I am not sure how aware you are of the USNI battle over its fundamental mission, its soul if you will, but it may not seem like something of much concern to the SWJ audience. Nothing could be further from the truth. The numbers of insurgency and COIN related article published in both Proceedings and Naval History Magazine are rather phenomenal and the entire public forum is diminished when we lose another independent public entity, especially one as well regarded at the USNI. One might even forecast that the means used to conduct the coup d'etat from within by these folks at USNI could conceivably be similar to actions that might be taken to undermine the independence of any other public service publication or electronic journal - including yours. "It could never happen here" was probably on the lips of many at USNI and among the membership just short years ago, I am sure.
Here is the current USNI mission statement:
"The Mission of the Institute is to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense."
Here is the proposed change:
"THE UNITED STATES NAVAL INSTITUTE IS AN INDEPENDENT FORUM ADVOCATING THE NECESSITY OF GLOBAL SEA POWER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY."
Even this simple minded Marine understands the difference between independence and advocacy. Once you become an advocate for a particular service don't knock at my door expecting sympathy. USNI is heads and tails above similar institutions associated with the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force. Why? USNI does not mouth the party line -- and for that reason alone - the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard have benefited greatly over the years by USNI's INDEPENDENCE.
On the 2011 annual ballot the Board of Directors has recommended "an historic change to the Mission of the Naval Institute to 'advocating the necessity of global seapower.'" I am voting no to the proposed change and I encourage other USNI members to do the same. I'll not regurgitate what those much smarter than me have said about this issue - here are several links - and from there - you'll find more.
Information Dissemination -- Almost real-time coverage of the debate and issues by Raymond Pritchard and crew.
The Crazy Plan to Change the Longtime Mission of the U.S. Naval Institute - CAPT John Byron (USN, Ret.) at Foreign Policy's Best Defense.
Open Letter to the Board of the United States Naval Institute by John Byron - At Information Dissemination.
CDR Salamander - More near-real-time coverage of the issue.
The United States Naval Institute and the Junior Officer - By SWJ friend and author LCDR Benjamin "BJ" Armstrong at CDR Salamander.
Add additional links in the comment section below - thanks much - Dave D.
Comments
Once in awhile I check into the USNI site and see whats going on. I have done this for about 30 years. My family has had a long association with the US Navy having served in both enlisted and senior officer ranks.I must say that I am a little stunned about the revised mission statement. I am known for being " different" about ship design and the way they can be deployed, and I am concerned that military contractors who always seem entrenched to designs for fighting the last war are busy keeping it that way. USNI has always had an open forum for discussions about design of ships and forecasting future needs, but I now am concerned voices like mine are becoming shut out because the Navy does not like change, and neither do military contractors. I am going to watch this situation carefully before I submit any more crazy design ideas for discussion on this site.
Dave, Thank you so much for posting these. My Dad, a retired Captain, USNR, MC is going to rejoin so he count help try to vote this down!
Here is what Admiral Luce (President of USNI and first President of the Naval War College)said nearly 125 years ago:
"It is just here that the Institute might render important service to
the profession by enlightening the pubic mind of the Navy..."
Rear Admiral Stephen B. Luce, 1888, annual address as President of the
U.S. Naval Institute
Dave, thank you for posting on this subject. SWJ readers (like Ken and others) should join USNI! You can still join and vote online once you have your member number. The reality is that the original USNI (and its journal "The Papers and Proceedings of the US Naval Institute") were the SWJ of their day. It has been that way for over a century, the bastion of innovation and free thinking from junior and mid-grade officers. Many of us who have written for SWJ from the maritime services as USNI members and firm believers in its true mission. Please, help by joining the Institute and voting...and you get a subscription to Proceedings as a bonus!
For some more of my thoughts on the matter please see this link:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/united-states-naval-ins…
This is an intriguing story and it's clear why it's attracting so much attention from the blue water folks. I think some of your admirals may be trying to ensure that the Navy always gets a piece of the pie, but at what cost? Seems to me the current approach of the institute is that of leading the horse to water. The proposed change involves making the horse drink.
As an old Army guy, I've never been a member of USNI, but I've often read Proceedings and have always been impressed, even if I sometimes needed a guy wearing white shoes to sound out the big words for me.
There is a reason why I am not a member of AUSA. I am a member of MOAA, but MOAA is pretty straightforward about its purpose, which does not include pimping for defense contractors.
I hope there are sufficient numbers of you traditionalists around to save an excellent organization from mediocrity.
Dave, I agree with your 'No' vote and were I still a Member, I would also vote that. Unfortunately, I let my Membership expire a few years ago after almost 30 years so I cannot vote.
FWIW, I saw this coming and wrote a letter to the Editor of <i>Proceedings</i> bemoaning it. I got a good letter back from the then Editor who said he had spoken to Tom Marfiak and they decided to write me instead of just blowing it off. That led me to renew for a year -- but the trend was still unmistakable so I let it go.
Sadly.
This change would significantly worsen the trends I saw. It is not a good move...