Monthly archive

November 2018

A Bold Proposal

Published on in Epiphanies

This post originally appeared on the U.S. Naval Institute Blog here.

In 1729, my spirit guide, Dr. Jonathan Swift, penned “A Modest Proposal” to the people of England to solve their widespread poverty problems. Tragically, his thoughtful suggestion to sell Irish babies to the aristocracy as food has been widely ridiculed as some sort of joke, even to this day. SMH.

In honor of Dr. Swift’s 351st birthday, I would like to try to salvage his legacy as an innovator with a bold proposal to solve one of the biggest problems facing the U.S. military today: misbehaving veterans. Every day it seems veterans are becoming more and more of a menace to society. The President even sounded the alarm after the latest veteran mass murderer killed 12 people in Thousand Oaks, California. When they are not killing people, they are scamming thousands of people out of their hard earned money! And if they are not a threat to others, they are a threat to themselves. On average, 20 veterans a day commit suicide, bringing undesirable scrutiny on the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Veterans Administration (VA).

Introducing the Retroactive Immediate Dishonorable Discharge (R.I.D.D.)

The R.I.D.D. program fundamentally changes the equation for veterans’ affairs in the United States. When veterans commit an act of misconduct, as determined by the DoD Public Affairs Office, they immediately will receive a dishonorable discharge, retroactive to their last day of honorable active service. In addition, service members discharged under the R.I.D.D. program no longer will be considered veterans—alleviating the need to include them in inconvenient statistics. For example, by enacting R.I.D.D., the veteran suicide rate will drop to zero percent overnight.

Precedent exists for R.I.D.D. From 2007 to 2012, an intrepid team of psychiatrists reversed 40 percent of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnoses at Madigan Army Medical Center in an attempt to save taxpayers the immense cost of treating veterans with PTSD, which they documented at $1.5 million per soldier. Imagine the savings they could have provided if they had taken this program force-wide. Even academia seems to be getting on board. In November 2016, Yale removed a depressed student from campus over concerns she may commit suicide and bring unhelpful media attention to the school’s high suicide rate. Brilliant. Most recently, the Commandant of the Marine Corps signaled his support for this type of program by labeling the Thousand Oaks shooter as an “ex-Marine,” effectively excommunicating him from the Corps. Under the R.I.D.D. program, this person in fact would no longer be a Marine, or even a veteran, and therefore no longer a concern for DoD and the VA.

And let’s not forget the ingenious “secret waiting lists” of the VA. First reported in 2014, this creative approach enabled the VA to meet strict timeline requirements for providing medical care to veterans. Undeterred by prying media and congressional investigations, the VA continued to employ secret waiting lists as recently as 2017 to alleviate the strain on overworked physicians and bureaucrats. This is exactly the kind of relentless innovation upon which the R.I.D.D. program aims to expand.

Critics no doubt will dismiss a bold initiative such as R.I.D.D. in favor of more traditional approaches. They will claim that more funding should be allocated to veterans’ wellness programs to provide preventative mental health care and research into next-generation medical treatments for PTSD. They will argue that DoD and the VA need to be logically integrated to provide veterans a smooth transition from active service to civilian life. They might even have you believe that 17 years of war takes its toll on an all-volunteer force. Do not listen to these haters! A modest proposal such as Dr. Swift’s made sense back in his time. Today, a bolder proposal is appropriate. Aggressive, innovative action is required to address misbehaving veterans. Get R.I.D.D. of them!

Challenging Navy Culture to Leverage Untapped Human Capital

Published on in Navy Stuff
U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Dwayne Minor (RELEASED)

This post originally appeared on the U.S. Naval Institute Blog here.

A couple of months ago, I fired off a satirical response to what I perceived as unhelpful generational criticism. When the editors at the Naval Institute asked me if I wanted to use a pen name, at first, I said “no,” but then I balked. After all, I was throwing snarky literary haymakers at the CNO on down. So, the Salty Millennial was born. From the beginning, this was always about more than satire. This was about engaging millennials and tapping into their talent.

So, here it is. No longer anonymous. Anti-climactic, I know. I am a post-department head O-4 and I am in fact a millennial, at least by some definitions. In the next few years, my peers, millennials will be taking command of your destroyers, aircraft squadrons, and fast attack subs. Get ready.

Why Start Anonymous?

Well, why does anyone write under a pseudonym? Its not all about fear of reprisal, although that plays a part. It’s also about engaging more deeply. Without my name and rank, you couldn’t immediately discount what I had to say. Whether good or bad, anonymity and pseudonyms grab our attention. “Col. Ned Stark’s” success over at War on the Rocks is a prime example of the power of a pseudonym in breaking through the noise of DoD punditry. The editors prefaced the first article with an explanation that they decided to publish the anonymous piece “because the author’s career—even beyond the author’s time in the Air Force—would be at serious risk even though this article does not involve any violations of regulation or law as far as we have been able to discern.” Fortunately, the Navy is much more understanding. <nervously tugs at collar>

And yet, no matter what I feared, or how much I wanted your attention, it came down to accountability for me. As an U.S. service member, I must stand behind what I write. I’m not “throwing shade” on Col. Ned Stark or any of our favorite anonymous critics. There is real value in the function they serve. I just think they’re missing the full impact their message could deliver. I would love to see Col. Ned Stark reveal his or her real name, regardless of what offers they’ve received from Air Force leadership. Remaining anonymous, in Ned’s case, perpetuates the idea that we should fear the consequences of speaking our mind. Maybe there will be blowback. So what? No truly meaningful change was ever achieved with 100% consensus, or without a few missteps along the way. We need to practice what we preach. Be accountable. If you believe in something, stand up for it. Damn the consequences.

Some may criticize this “revealing” as self-aggrandizing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a believer in the merits of anonymous ideas. The Delphi Method is a great example. Anonymous ideas are one thing, but anonymous criticism is something else entirely. Its easy to brush off anonymous criticism. If I ever hoped to achieve anything constructive with my criticism, I needed to put name behind it.

I’ll reiterate my criticisms from previous posts so there’s no confusion:

  1. Generational “warfare” is unproductive. We should avoid the extremes of either forcing younger generations to conform to the sailor mold we expect or sacrificing our entire culture to tailor to the new(er) masses. We should critically analyze which of our traditions exemplify our core values, and then strive to understand how we can pass them on to a generation that, frankly, communicates much differently than many of us are used to.
  2. Our personnel management system does not incentivize our sailors and officers to perform at their highest levels. Yes, using a 20-year-old piece of boutique software to create performance reports is a bit absurd, but ultimately it is only symptomatic of a system badly in need of reform. Col. Ned Stark makes many good points that we could apply in the Navy, and to be fair, OPNAV N1 is hard at work implementing guidance from the 2019 NDAA and their internal transformation for Sailor 2025. Nevertheless, I believe we need to push further and develop a system that rewards our top performers with early promotion, more choice, less rigid milestones, and financial incentives. While some of this will require true congressional reform, not all of it does, and if the Navy could successfully lobby Congress for the 2019 NDAA authorities, it can lobby again for more changes next year.
  3. Our wounded veterans and service members deserve the best care that medical science can provide. Its time to be open to the idea that cannabinoids are a much less addictive alternative to opioids, and then let research prove or disprove that idea. We mustn’t let cultural stigmas inhibit the treatment of those who have sacrificed for this nation.
  4. On paper, we have an excellent grasp on effective leadership. In practice, we focus way too much on near-term results at the expense of the long-term health and wellness of the force. I believe this stems from our attitude of “ship, shipmate, self” which teaches us that the wellness of our shipmates, and our own wellness, are separate from and secondary to our core mission. To the contrary, our wellness is a critical element of our mission. You can find a much deeper analysis of this idea here. As the CNO preaches, people are the US Navy’s asymmetric advantage. We need to put power behind the idea that platforms are tools for people rather than the inverse.

So What?

Some also criticized me for “complaining without a solution.” That’s another cultural problem. If I see a fire in a building, do I call 911 to tell them how to put it out? No. We are a team, and if I see an issue, even if I’m unsure how to fix it, I know there’s some seaman or admiral in our great Navy that has a solution. Rather than sourcing solutions individually we need to be able to air our problems collectively to develop better, more nuanced appreciations of them in order to craft enduring solutions. We need more whole-of-Navy solutions and fewer silver bullet, one-off quick fixes.

I love the U.S. Navy, and I love what it stands for. I just believe we can be better. I love the surface force, but I wonder when we will stop trying to resemble the elite organization we once were, and start becoming the elite organization of the future. I love writing, and I love the idea of our sailors and officers sharing their ideas in an open forum, but I suspect we’re not hearing from a large portion of our force. Millennials, I’m looking at you. It also seems like any discussion on millennials is talking about them, instead of engaging them. I know it can be difficult for junior officers and sailors to speak out. So, fellow millennials, here’s my offer: if you have something to say about how we could be better as a Navy, but can’t publish it yourself for whatever reason, email me at:

tsm@saltyherald.com

The first thing I’m going to do is try to help you find a way to publish your ideas under your own name. If we can’t make it happen, and I can get behind your ideas, I’ll post it under the Salty Millennial pseudonym (the Naval Institute has been amazing, but we have other options if it’s not for them). This will give you space until you’re ready to step up publicly, and it won’t be anonymous since, after today, everyone knows who I am. One more thing: please, please, please do NOT send me any classified or private information.

The Bottom Line

To Millennials: Let’s work together to make the Navy better. If you think I’m wrong about the Navy needing to improve, then say so—push back—highlight our best practices so we can share them widely. If you think I’m wrong on how it should improve, then prove me wrong by penning your own piece for all to see. One of the hallmarks of high performing organizations is continuous improvement. Leaders need to be prepared to defend their words and actions from criticism, but that starts with challenging them on key errors.

To Everyone Else: Make no mistake, our Navy is the best in the world, but our threats are multiplying and growing more sophisticated while we grapple with the same old issues. The only way for us to remain ahead in the long-term is by recruiting and harnessing our talent better than anyone else. We don’t have to have all the right answers now, but we do need to have the right people. I believe we have those people already. We need to tap into their talent. That starts with embracing millennials rather than treating them like a problem to be managed.

Never Read the Comments

Published on in Haterade
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Diana Quinlan/Released)

This post originally appeared on the U.S. Naval Institute Blog here.

I was going to double down on my last article on leadership, but I have seen the error of my ways. First, there’s this story. Apparently, 1 in 4 of millennial students have PTSD from Trump’s election. Um . . . really guys? I’m trying to defend us here and this is not helping!

Then, unrelated, I found your comments on the USNI Blog. Oh, boy, the comments! I am truly sorry I didn’t respond earlier (a website error made it look like my posts had zero comments, and I was getting lonely ☹)! In any case, thank you for your feedback! I think I have been way out of line. I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some of the highlights.

“Does anyone on the USNI editorial board actually believe this author exemplifies the traditions and editorial standards of the institute? The snarky attitude, annoyingly casual writing style, inane content, and lack of evidence of any rigorous analysis are the antithesis of what one expects to find when coming to the USNI. Please stop this experiment and send the author somewhere more appropriate, like Facebook.”

  • That should have come with a trigger warning. Ok, I’ll go back to spreading these ideas among my peers. Echo chambers are healthier and more productive anyway.

“Sure wish you’d drop the ‘millennial’ label. It represents a generalization that is not productive.”

  • You’re right. Maybe we should just change the word, instead of attempting to influence the cultural attitudes the word evokes. That would be too much to ask. Hey, it might help if we did the same with “shell shock! battle fatigue! combat neurosis! PTSD!”

“Did it ever occur to Salty that his fungibility was largely in his own hands? Individuals are fungible until they prove themselves to be superior to their colleagues.”

  • Excellent point! I used this verbatim at my last Departmental Quarters. I could tell it really resonated with the troops!

“Ahhh. Another JO who doesn’t understand the performance system and can’t correlate “timing” with performance. Guess what… if you were killing it, your command would have made the timing work out.”

  • So you’re saying my “1 of 1 Promotable” with the comment, “Shows potential to one day become a competent naval officer” wasn’t what I should be going for? Got it. Just so I understand: I perform at a high level à Command manipulates timing à Command evaluates me based on timing à I am rewarded for high performance. Is that right? Out of curiosity, what’s wrong with just keeping the first and last steps?

“This could have been a much better article, but perhaps the author was too high to effectively make his case. Looks like some of the C- undergrad papers I am used to receiving. This is a serious subject worth attention here and in other forums. Next time do the writing when not high (or pretending to be such.)”

  • I honestly can’t believe USNI published the marijuana article. I crossed a line pretending to be high on a substance that literally cannot get you high. But then I read feedback like this from a veteran on Twitter, and it makes me wonder…

“Hey, Salty! I think you need to switch to decaf! And keep someone close-by who knows CPR! You’re gonna have a coronary! You get way too spun-up about other peoples’ opinions and ideas. Last time I checked, this is why we do what we do in the military! Ya know the part about “protecting and defending”! Remember?”

  • I’m calm, I’m calm. I don’t know what decaf is, but I cut down to four Monsters a day, so I feel better now. Now I don’t get spun up, I just keep my head down and follow orders. Questioning attitudes are overrated. Thank you.

“Age used to confer some level of automatic deference (per my parents and a long-lost age of manners). When I was young we had to try to conceal our eye-rolling from the observation of those who lectured us about our youthful proclivity to misunderstand the world and “why things were done.” You are lucky because you don’t even have to conceal your eye-roll (although I suppose that being anonymous fulfills the same role).”

  • Good point sir! And I don’t really think anonymity is helping anything. I wanted to contact you to continue the discussion, but Disqus told me your identity was private. Oh well.

Ahhh, you know I’m only kidding! A little criticism isn’t going to stop me. I’m enjoying the conversation! Keep responding, and I’ll listen, but I won’t stop. One thing I am serious about is the unhelpfulness of anonymity. So I think it’s time to let you all know who I am and what this is all about. Stay tuned for the big reveal! Oh, and sincerely, thank you for your feedback!

Go to Top