McRaven Tells Troops to Pipe Down

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

This current problem is not because of the old service competition to dominate the military that we had from 1900 thru WW II. .

With respect, I disagree. What follows is a thumbnail of why I disagree.

Mahanian navalism is at the core of the navy's institutional identity. Public debate and a historical perspective are core components of Mahanian navalism. A.T. Mahan wrote prolifically and publicly because he genuinely believed that, as a maritime nation, the U.S. needed a strong navy. This belief rested on an understanding of history as a field of study that could produce lessons of timeless relevance. Because of Mahan's influence on the way naval history is studied and policy issues are debated, there remains in almost all recent discussions of naval affairs a historical argument. This argument is that what has worked in the past will work in the present, and the future--regardless of the foe, the geopolitical circumstances, and the nature of warfare. Additionally, this line of argument enables the discussion of naval affairs in the public eye.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the navy developed its Maritime Strategy as a plan to apply American sea power across the spectrum of conflict. While most of the focus of this plan was the Soviet Union, it also focused on terrorism and the use of SOF. Concurrently, a handful of naval historians developed a compelling argument that the navy was able (1) to prepare itself for and to fight the Pacific War and (2) to deal with the emerging challenges of the post World War II geostrategic environment was in no small part due to the influence of Mahanian theory on the navy's professional culture. This trajectory of scholarship implicitly argued that what had worked for the navy in the past would continue to work for the navy into the future.*

Recently, the navy has been rebooting many of the core arguments of the Maritime Strategy in its discussions of both the PRC's rising naval power and GWOT.** These efforts have coincided with the publication of important historical works on the navy in the years following WWII. The overall argument of these works is that the navy's successes in times of uncertainty abroad, changing conceptions of warfare, and retrenchment at home has centered around the sea service's cultural traditions -- including the emphasis on Mahanian theory.*** (This is not to say that naval historians sit around asking "WWMD?")

Consequently, when SEALs go public "to set the record straight" the issue is not just about a handful of warriors stepping outside of the accepted practices of the broader SOF community. The issue is also about a clash of cultural traditions that has been decades in the making. The Mahanian tradition trends towards a totalizing argument that emphasizes the centrality of sea power--specifically power projection--to the nation's security and an unending need to make this argument publicly: especially in times of retrenchment. In my view, the management of this tradition can be more efficacious if it is addressed in its historical context.

My $0.02

____________________________________
* References available on request.
** Evidence of this reboot can be found in issues of the Naval War College Review published between 2007 and 2008, the work of the Naval War College's Chinese Maritime Studies Institute, and the navy's "request" to the Center for Naval Analyses to provide a historical overview of the navy's capstone planning.
***In particular, Jeffrey G. Barlow, From Hot War to Cold: The U.S. Navy and National Security Affairs, 1945-1955 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009) and Hal M. Friedman, Digesting History: The U.S. Naval War College, the Lessons of World War Two, and Future Naval Warfare, 1945-1947, Naval War College Historical Monograph Series, no. 17 (Newport, RI: U.S. Naval War College Press, 2010).

[Dreadnought]

Read this when it was disseminated a couple days ago. For the most part, I liked it and thought it was well written. I am a strong believer in the idea that a military must needs be inherently apolitical

[MTN Medic]

This thread is going to go nowhere. Those in the know can't say what they want to say; those not in the know will run their ignorant suck-holes indefinitely.

Hint: The answer has nothing to do with Mahanian Navalism and everything to do with discipline and being held accountable to the oaths that one pledged upon joining the military and upon joining the SOF community.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

With respect, I disagree. What follows is a thumbnail of why I disagree.

Mahanian navalism is at the core of the navy's institutional identity. Public debate and a historical perspective are core components of Mahanian navalism. A.T. Mahan wrote prolifically and publicly because he genuinely believed that, as a maritime nation, the U.S. needed a strong navy. This belief rested on an understanding of history as a field of study that could produce lessons of timeless relevance. Because of Mahan's influence on the way naval history is studied and policy issues are debated, there remains in almost all recent discussions of naval affairs a historical argument. This argument is that what has worked in the past will work in the present, and the future--regardless of the foe, the geopolitical circumstances, and the nature of warfare. Additionally, this line of argument enables the discussion of naval affairs in the public eye.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the navy developed its Maritime Strategy as a plan to apply American sea power across the spectrum of conflict. While most of the focus of this plan was the Soviet Union, it also focused on terrorism and the use of SOF. Concurrently, a handful of naval historians developed a compelling argument that the navy was able (1) to prepare itself for and to fight the Pacific War and (2) to deal with the emerging challenges of the post World War II geostrategic environment was in no small part due to the influence of Mahanian theory on the navy's professional culture. This trajectory of scholarship implicitly argued that what had worked for the navy in the past would continue to work for the navy into the future.*

Recently, the navy has been rebooting many of the core arguments of the Maritime Strategy in its discussions of both the PRC's rising naval power and GWOT.** These efforts have coincided with the publication of important historical works on the navy in the years following WWII. The overall argument of these works is that the navy's successes in times of uncertainty abroad, changing conceptions of warfare, and retrenchment at home has centered around the sea service's cultural traditions -- including the emphasis on Mahanian theory.*** (This is not to say that naval historians sit around asking "WWMD?")

Consequently, when SEALs go public "to set the record straight" the issue is not just about a handful of warriors stepping outside of the accepted practices of the broader SOF community. The issue is also about a clash of cultural traditions that has been decades in the making. The Mahanian tradition trends towards a totalizing argument that emphasizes the centrality of sea power--specifically power projection--to the nation's security and an unending need to make this argument publicly: especially in times of retrenchment. In my view, the management of this tradition can be more efficacious if it is addressed in its historical context.

My $0.02

____________________________________
* References available on request.
** Evidence of this reboot can be found in issues of the Naval War College Review published between 2007 and 2008, the work of the Naval War College's Chinese Maritime Studies Institute, and the navy's "request" to the Center for Naval Analyses to provide a historical overview of the navy's capstone planning.
***In particular, Jeffrey G. Barlow, From Hot War to Cold: The U.S. Navy and National Security Affairs, 1945-1955 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009) and Hal M. Friedman, Digesting History: The U.S. Naval War College, the Lessons of World War Two, and Future Naval Warfare, 1945-1947, Naval War College Historical Monograph Series, no. 17 (Newport, RI: U.S. Naval War College Press, 2010).

You know if you had served and been part of the military community, sweat and endured the pain that comes with having the responsibility to protect the America that you raised your had to defend instead of just reading what civilian and military write about lofty ideas you would understand what the McRaven and this OP was trying to convey. Until you have walked a mile in my boots please do not lecture me as to Mahanian Navalism.

People took oath's and have a responsibility to honor that oath weather on active duty or not. Some young pup that did not retire and saw an opportunity to make a buck is who he is saying to zip it up. He is just repeating what many of us already know and do not have to tell anyone. He has dishonored the SEALS, his team mates and the military and SOF community with his book, interviews that are upcoming and a video game. This string of events shows that he is in it for the money not to set the record straight.

I have served in Joint assignments shoulder to shoulder with my Brothers in all services in the SOF and conventional forces and no matter how much we rib the others we are a family of professional military with the same goal to protect our country and way of life so POS citizens can exercise their constitutional rights even when we do not agree with them. (flag burning, Academics pontificating, Code Pink, etc. etc...) Yest the Political thinking Officers at high levels in our think tanks and military academic schools write lofty papers but when it all comes down t what we are in uniform for it is the defense of your and all Americans rights.

MTN Medic
This thread is going to go nowhere. Those in the know can't say what they want to say; those not in the know will run their ignorant suck-holes indefinitely.

Hint: The answer has nothing to do with Mahanian Navalism and everything to do with discipline and being held accountable to the oaths that one pledged upon joining the military and upon joining the SOF community.

I agree completely on all points.

[SF_BHT]

Here is what we all knew would happen when this former SEAL decided to break the trust. I feel sorry for his family and his FORMER Friends that have now been put in danger not by politicians but by his violation of our oath and trust. I figured that the MS and Politicians would have outed the people at DEV group and other SOF on the mission not one of our own. I guarantee he is going to feel very lonely since none of his brothers in arms will now have anything to do with him. Bet he will be hunkering down and hiding. He probably still does not know what he has done....... Just my 2 cents..... (mine come from walking the walk)

PS: Finally a reporter got it right Ex-Navy SEAL. Bet they revoke his trident at a minimum.

Ex-Navy SEAL behind bin Laden book faces threats, investigation

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former U.S. Navy SEAL who authored a soon-to-be-published book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden is now facing threats against his life in addition to possible criminal prosecution.

An official al Qaeda website on Friday posted a photograph and the name of the former Navy commando responsible for the book, calling him "the dog who murdered the martyr Sheikh Osama bin Laden."

The head of U.S. Special Operations Command told current and former troops that the military would take legal action against anyone found to have exposed sensitive information that could cause harm to fellow forces.

"We will pursue every option available to hold members accountable, including criminal prosecution where appropriate," Admiral Bill McRaven wrote in an open, unclassified letter emailed to the active-duty special operations community, and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

"As current or former members of our special operations community, authors have a moral obligation, and a legal duty, to submit their works for pre-publication security review," the admiral wrote.

Fox News made public on Thursday what it said was the real name of the former SEAL who, with a journalist co-author, wrote "No Easy Day," using the pseudonym Mark Owen. The book is due to be released next month on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

By early on Friday, the man's name, photograph and age had been posted on the "the Al-Fidaa Islamic Network" online forum, one of two websites officially endorsed by al Qaeda, according to Evan Kohlmann, founder of the New York-based security firm Flashpoint Global Partners.

It was followed by comments that called for the man's death, including one response that said, "O' Allah, kill every one of them," and another that said, "O' Allah, make an example of him for the whole world and give him dark days ahead."

The Navy SEAL was also identified by other U.S. media. Reuters has confirmed his name but is not publishing it, given concerns about his safety.

U.S. military officials have said the former Navy SEAL could face investigation because he failed to clear the book with the Defense Department before publication, even if it does not disclose specific classified details.

'DISTINCT LINE'

McRaven's letter said books and films about special operations teams could be useful educational tools, and the military would work with potential authors, but current and former service members would be held accountable if they endangered the safety of U.S. forces.

He said there was "a distinct line between recounting a story for the purposes of education or entertainment and telling a story that exposes sensitive activities just to garner greater readership and personal profit."

Kohlmann said the former Navy SEAL could now be in physical danger from al Qaeda sympathizers seeking revenge for bin Laden's death, or hoping to gain prestige for themselves.

"They have a photo of the individual, they have his name, his age," Kohlmann said. "I wish that all this was bluster, but there are a lot of would-be jihadists out there, including some in North America. This is the ideal opportunity for those kind of people."

The book's publisher, Dutton, said the author was "one of the first men through the door on the third floor of the terrorist leader's hideout and was present at his death."

It is not known whether "No Easy Day" contains details of commando operations that the U.S. government considers secret, but U.S. government officials said the account had not been submitted for a required pre-publication review.

"Even if there is nothing classified disclosed, it should have been reviewed, and it was not," said one official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

On Wednesday, the publisher said the book had been vetted "for tactical, technical, and procedural information as well as information that could be considered classified by compilation" by a former "special operations attorney."

Jeffrey Carr, a cyber security expert, said al Qaeda officials were adept at using the Internet for recruitment, training and other searches, and he fully expected them to target the former Navy SEAL now that his identity had been disclosed.

"He's going to become the poster child for recruitment and assassination," Carr said, noting that the case underscored the need for anyone in a high-risk profession to take great precautions with any information available on the Internet.

Carr said the man's relatives and former Navy SEAL colleagues could also be in danger if they could be traced through the Internet

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-navy-seal-b...013612266.html