More on the Navy Ethos Statement

Saturday, May 10, 2008

I’ve had a few offline comments on this Ethos Statement discussion.  Here’s one from a smarter man than me.

The ethos is to me a statement that expresses an objective fundamental character of a group.  It tries to establish a social contexts so that it can overcome the multitude of different belief, attitudes, habits that are held by the people they assemble into groups.  The problem with these types of statements is that they seem to become the rule.  If you don’t happen to match all the desired attributes you fail.  The real failure is with the people who try and make the statement the rule. 
The ethos points out a direction and an objective.  It implies that training and relationship building is required.  Many groups have tried to inject an ethos type thing into people.  How about Hitler, China, Russia, the terrorist of our day?  There was and is rebellion, indifference, extremism, defiance. The only groups that I can think of that even get close to being all that an ethos statement might say are the Navy Seals or the Army Green Berets, but look at who they are personally and what training they have been through.  They didn’t embody the ethos before they started.
I can tell you this from my experience as an Enlisted Soldier in Vietnam and an Army Officer for 15 years, when you are the person looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, you are not thinking about that ethos statement.  If anything you are living what your attitudes, beliefs and habits have become.  I say “Drive on Navy”.  Just remember there is no one out there that meets this thing in its entirety and if you believe it you are obligated to move your part of the organization toward it.

--William R. Hickok
--Major, U.S.Army

I have concocted a response to some of the comments.  My opinion of the Ethos Statement has not altered, but it has been seriously refined and concentrated.  I’m more convinced now than the other day that this idea is not where we need to be treading.  After more reading on the nature of military and the philosophy of war and warfare, it looks more and more like a knee-jerk reaction to the Public when we devise these “gimmicks” to “sell” the Navy. 

Civilians aren’t stupid.  They may not know all our inside jokes and might not even have all our secret sins (though I’ll bet we’re not as “stays in Vegas” as we’d like to think).  But the civilians can think, they know humanity just as well as the guys in green with guns.  Fooling a dog with plastic dog food doesn’t work.

Here we go:

In reality, the ethos statement cannot be, by definition, objective.  It must be subjective to some standard in any case where morality or conditional statements are made. 

“I am committed to the cause” must be a subjective statement, for one must commit to “the cause” but there is no clear definition of what that commitment entails, nor what may change in the near future.  Objective means that we must have a face value somewhere, and this ethos falls short of such ideas.  Ideally, the Navy Ethos should be as objective as possible, to avoid falsehood, however difficult to be fully objective it may be.

If we say we are doing something, then we’d darned well be doing it.  If we do not already adhere to the tenets of the Ethos Statement, we are a falsehood.  The Ethos is US.  Period.  So we either are or we are not that which is portrayed in this “outward face” of our organization.

I agree 100% that the Ethos is the farthest thing from the mind of the soldiers and sailors behind the trigger.  We don’t think much about “will this honor my country, my military or my unit (or even my God)” when we are about to kill people or smash things.  We are either bent on killing people, smashing things, or protecting our collective hides.

A unit, specialized and persistently tried, such as the SOF (Special Operations Forces) is most likely to fit the ideal of an Ethos statement, but their Ethos can be observed and objectively determined with relative ease.  I don’t believe that the Navy (or any other service save, perhaps the Coast Guard) is within easy reach of an applicable Ethos.  Some cultures within the Navy may well be Ethos-able, like Seabees, who have a very good slogan, “Can Do,” which really does fit.

In my reading of “Rethinking the Principles of War,” the first chapter is by a man who is supporting the theory that the United States fights wars in a way that is uniquely American.  Through about 27 pages he explains painfully that this Way is very nebulous, very difficult to make concrete, but nevertheless exists.  With this in mind, the individual services have the same difficulty (perhaps as a derivation of the greater American Military), in identifying our individual characteristics.

My thought is that we are too diverse, too universalist and too “Equal Opportunity” to be able to nail down a common morality or ethos.  Any attempt to do so, in my opinion will either be an impression from “on high,” meaning that of the Joint Chiefs or CNO’s own ideals, or it will be a facade of wishful thinking. 

This is the dilemma we face.  Do we continue as we are in this organization and keep introducing new “Ideas” like the Sailor’s Creed or the Navy Ethos Statement, or can we turn off that tap and start getting to the deckplates of enforcing and inculcating the rules and standards from which we have been straying over the last 20 years? 

“Train like you fight, Fight like you train.” The Navy Ethos is like the cover of a romance novel.  It’s a layer of decorative color and texture binding the junk that is of absolutely no significance to anyone who knows what the content really means.

So what do we do?  If we must make up an Ethos Statement, let us make an ethos that is real and specific and meets us sailors right where we are without pretentious, flowery junk.  Let it become something we can grow with, and I’ll bet that we can reach greater heights having identified our start. 

I don’t believe we will be able to train ourselves into compliance with the Ethos Statement as it is.  Perhaps a more studious and truly objective version could make it into our system and be actually accurate, but by then, I doubt it’s going to have the effect the Big Navy is probably thinking.  There’s no value in an Ethos that must be grown into.  The value of an Ethos Statement is that it accurately (and positively, of course), portrays a body of people in a succinct and advocate manner that will attract the sympathy, admiration and loyalty of those outside the organization.

To lie to the public, or to put up a misleading face (which I maintain is still lying), is the stupidest thing our military can do, especially in these days of change and unpredictability.  There is no band-aid for publicity when dealing with the Military.  We are either wrong or right and we must act on that determination.  Quit or continue.  We cannot set up an illusion that what we are is not what we are doing.