New Report Raises Questions on the Direction of the Navy

A new report, titled A REPORT ON THE FIGHTING CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY SURFACE FLEET prepared by Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle and Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, for members of Congress was released today and it's contents are not particularly flattering.


Parts of this report casts doubt on the Navy’s preparedness for war and follows high profile mishaps while at sea. One part of the report states that a staggering 94% of the 77 respondents (Naval Officers) believed the recent Naval disasters were “part of a broader problem in Navy culture or leadership). Or as one recently retired senior enlisted leader puts it in the report: "“I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training.”


It appears that time spent on diversity training and other cultural issues come with a cost.


Among the key findings from this report include:

  • Insufficient leadership focus on warfighting

  • A dominant and paralyzing zero-defect mentality

  • Under-investment in surface warfare officer training

  • Poorly resourced and executed surface ship maintenance programs

  • Expanding culture of micromanagement

  • Corrosive over-responsiveness to media culture

Some of these issues appear attributable to the mismanagement of inherent tasks and/or failure to identify issues that are endemic to nearly any and every bureaucratic organization. That stuff needs to be fixed. The last item on the list "corrosive over-responsiveness to media culture" sure seems like a softer way of saying "the Navy has gone too woke" and is completely avoidable and completely unforgivable.


According to an active duty lieutenant: "sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we'll survive a fight with the Chinese navy."


I can't imagine what it would be like to serve my country, put my life at risk to protect the freedoms we all hold dear and then have to worry about whether my commanding officers care more about optics than they do my survival.


Then you have stuff like this (I am giving Posobiec and his "Navy buddy" the benefit of the doubt here as to authenticity):

There are no rules, only biases, if you apply or contort the rules to favor one side over another -especially when it comes to political speech. How about we revert back to a time where all of that stuff is just left outside of the professional environment? When you're on a federal base, you are, for all intents and purposes, there for work, so leave politics at home and focus on keeping the country (and most importantly, each other) safe.


The safety issue is one that people are not talking enough about. Our brave men and women in the armed forces need to rely on one another to be capable of performing their duties in the most harrowing of circumstances. Yet, the Biden administration has reversed a Trump era policy of allowing people with gender dysphoria to serve active duty. But before you whip out one of the "phobics" here, this isn't an issue as to whether or not trans people are socially acceptable - it's whether or not its wise to put them in the military.


According to a 2019 study from the Trump administration:

Again, I don't have any animus towards people with gender dysphoria, but I do want to make sure that they and their fellow servicemembers are not put in unnecessary danger because the Biden administration wants to socially engineer society.


Lastly, the Biden administrations targeting of active duty Navy sailors, including monitoring social media for quote " extremism", seems particularly worrisome to me. If you've ever been on social media, you know that people can say things ironically, or jokingly or say something innocently, without understanding how it might be misinterpreted on the internet (and it's several layers of context).


In fact, according to the Navy Times, even liking or sharing something "extremist" could result in trouble for an active sailor. Do we really want our military spying on its own servicemembers and trying to determine if something they said (or liked) on social media falls under an incredibly vague definition of "extremism?" We all know that "extremism" will be interpreted the same way as BLM is being interpreted as "non political". This seems like a very slippery slope and one that conservatives should have little faith will be applied evenly or appropriately.


But at least we saved $0.16 on our July 4th BBQ.


I am blessed to have had two grandfathers who served this country (both of whom received purple hearts fighting for our freedom). I love our military, but I am scared for where they've set their priorities. It should always be about the mission and the mission should always be about protecting the person next to you and the country we love.


I am still fighting for our country. So should you. Encourage your military friends and family to speak out and stand for what's right and what is in the best interest of the safety of the United States and each other.


THINGS ARE SO MUCH MORE FUN WHEN YOU COMMENT