Ulysses S. Grant famously commented that moral courage is rarer and more fleeting than physical courage. I thought of that observation when I read this open letter from the editorial board of Proceedings, the magazine of the U.S. Naval Institute, to the board of the USNI, objecting to the board's foolish plan to abandon the traditional objective mission of the institute and instead become a lobby for sea power.

Proceedings stands out among the U.S. military's professional magazines for its willingness to take on difficult subjects. Over the decades it generally has led the pack. Its editorial independence is especially important because the Navy's own professional magazine, the Naval War College Review, is mediocre, which is surprising, because the Naval War College has the strongest strategy department in the professional military education business. (Too bad the big Navy isn't much interested in strategy.) My test: I can't remember the last time someone recommended that I read something in the NWCR.

The editorial board of Proceedings should be commended for their stance. It is never easy to take on the boss openly. And it is especially hard for journalists these days, because decent jobs in nice towns with good sailing waters are hard to come by in the industry, which is collapsing. As one magazine editor sighed to me, "I think I have gotten feelers from everybody in America who ever won a Pulitzer Prize."  

The editorial board of Proceedings is hereby awarded the Golden Laptop, the Best Defense award for demonstrated moral courage in national security journalism.

And, speaking of doing the right thing, the VA has stripped a for-profit college of its ability to collect veterans' education benefits. "Three separate campuses of Westwood College in Texas (Houston South, Dallas and Ft. Worth) were disqualified by VA under rules meant to protect students from schools that purposely deceive their students," writes VA blogger Alex Horton.

marshallfoundation.org

EXPLORE:MEDIA, MILITARY
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

HUNTER

4:34 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Another comment on moral courage

“Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.” - Gen. George S. Patton

From my favorite crazy General.

 

JPWREL

4:42 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Tom, this difficult and

Tom, this difficult and contentious debate concerning the mission change of the USNI are among people who are deeply dedicated to the welfare our nations sea services. There are no bad guys or good guys merely a difference of opinion. The fact is the Editorial Board has some very powerful and compelling arguments for their position but likewise the Board of Directors has some very potent arguments in favor of their unanimous decision.

Editorial excellence the hallmark of ‘Proceedings’ is invaluable and at least in my view makes it the outstanding armed forces professional journal in this country. However, there is another dimension to the problem that must be faced and that is the ‘business’ of supporting the USNI in an environment of shrinking membership and financial resources that reflects the nations changing military related demographics.

 

TOM RICKS

4:49 PM ET

March 9, 2011

You are being too kind

Even if the business model needed to be changed, I am not sure that abandoning the mission is the way to do it. And they picked a hell of a way to float the idea, given the internal opposition on the USNI board itself.
Best,
Tom

 

HERBAL

5:01 PM ET

March 9, 2011

The Membership

If there are "potent arguments," the membership of USNI deserved to hear them from the BoD in an open dialogue many months before this proposal was put to a vote. Instead the concept was hidden in plain sight at the bottom of USNI monthly emails and then placed on a ballot without any explanation.

 

JOSHUA ROVNER

5:04 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Please specify

What "very powerful and compelling arguments" does the Board of Directors make? I have not heard its side of the story.

 

TYRTAIOS

5:46 PM ET

March 9, 2011

JOSHUA - As one retired Navy

JOSHUA - As one retired Navy Captain recently responded to the USNI in part, but also speaks for me, "I have taken for granted the fact that the Institute would always provide the “independent forum.”

Our good former skipper then goes on to say toward the end, again in part, "our current governance process is obviously tilted toward nominating retired flag officers, former senior defense officials, and corporate executives for election to the USNI Board of Directors. This demographic group is not representative of the diverse character of our USNI membership."

Whatever the board of directors’ rebuttal story is, I would view anything they now have to say with prejudice using the example of the proverbial CEO’s hand picked board of directors, justifying his preferred stock bonus to the common share holders.

 

RUBBER DUCKY

6:18 PM ET

March 9, 2011

JPWREL: My friend, I must

JPWREL: My friend, I must disagree with your willingness to give the Board of Directors a benefit-of-the-doubt pass on this or allow an on-one-hand/on-the-other false equivalence. The simple fact that these poltroons have failed to put forward justification - not a letter, not an email, not a page in Proceedings, not one goddam word! - puts your argument in the ditch. Even now with their scheme falling down around them they remain utterly, contemptibly silent; they cannot even be called out when their honor is at stake.

Dammit yes there are bad guys in this: the prime source of this attempt to destroy the Naval Institute is ego, hubris, and a small-minded arrogance that causes the six Directors who did this to hold themselves at such a lofty height above the membership they were elected to represent.

As to resources, the CEO they fired is the guy who got USNI in the black from 8 years ago when it was close to not being a going concern and bankruptcy was just over the horizon. Given the carnage to date and the potential for mass defections - members, book authors, writers, conference supporters - the biggest threat to Institute solvency at this point is the Board's initiative. You're a Wall Streeter - you understand good will, brand equity. The book value of the Institute's good will and brand equity are going asymptotically to zero.

The holders of the equity value of the Institute are the members themselves. There is a serious question - raised even by a Board member - of fiduciary misfeasance by this Board in their decisions and actions bringing harm to the membership's interests.

No shades of gray here...

 

JPWREL

6:58 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Well, perhaps I am naive babe

Well, perhaps I am naive babe in the woods but while RD knows I have strong sympathies with his point of view my larger concern is that this contention could fatally damage the USNI an ‘National Treasure’ which I have profound respect for. RD knows the issues and parties much better than I do so I will step back from further comment.

 

STEELJAW SCRIBE

5:32 PM ET

March 9, 2011

"Run Silent, Run Deep"

Is the name of a great wartime novel and movie -- and should not be the philosophy of the USNI Board of Directors in their attempt to change the Institute's mission. It is a craven undertaken for the benefit of a few that is contemptuous of the membershp and heritage of the Institute.

Dare to think, speak & write -- in the open.

 

BILL KELLER

7:14 PM ET

March 9, 2011

Dealing with a polarized political society

...RAND has found itself dealing with a similar attack upon its analysis and publications. It released a 35 page position paper upon preserving the integrity of what it produces it a time of ideological based denial of factual based conclusions.

How does one keep its soul when the funding members of the House and Senate can only survive by being more stridently aligned to a homogeneously migrating voting base...naturally gerrymandering itself?

RAND's conclusion was to hold to its integrity but defend its methodology. It did not intend to place itself in a conflict of interest by becoming an advocate of its documents, conclusions or recommendations.

I am sure the USNI has considered RAND's position.

 

MAXWELLAWC

1:28 PM ET

April 8, 2011

RAND

Bill, is there a title to that RAND report? Is it in an annual report or a stand alone?

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More