomers and the Diversity/Grievance Industry - these men and women act like there is no institutional discrimination against minorities and would like to get on with gett'n on. That is good - because there isn't institutional discrimination against minorities.

Also of note is our buddy Professor Fleming at the end. Shame CNN wouldn't engage on what is going on at Annapolis. That is where the story is. I guess USNA gave them no access to MIDN.

That should tell you a fair bit. So should the fact that only CNN seems to think the numbers matter.

A little note to CNN. Non-Hispanic Whites make up 68% of the US population. Why is it shocking that 70% of the military is? That is well within the margin of error. When you add it racial self-identification "issues" and the fact that the artificial grouping of "Hispanic" includes a plurality of people who are more "White" than I am ---- the whole video is in a way funny to watch. OK, sad and pathetic to watch. Talk about something that is a non-issue....in a just world.

At the end of the video, I am a little concerned with the comment made by LTG Williams, USMC. He states, "I don't necessarily look at the body counts ... it's not something that we in leadership look at ..." I am sorry sir, but you need to talk to the CNO, the Diversity Directorate, BUPERS, Recruiters, and every person who has been forced to sit through a Diversity briefing.

Good googly moogly - all we do is go over the "body count." You loose a point in credibility when you say things like that. Just some friendly advice.

As for the Cadets - keep it up young men and women. You get the America I know, even if they are trying to force their racialist habits on you. Keep the Boomers, their outmoded racialist theories, and their fellow traveling race-hustlers from polluting your brain and rotting our culture.

Diversity Thursday

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:00 +0000

Everyone here should be familiar with my feelings about Diversity, the Diversity Industry, Diversity Bullies and their ilk. In summary; the great and wonderful diversity of America in all its forms is what makes this nation what it is and is something that, after over two centuries of hard work, we should be proud of and should continue to nurture.

On the other hand, what in the 21st Century is put out as Diversity by those who draw their emotional and financial sustenance from it is a cancer in the heart and soul of this nation. It is a retrograde, oppressive, biased, closed minded socio-political theory that is sectarian, divisive, and ultimately schematic at its core.

In the Navy we should all be "Navy Blue." Nothing more, nothing less - we should adopt the Freeman Doctrine in all matters related to race, creed, color and national origin. That is the only way we can foster a race-neutral work environment. You don't do that by rubbing selective ethnic and racial groups in other people's faces based on the phases of the moon.

In an environment such as the Navy, one of the most essential "atmospherics" that a leader must drive to create is one of impartiality and a merit based evaluation of performance. There is a reason we have fraternization rules. Simply the appearance of partiality on the part of a leader will destroy unit cohesion and trust in the Chain of Command. It doesn't matter if the bias is personal, community, or designator bias. It is all, rightfully, discouraged and when found - actionable.

I will stop there, as all you need to do to hear the rest of my thoughts is to click the "Diversity" tab below, but in summary: this is all patronizing, biased, and specifically exclusionary. By pushing this policy, we are making good officers patronizing, biased, and specifically exclusionary. That is sad.

For your review, is the latest Diversity project. This time from Commander, Naval Surface Forces, Vice Admiral D.C. Curtis, USN.

In defense of VADM Curtis (who I have praised before) - the CNO's #1 priority is Diversity. That is a strong push from on top. Has to do something. Too bad the CNO's priorities are not in alignment with the SECNAV's. Ahem.

Again, perhaps a generational issue, as the general feedback I get from Gen X and younger officers of all DNA sub-types who have to go through this junk is, "What a waste of time." Perhaps it is a personal issue with VADM Curtis, as we saw with Admiral Mullen. Don't know. What I do know is that this constant selective promotion of one self-identified ethnic group over others is feeding a sectarian cancer that will eat at the foundation of every wardroom.

Oh, and don't tell me Diversity is in order to enhance recruitment and support of the Navy throughout the Navy. That has been debunked from the NBA to our own research.

If the Diversity Mandate were true, then (as we will discover next Thursday), we must have Americans of Philippine extraction flooding the senior ranks; as Philippinos by far have the highest reenlistment rates of any ethnic group. No, the story here is deeper and harder to fix.

First; I want you to review Surface Force's new publicantion - Surface Warfare Update; Vol. 1 Issue 1.

Page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, and page 6.

Ponder.

One of my spies sent this to me last week, pre-publication. Before I blogged about it though, I wanted to make sure I got some feedback from VADM Curtis's Diversity Office. They were very helpful and professional, specifically LCDR Mark Haney. I want to give them equal time.

As a final note before I turn it over to LCDR Haney, I would like to make a simple observation about LCDR Haney and his two office mates, LCDR Sonya Brown-Conner and LCDR Dave Pavlik.

Three SWO LCDR filling up the Diversity Office. I think of our friends at SUPSHIPS, NAVSEA, and SPAWAR who can not do all they want to do in order to ensure the future of our Fleet because they have been bled white though loss of BA/NMP. Imagine what these talented mid-career line officers could be doing for the future of the Fleet if they worked in any of those places. I think of the Joint Staff jobs where their talents are needed from Kabul to the Horn of Africa. I think of the PhD programs that are available.

I see the Navy expending three very talented officers at ... well ... the well intentioned promotion of divisive sectarianism, and that is sad - again, sad.

Anyway, enough of me. Now that you have read the six pages of Surface Warfare Update, on to LCDR Haney.

From an exchange of emails between us over the last week (BZ to him for taking the time and effort in an exceptionally professional manner), below are his comments explaining the e-zine and answering some of my questions. Some minor editing on my part for clarity and brevity - but here he is.

LCDR Haney will be in Georgia font, I will be in Courier New Bold - of course. "Interesting" comments are in red bold.

As stated in Admiral Curtis' email to all SWO Flags, Commodores and Commanding Officers it is ". . .a newsletter we have developed to focus on mentorship and role-modeling for minority Surface Warfare Officers in particular and for the entire Surface Force in general." Mentorship and role-modeling is extremely important to the development of all Officers and we are excited about the potential of this newsletter, created to help highlight information and resources, to facilitate that development.

This first edition focuses on minority Officers in the Surface Community, a recurring theme and one of many themes the Surface Warrior's Update will cover as I think it is important for Junior Officers (especially first tour) to see representation and success in the fleet that might not be apparent in their own wardrooms. We then provide information and tools on ways for Officers to connect if desired (SWO E-Mentor, Affinity Groups, Fleet concentration information), perhaps seeking out a mentor or a discussion they previously would not have pursued.

Future editions will expand on this theme, highlighting additional areas of what we see as a very diverse community to include home of record, gender, commissioning sources, prior Enlisted service, alternate career paths, family situation, milestone accomplishment, AMPHIB/CRUDES etc. For example, the next edition plans on using the CO call out portion to highlight what parts of the country many CO's are from, relating people to each other based on similar geographic areas. We see this as another way to connect Officer's to the community and to its leadership, facilitating retention, professional exchange and mentorship.

[Questions]
1. Was this newletter the result of an idea VADM Curtis came up with, or is it part of a larger effort that will be replicated in the Pacific Surfaces as well?
-This is a CNSF Diversity Office initiative with the expected audience being all Surface Warfare Officers.

2. How many people, military and civilian, are involved in the production of the magazine?
-The CNSF Diversity Office is responsible for the publication. The Office consists of the 3 Officers listed in the publication and this is one of the many duties we perform in our Office. Primarily 1 Officer worked on this publication.

3. Will this be a monthly publication, and if not, how often will it be published?
-Quarterly.

4. What is the budget per year for publication of this newletter?
-Publication was created by SWO's for SWO's - no budget no paid overtime.

5. In an email, VADM Curtis mentioned, "This newsletter is being sent to SWO Flags and CO's regularly and to all Minority SWO's once with a sign up subscription option". Will it be sent out hard copy or just email?
-Email only.

6. Where does your office get its list of Minority SWO's?
-PERS 41 which draws from the Navy's database of an Officer's self-selected race/ethnicity.

7. Why are non-minority officers being excluded from this information and career enhancing venue?
-No Officers are being excluding and in fact the reason it is sent to all SWO Flags and CO's is because the information is relevant to all leadership and expected to be passed on to their areas of influence. VADM Curtis also solicited feedback in his email to CO's to what we can do better to address the mentorship and developmental needs of SWO wardrooms.

WRT forwarding to all minority SWO's once, since the major focus of this edition was role-modeling of successful minority Surface Warfare Officers we wanted to ensure those Officers received this particular edition directly. Future editions will follow a similar targeted distro based on theme.

8. Is VADM Curtis concerned that dedicating special effort and time to only a select group of officers based simply on self-identified race and/or ethnic group might create an appearance of bias on his part towards those racial and ethnic groups who do not receive that special treatment?
-As addressed above, this publication is directed to all Surface Warfare Officers and is not exclusive of any group. It is also one of many publications and outlets that the Surface Enterprise has recently produced that focuses on networking, information dissemination and professional development repeating a consistent message through numerous forums to include:

-Increased SWO professional/camaraderie gatherings in Fleet concentrations (SWO Socials, PERS-41 Road shows, Spouse Briefs, Surface Line Week).

-SWO-Intro course: Professional development early in a JO's career as well as networking those JO's with local peers and leadership.

-Network News: A networking and role modeling newsletter focused on Surface Warfare Women - great success.

-Surface Navy Women's Symposiums: Fleet concentration networking events focused on role-modeling successful SWO females.

-SWO eMentor: Connecting the SWO Community through the internet, allowing Officers to find and engage mentors "outside of the lifelines."

-Social Media: SWONet, CNSF Facebook and Twitter site.

9. If he does recognize that appearance of bias, what will he do to mitigate it?
-Topics in this publication are relevant to all SWO's and we will continue to develop this as a leadership resource.

10. If he does not think there is an appearance of bias, why? Has he talked to those officers from racial and ethnic groups that are not being given special treatment? If so, what feedback has he received during those discussions?
-This newsletter was vetted through Senior and Junior Officers representing the spectrum of diversity in the Surface Force and feedback incorporated. Feedback was positive and appreciative of the mentorship resource for themselves or their wardrooms. Resources offered in these newsletters are available to all Surface Warfare Officers with no special treatment to any one group.

I suggest you now read Surface Warfare Update again and judge for yourself. The linked above can be a tad difficult for old eyes to read, so if you want the PDF, email me and I will send it your way.

As for comments on what I highlighted in red - I will leave that up to you.

Richard Cohen reads CDR Salamander?

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:38:00 +0000

No, I don't think so. However, he is getting close. He is reading Sorley.

As it turned out, South Vietnam was ultimately defeated because Congress turned its back on it - not pretty or necessarily honorable but effective.

Yes, yes, great Caesar's ghost --- yes.

For years I felt like I was just one little cricket in the cow field about this basic truth. Some called me a clueless wingnut - deluded about the unwinable war.

Well --- when someone like Richard Cohen of the Washington-frick'n-Post starts putting that truth out - well - as always, the truth will show itself.

I do note that he does not mention which political party was in charge of Congress - but that is OK; I will. Democrats.

Credit for this though goes mostly in this case to Sorley and his book, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. It is sitting on my desk right now on top of Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam [National Security Advisor under Kennedy & Johnson]. I have nibbled at both - but still need to finish the books I am already reading.

I think Richard Cohen also read Sorley's Op-Ed in the NYT last week. It is a very good article discussing those parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. He ends with this.

Maintain political support at home: All that was accomplished on the battlefield in the latter years of Vietnam was lost when Congress, having tired of the whole endeavor, drastically cut support for South Vietnam. Neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon was able to rally public and press support for the war.

President Obama has said that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. If so, he must put his political capital behind it. As he and his advisers plan the new course for the war, he must also come up with a new approach for selling it to Congress and the American people.

Yes, yes, yes. Bring them all to the light.

Maybe one day this nation and specifically those who smeared them through the '60's, '70s, and '80s will apologize to those who served in Vietnam. Again, they did not lose that war - the Democrat Congress did. Full stop.

When buzzwords become alive ..

noreply@blogger.com (CDR Salamander) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:36:00 +0000

I have a great idea. We should get rid of all VF (wait ... we did that ... make that VFA) squadrons. No, not the people and aircraft - but the name.

You see, in 21st Century, does the name "Fighter Attack Squadron" really capture what they do?

Of course not. You see, they must achieve air supremacy so, let's call them "Air Supremacy Squadrons." They should now be called "ASS." Get rid of "VAQ" and call them "Electromagnetic Effects Cohorts" or "EEC." VP can become "Maritime Awareness Associates" or "MAA."

We should get rid of Commander Naval Air Forces, and collect all those things involving aircraft the "Naval Air Corps."

New patches, t-shirts, nametags, stationary, and MSMs for everyone!

Why not - it makes as much sense as this "Bu11sh1t B1ngo" phrase being codified in OPNAVINST 5300.12 into another bubble of bureaucratic bramble and bloat.

What is the half-life of that pick from the phrase-of-the-month anyway? Yes, I understand the idea .... but so did Eisenhower.

I'm sorry - welding together the Spooks, weathermen, and computer/comm geeks together just dilutes each area.

I know, again, that I am in the minority here. But ..... it smells the same as welding together MIW and ASW. False economy.