Increase Navy Accountability with This One Simple Trick
make INSURV UNCLAS again
Over the last 16 years, has the material condition of our Navy’s fleet improved or gotten worse?
Why were people so shocked in the summer of 2017 about the conditions and manning of the FITZGERALD and MCCAIN?
Do Congress and the American people have a better understanding and trust in the level of stewardship our Navy has for the ships they paid for?
Has accountability improved, or gotten worse?
It has been 16 years since the U.S. Navy—in what I consider a case of institutional cowardice—classified INSURV, as I wrote about in March of 2009.
Prior to that, a lot of us on the Navy side of the blogosphere did what we had done for years offline, talked about INSURV. They were unclassified. Even at the height of the Cold War, they were unclassified.
Then the Pentagon’s habit of hiding poor performance by over-classifying everything reached INSURV reports.
It was never about protecting national security. It was always about protecting people, programs, and leadership from accountability for their poor support in maintenance and manning on our ships.
Making INSURV classified did not make our Navy more safe or secure. It did not increase readiness. It did not bring more resources for parts and maintenance. All it did was make it harder to hold resources providers—Flag Officers and SES mostly—accountable.
To a person in the Navy blogosphere of the first Obama generation, we warned of this. History has proven us correct in this regard.
It is time again for me to make the call I have for 16 years.
If you want to increase accountability and transparency—and as a result have a more combat ready Navy—make INSURV unclassified again.
In honor of that, I am going to republish my March of 2009 post from when I found out that INSURV became classified. It aged well, and I stand behind every single word.
From March 2009. Apologies, but some of the links are dead and cannot be found in the internet archive, but I’ve left them there anyway:
Monday, March 02, 2009
Navy sets a thicker smoke screen
I don't know about you - but this makes me professionally embarrassed.
The Navy has classified regular reports about the material condition of its fleet, an about-face from when the reports were accessible as public documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
The reports, filed by the Board of Inspection and Survey, or InSurv, contain the findings of meticulous, days-long inspections that cover every detail of the workings of surface ships, aircraft carriers and submarines.
In December, InSurv president Rear Adm. Raymond Klein decided the reports were to be classified, said Linda Alvers, the FOIA coordinator for Fleet Forces Command. She said she did not know why. Also unclear was whether the classification order applied only to InSurvs performed after December, or whether it included reports from before then.
Neither Klein nor a representative for InSurv could be reached to comment for this story.
InSurvs are circulated widely among commanders and technical authorities within the Navy, but seldom seen by civilians unless they’ve been specifically requested under freedom of information laws. Even then, Navy officials can redact the names of people; information about classified equipment; or trade secrets of shipbuilders or other venders.
Over the past year, InSurvs obtained by Navy Times have revealed severe problems aboard the cruiser Chosin, the destroyer Stout and the amphibious transport dock New Orleans.
The reports have also revealed when the Navy has taken delivery of well-built ships, including the amphibious transport dock Green Bay and the first littoral combat ship, the Freedom.
NB: look at the timeline. This has nothing to do with the new CINC - so keep that FOD out of the comments.
However, combine this with the SECDEF's "shut up," and you have a more and more opaque system of review and accountability unprecedented in decades during both peace and war.
Read these INSURV posts, do you see anything classified?
How do you respond to someone with an objective mind trying to understand this decision but finds but one thing - a desire by the Navy to keep INSURV information from the taxpayer? The only other reason could be a desire to cover some systems in more depth - but we have been doing classified annexes on other subjects for years. Someone's PAO needs to come out and do some talking, because I don't know what to say to that person but - "Yep, that is what it looks like."
Galrahn made a good point Saturday,
I believe the current CG and DDG forces are the most important ships to the future Navy, particularly now that the Navy intends for them to serve 40 years. The material condition of those ships matters a great deal, and preventing the public from knowing the material condition of our ships with INSURV information insures that we do not get valid information that results from policy changes related to maintenance funding.
The bigger problem is Congress doesn't get good information either. Lets face it, unless they ask for it specifically, they will be unfortunate victims of the 'failed to mention that' syndrome that always trumps full disclosure.
That is a "Stump the Admiral" point.
I am sorry, but if we in the Navy wanted to regain some of the credibility and integrity that we have lost over the last decade due to the trainwreck that has been acquisition and material condition - then this is no way to do it.
I'll go back to what I have said for two decades now. Huge entities like Navies have changed forced on them from outside. That means the loss of ships and sailors. The Navy has continually performed worse over the decades. Material condition, seamanship, ship design, the GOFO mafia, LCS, DDG-1000. It is also an organization that instantly squelches any Jackie Fishers with ideas that are heretical. I just don't see any sunshine.
One can only imagine the INSURV reports for the LCS, DDG 1000, and CVN 78 class ships, if the INSURV for these ships were conducted with the same rigor as in the past.