Which tripe would that be, “Sam”?

Before we get into another troll session, I suspect you should ask what URRs intent was. Given CDR Salamanders “Diversity Thursday” in which he highlights another Navy sponsored time and manpower waste, it’s a fair bet that this was his intent.

Well, AMIGuy, welcome to the New Navy, where we don’t have the money to keep our ships in shape, don’t seem to do that navigation thing too well, but always seem to be able to shove this or that down our sailors throats. It’s for real. The Navy has to deal with it. It belongs here. That’s the purpose of this blog, and for Proceedings.

FOD, Sam, you should be ashamed of yourselves. The USNI and the USN have few enough friends as it is. Few people I’ve come across seem to care as much about the Navy as Byron.

As to the topic at hand, no one is denying that sexual harassment and assault aren’t problems. But to pretend that a simple directive from DoD will solve the problem is asinine. Most in the chain of command will ensure they check all the appropriate boxes to fulfill this directive. But they won’t take concrete steps to prevent sexual harassment and assault.

How many times have we seen here or elsewhere in the blogosphere the concerns of many about leadership and standards at the deckplate level? How many commands have issues where there is inappropriate fraternization going on, but it is ignored? How many skippers in the fleet don’t do anything because they don’t want to be seen as not treating female sailors with sensitivity, or not being committed to diversity?

I suspect that Byron and URR are positing that when the Navy returns to the fundamentals of the Naval service, ie, preparing for and fighting our nation’s wars, that the leadership environment will also include a great deal of emphasis on ethics and integrity, and not in a “say the Sailor’s Creed” bullshit way.

I rarely contribute but regularly read the posts on this blog. I mainly don’t post/comment because I let those better suited and far more educated on the topics that are published do the talking.

However, today I feel obligated to say that after reading the post by URR I was moved to express my opinion not necessarily on the context of the post but the comments given in response. While some contributed a position supported with statistics or fact, almost none of the posts are without personal attack.

I believe there are extremely valid points on both sides of this argument and that the unspoken details missing from these comments should be the vessel for supporting or discrediting the opinion expressed by URR. I’m not qualified to know where this program should “rank” but I do know that there’s a more constructive way of getting good information out there.

There is a unified concern here and that’s the well being of the men and women of our Armed Forces. That passion is clear and shared uniformly by everyone that’s commented on this controversial topic.

Well, XBradTC, if USNI keeps sanctioning garbage like this from URR, they don’t deserve any friends. It’s sad witnessing USNI’s downward spiral, thanks to folks like URR.

But to pretend that a simple directive from DoD will solve the problem is asinine.

Ok, let’s do away with all laws and regulations; after all, we still have servicemen breaking them, so let’s just not bother publishing ‘em. Great logic there.

Did you ever think how and why these programs came to pass? Most of them came about because one or more of the services realized they had a big problem. IOW, the old ways weren’t working.

Hard-charging weekend warriors like URR are stuck in the fantasy world that the days of yore were so superior. That a bunch of libburals and PC-types just came in and wrecked the military. No. The fact is the good old days weren’t so good; the military realized this and took steps. And this chaps URR’s posterior because he might have to spend a weekend learning about sexual harrassment instead of playing Marine.

Women do serve today. And they should not be attacked by their fellow servicemen.

And the same problems that were around 33 years ago have only gotten worse.

So, uh, how did some here make the logical leap from “this training is way overdone, of dubious use, and a distraction from real training” to “boy I sure do love rape!” Because there’s enough strawmen in this thread for a 100 acre farm.

Also, SK might this: “Sexual harassment and rape – DOD statistics just published show a continuation of the sharp rise in these crimes – detract mightily form good order and discipline” backwards?

Does sexual harassment and rape detract from good order and discipline, or is it a symptom of a lack of good order and discipline? And if so, is it wise to focus so much time, energy and money on the symptom rather than the disease? I do remember months back an Admiral of some kind or another visited San Diego and was furious at the lack of basic military discipline he witnessed. His email went around the blogs.

Also: FOD stop posting like a 12 year old. Amazingly enough, there is a way to disagree with people without sounding like a petulant teenager. Note my post! I just disagreed with Sam and I didn’t insult him or try to cut down his argument! And then Sam might see it and respond in kind. And thus a discussion occurs. Shocking, I know.

Have seen no one comment on the direct impact on crew performance and mission readiness of the judicial proceedings attending charges of rape or sexual harassment. As with drug busts and gay witchhunts, a ship’s crew is polarized and traumatized by all the formality and proceedings, the wardroom is bogged down, and the command leadership is focused on something that never should have happened in the first place.

The phrase ‘good order and discipline’ takes on real meaning during times of major investigations and trials, in these cases all because someone in the crew lost respect for a shipmate.

These incidents are toxic to readiness. A smart Navy does all it can to prevent them. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the meaning of leadership.

Like most all things bad in the military, it’s a matter of leadership, and I believe rarely does a “program” fix a situation. Things get fixed by concerned, smart, focused leaders. Or, as URR wrote: “Discipline, command emphasis, unit cohesion, pride, and swift and effective punishment, not a costly and time-consuming “campaign”, is where the answer lies.”

I took URR’s posting in what I believe was the manner intended: to point out that we spend an awful amount of time on non-combat related training, and very possibly at the expensive of combat related training. I think a review of the bootcamp curriculum and General Military Training schedule would bear that out. We pounded the red, yellow, and green lights of sexual harassment into Sailors heads until it became a joke.

Our Navy is better than one that has high numbers, or a high ration, of sexual assaults. But I would also suggest that the rise in reported sexual assaults in the Navy has at least as much to do with the success of our programs than it does with an actual increase in crimes. I would hazard a bet that the 90% unreported figure is more accurate in the civilian world because existing Navy programs offer a higher degree of confidence and confidentiality. At least I hope that is the case.

It seems to me that this post is attempting to point out a misalignment in training priorities for the Department of Defense. That is certainly a valid topic for discussion, but I am left to wonder why this particular program was singled out as the example of our “misplaced” priorities.

If I read the announcement correctly, this will be a social marketing campaign, but I do not necessarily see any additional training requirements associated with the program’s execution. It appears to be largely a passive information campaign with some “voluntary” events that will be attended on a not to interfere with the mission basis. Perhaps DoD will post some of these informational materials on their websites, tri-folds will be available, posters will be put up, emails or messages will be sent, or there might be an announcement or two on AFN. While these activities will take a fairly limited number of resources to execute, I really do fail to see that this is as big of an issue as the tone of the post implies.

It really is a question of where do you draw the line between wasted effort and real requirements. One thought that pops to mind is that there may be a positive recruiting aspect to a campaign of this nature. As a disciplined organization, DoD must not be even perceived (by the greater public) as not ACTIVELY combating crimes of this nature. In recruiting, as in COIN, perceptions matter, and an information op of this nature is one way of managing broader perceptions.

I think we can all agree that ACTIVE intervention in sexual assault situations (either by preventing the occurrence or by harshly disciplining the perpetrators while rehabilitating the victims) is one of our roles as “the sheep dogs” who have been given the honor of defending this country and the ideals that it represents.

V/R,

B. Walthrop

Sid, you owe Admin for an new keyboard and monitor!

Look, the problem’s serious! It’s hard to find any attempt to fix it wrong. Just fix it. This ankle-biting about the efficacy of big programs to solve big problems is out of place.

I stand by my comment made privately to some involved in running this blog: the original poster’s comments in the original posting are unworthy of the Naval Institute. AMIGuy said the same thing. An organization founded on editorial excellence needs to find some in its selection of posters.

SK, no one is arguing that sexual harassment and assault aren’t serious problems. But if it is such a problem, why is the answer another program that consists either of sitting in a classroom or putting up posters?

Where is the guidance to COs and CMCs that they will be held accountable for the performance of their commands? For an author to raise this issue ties directly to the issue of leadership and accountability in the service, which are core areas of concern to USNI. If you think you have a better take on it, write your own post and ask admin to guest post it.

XBrad, I understand that women will continue to serve in the military…And that the ban on combat jobs is effectively dead.

The vast majority serve honorably…and unmolested.

Given that fait accompli, Virgil’s point is correct. Quit trying to believe any kind of “new” management technique will erase the occasional kerfluffles -and continual low grade sexual tension- that will surely occur when placing men and women together in such close, often hyper-charged environments.

Check out that link to Mary Read above. Even in the most egalitarian of shipboard social models…that of the Caribbean Pirates…women aboard constituted an inherently disruptive influence.

My observations suggest this is most often NOT the fault of the women, as much as it is in the way men have a propensity to act when in the presence of them.

After witnessing the biggest fight I ever saw at the Gitmo EM club…All sparked because a guy off the Puget Sound felt spurned by a comely shipmate..I came up with this phrase:

Testosterone. The World’s Most Dangerous Drug.

Like it or not, we’re coed. That’s not going to change. Arguments that we should reject half of the potential Sailors from our population because they’re of the wrong sex are puerile.

Sexual harassment, assault and rape in our ships and commands detract from combat readiness. (So do false accusations, but that’s another issue.)

Fundamentally, CO’s are responsible for their commands. If they’re not producing what Navy and the Combatant Commanders want, then they should be relieved. There is a large pool of qualified candidates who will step up to the plate.

We’re arguing about an important subject without the benefit of any metrics at all.

Navy could post the numbers instead of restricting the numbers of verified (not reported) harassment/assault/rape cases by ship or command. Perhaps this is available somewhere.

It would be interesting to see what the ships “doing it right” are actually doing. That is, what is “USS ship/Command A” doing that USS Ship/Command B” is NOT doing.

Every CO, Master Chief and Sailor out there wants to serve in the top ships/commands whehter they actually come right out and say it or not. They don’t want to serve in the losers, and they don’t want to serve with losers.

As Napolean is reputed to have said, “there are no bad soldiers, just bad generals” – and – the old canard – “fish rot from the head.”

It is the Commanding Officers problem to get this, and every other thing related to their command, right. Get it right and the command will thrive. Get it wrong, and the command will eventually fail. (No, there aren’t enough hours in the day for every.little.thing. This isn’t one of them).

Virgil, sure there was some PC pressure to admit women to the service, but the real drivers in the 70s and 80s was demographics and the propensity to serve.

Xbrad, that was the rhetoric; it was not the reality.

I remind myself that in large part is isn’t just about cutting the budgets, but finding people to man ships at all.

Women in the military was very certainly a forced social issue couched in economic terms.

“Optimal” manning is very certainly about economics and not about demographics.

How many served in uniform during WWII?

Something like 12 million men?

The US population in 1944 was ~138.4 million.

Today it is ~304 million.

So unsurprising to see misogynism still rampant among military men. Does anyone wonder why there’s a problem?