"I’m sorry, but if you have reached the point in your career that you are at THE NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, then you do not need what sounds like something between a therapy session, a New Age self-discovery course, and an Ayahuasca retreat in Latin America somewhere."
Actually maybe they do. Some of them have shown for years an appalling lack of self-awareness, much less, the ability to read the room around them. It's about to come down on their heads. But thanks for the funny quote. I needed a laugh today.
"...examine personal strengths and weaknesses" I closed my eyes after reading this and an unwanted vision of a heavy set elderly nun in a mini-skirt with a 12-inch ruler was whacking the palms of my hands for a perceived failure to be as dedicated in my efforts as those North Korean FOGO's are when Kim Jong Un delivers the punchline on his fourth dad joke in a 3-hour speech.
Too much navel gazing and too little naval history.
But, even with naval history, and a good theoretical knowledge, it has a lot more value if it is repeatedly applied through war gaming scenarios. Both tactical and strategic. Decisions need to be made quickly, and in gaming mistakes will be made and scenarios may need to be repeated multiple times to find the best (or least worst) courses of action. Rosy assumptions and sacred cows need to be challenged with blunt facts from the real world such as the relative size, readiness and capabilities of BOTH sides, and any potential allies. Temper the reliance on naval history with possible (but unprecedented) asymmetrical actions- Hostile sleeper cells, EMP effects, disrupted comms, cyber warfare spoofing, plausible deniability for certain events. The next war is unlikely to follow the gentlemanly diplomatic traditions or respect traditional safe spaces or concern for collateral damage- at least by the other guys.
And, in a Pacific scenario, logistics may be the most important consideration of all, absent a massive first strike wiping out all our bases and forces on day one. Not just the "last 1,000 miles"of delivering beans, bullets and fuel, but the sustainability of any such effort from the extraction/growth, processing and distribution aspects, most of which is outside military control.
Lots of vital moving parts and players, both within the naval arena and more so without. I fear we are whistling past the graveyard when contemplating hostilities in the Pacific, if we even deign to open that Pandora's box.
Navel gazing is easier, and has been quite fashionable for at least 4 years, perhaps several decades.
Is it possible to not graduate (for academic competency)? I understand that at one time the Army War College commandant sent a letter to the Chief of Staff to effect of here are my top 50 graduates and bottom 50. You may wish to consider for next assignments.
"The Naval War College is the most well-known illustration for American military gaming between the First and Second World Wars. Newport fully embraced wargaming by integrating it into officer PME curricula as the Germans did at the Kriegsakademie. The Newport wargames helped bolster student and instructor understanding about the challenges of operating in the Pacific against the Japanese, and informed studies and exercises for emerging capabilities such as naval aviation, which proved pivotal during the Second World War.
The Naval War College worked with the Navy’s General Board on future planning scenarios based on various competitors and capabilities. Officials assigned each scenario a color, including Plan Orange for a war with Japan, which formed the basis of many of the games played by students in Newport. Like other Naval War College students, Nimitz wargamed and studied these operational dilemmas during the 1922-23 academic year. In his thesis, Nimitz described the need for seizing advanced bases or developing an at-sea refueling and replenishment capability “to maintain even a limited degree of mobility” against the Japanese. “To bring such a war to a successful conclusion BLUE must either destroy ORANGE military and naval forces or effect a complete isolation of ORANGE country by cutting all communication with the outside world,” wrote Nimitz, referring to the color code-names for the United States and Japan, respectively. “It is quite possible that ORANGE resistance will cease when isolation is complete and before steps to reduce military strength on ORANGE soil are necessary. In either case the operations will require a series of bases westward of Oahu, and will require BLUE Fleet to advance westward with an enormous train, in order to be prepared to seize and establish bases enroute.” Thus, original conceptions of the Pacific campaign featuring the Pacific Fleet’s advance along extended sea lines of communication gave way to an island-hopping approach that allowed American forces to establish advance bases from which to launch air attacks against the Japanese home islands."
"The War Plans Division of the U.S. War Department gamed elements of American mobilization plans prior to the start of the Second World War, but the national PME institutions embraced gaming as an analytical tool, and none more enthusiastically as the Naval War College. Of more than 300 wargames conducted in Newport during the interwar period, about half focused on campaigns and tactics while the other half gamed theater-wide strategy. Among approximately 150 strategy games, all but 9 explored a possible war with Japan."
I disagree on your take about LPA curriculum. While it sounds pretty soft, I think it’s important that leaders continue to refine their skills to lead sailors today.
I’m sure you understand that sailors coming in today are different from 5, 10, 15, etc years ago. And trying to understand how to engage them changes constantly.
My take is more from experience. I took a leadership course recently when I got my masters, and while it did have some hoity-toity self reflection, I believe it made me a much better leader of men and women. And I am certain the leaders going through the Naval War College feel the same.
Several years ago as Director of the Naval Academy Museum, I gave a tour to a visiting PLAN flag officer. By serendipity I stopped at the screen in the Spanish-American War section and hit the Battle of Manila Bay just to show how we use it for visitors. At the bottom of the screen that had a graphic showing the course of the fleet was a text box explaining what was unfolding.
He started talking non-stop. Then his translator spoke. I looked at the screen and found that the translator was discussing points in the battle that were about five seconds ahead of the screen's narration which meant the flag was 10 seconds ahead of it. He went into great detail on distances, elevations and actions.
I stopped it and said, through his translator, "the admiral understands the Battle of Manila Bay." Through his translator he said proudly, "yes, I studied it extensively at my war college."
I started using that story at the start of each semester teaching naval history and asked my students if they were willing to learn their own history that their peer competitor knew.
Even with the removal of the sociopolitical aspects is the culture at the College brutal enough to weed out the Pyes? After all where did he go after he was fired?
I keep hearing that President Trump has adopted a 'hemispheric defense strategy' as the core of his national security policy.
Is there any discussion out there in the military blogosphere which goes into detail concerning the objectives of this hemispheric defense strategy, including details concerning how Trump intends to go about achieving those objectives?
Had a "fair bit of experience" in the Joint Wargaming "enterprise" (with NWC occasionally). Wargaming and simulation are obviously not the same, but when used properly in combination, can provide granular insights above and beyond the obvious. Big problem over the last ten years was the results were universally bad for us, so were quickly glossed over, dismissed as "not reflecting reality" (we needed more logistics fairy dust!), or just flat out ignored. Still remember a very senior flag some years ago saying (paraphrasing): "You told me nothing I didn't already know, and offered no solutions for the problems I already knew I had." Sometimes reality sucks. OBTW, now due nuclear exchange wargaming...
Well, this certainly doesn't look good.....
"I’m sorry, but if you have reached the point in your career that you are at THE NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, then you do not need what sounds like something between a therapy session, a New Age self-discovery course, and an Ayahuasca retreat in Latin America somewhere."
Actually maybe they do. Some of them have shown for years an appalling lack of self-awareness, much less, the ability to read the room around them. It's about to come down on their heads. But thanks for the funny quote. I needed a laugh today.
"...examine personal strengths and weaknesses" I closed my eyes after reading this and an unwanted vision of a heavy set elderly nun in a mini-skirt with a 12-inch ruler was whacking the palms of my hands for a perceived failure to be as dedicated in my efforts as those North Korean FOGO's are when Kim Jong Un delivers the punchline on his fourth dad joke in a 3-hour speech.
Suggest someone dust off NWC records of a century ago and see what the curriculum looked like back then...
short answer: lots of wargaming of US Color War Plans
I think colored war plans are probably racist...
at least Xenophobic and Ethnocentric
Definitely Colonial.
We don't call them "colored" these days. We use the term "Spectrum-American War Plans."
Another great article.
Last few paragraphs... you're too nice. DEI is still solidly woven into NWC curriculum.
Did you watch Phelan's confirmation hearing?
There seems to be something wrong with our bloody flag officers today.
More than “seems to be”.
Indeed! Typical British stiff upper lip in the face of obvious disaster, I suppose
David Beatty would be turned away by today’s Royal Navy or what’s left of it.
Too much navel gazing and too little naval history.
But, even with naval history, and a good theoretical knowledge, it has a lot more value if it is repeatedly applied through war gaming scenarios. Both tactical and strategic. Decisions need to be made quickly, and in gaming mistakes will be made and scenarios may need to be repeated multiple times to find the best (or least worst) courses of action. Rosy assumptions and sacred cows need to be challenged with blunt facts from the real world such as the relative size, readiness and capabilities of BOTH sides, and any potential allies. Temper the reliance on naval history with possible (but unprecedented) asymmetrical actions- Hostile sleeper cells, EMP effects, disrupted comms, cyber warfare spoofing, plausible deniability for certain events. The next war is unlikely to follow the gentlemanly diplomatic traditions or respect traditional safe spaces or concern for collateral damage- at least by the other guys.
And, in a Pacific scenario, logistics may be the most important consideration of all, absent a massive first strike wiping out all our bases and forces on day one. Not just the "last 1,000 miles"of delivering beans, bullets and fuel, but the sustainability of any such effort from the extraction/growth, processing and distribution aspects, most of which is outside military control.
Lots of vital moving parts and players, both within the naval arena and more so without. I fear we are whistling past the graveyard when contemplating hostilities in the Pacific, if we even deign to open that Pandora's box.
Navel gazing is easier, and has been quite fashionable for at least 4 years, perhaps several decades.
It is past time to get serious again.
The brass running NWC should be engaged in a lot more naval gazing.
Is it possible to not graduate (for academic competency)? I understand that at one time the Army War College commandant sent a letter to the Chief of Staff to effect of here are my top 50 graduates and bottom 50. You may wish to consider for next assignments.
"The Naval War College is the most well-known illustration for American military gaming between the First and Second World Wars. Newport fully embraced wargaming by integrating it into officer PME curricula as the Germans did at the Kriegsakademie. The Newport wargames helped bolster student and instructor understanding about the challenges of operating in the Pacific against the Japanese, and informed studies and exercises for emerging capabilities such as naval aviation, which proved pivotal during the Second World War.
The Naval War College worked with the Navy’s General Board on future planning scenarios based on various competitors and capabilities. Officials assigned each scenario a color, including Plan Orange for a war with Japan, which formed the basis of many of the games played by students in Newport. Like other Naval War College students, Nimitz wargamed and studied these operational dilemmas during the 1922-23 academic year. In his thesis, Nimitz described the need for seizing advanced bases or developing an at-sea refueling and replenishment capability “to maintain even a limited degree of mobility” against the Japanese. “To bring such a war to a successful conclusion BLUE must either destroy ORANGE military and naval forces or effect a complete isolation of ORANGE country by cutting all communication with the outside world,” wrote Nimitz, referring to the color code-names for the United States and Japan, respectively. “It is quite possible that ORANGE resistance will cease when isolation is complete and before steps to reduce military strength on ORANGE soil are necessary. In either case the operations will require a series of bases westward of Oahu, and will require BLUE Fleet to advance westward with an enormous train, in order to be prepared to seize and establish bases enroute.” Thus, original conceptions of the Pacific campaign featuring the Pacific Fleet’s advance along extended sea lines of communication gave way to an island-hopping approach that allowed American forces to establish advance bases from which to launch air attacks against the Japanese home islands."
https://cimsec.org/interwar-period-gaming-today-conflicts-tomorrow-press-start-play-pt-2/
"The War Plans Division of the U.S. War Department gamed elements of American mobilization plans prior to the start of the Second World War, but the national PME institutions embraced gaming as an analytical tool, and none more enthusiastically as the Naval War College. Of more than 300 wargames conducted in Newport during the interwar period, about half focused on campaigns and tactics while the other half gamed theater-wide strategy. Among approximately 150 strategy games, all but 9 explored a possible war with Japan."
I bet that has been translated into Chinese and is widely studied by their senior officers.
But, I doubt very much if today's USN Flags and O-6s study it much at all.
halsey wetting his wick with nurses while on new caledonia wouldn’t go down well (pun. sorry. not sorry) with today’s female combat leaders.
Another Navy Semen story
I disagree on your take about LPA curriculum. While it sounds pretty soft, I think it’s important that leaders continue to refine their skills to lead sailors today.
I’m sure you understand that sailors coming in today are different from 5, 10, 15, etc years ago. And trying to understand how to engage them changes constantly.
My take is more from experience. I took a leadership course recently when I got my masters, and while it did have some hoity-toity self reflection, I believe it made me a much better leader of men and women. And I am certain the leaders going through the Naval War College feel the same.
I’ve been hearing that since I was a MIDN back when Reagan was president. It didn’t make sense then it makes less sense now.
alway have said that every diet book and scheme could be boiled down to four words...."eat less, move more"
couldn't we distill Naval War College curriculum down to something similar? as in...
"sink-disable enemy ships, destroy enemy ports, save our own"
or shorter: "Make holes that let in water"
Several years ago as Director of the Naval Academy Museum, I gave a tour to a visiting PLAN flag officer. By serendipity I stopped at the screen in the Spanish-American War section and hit the Battle of Manila Bay just to show how we use it for visitors. At the bottom of the screen that had a graphic showing the course of the fleet was a text box explaining what was unfolding.
He started talking non-stop. Then his translator spoke. I looked at the screen and found that the translator was discussing points in the battle that were about five seconds ahead of the screen's narration which meant the flag was 10 seconds ahead of it. He went into great detail on distances, elevations and actions.
I stopped it and said, through his translator, "the admiral understands the Battle of Manila Bay." Through his translator he said proudly, "yes, I studied it extensively at my war college."
I started using that story at the start of each semester teaching naval history and asked my students if they were willing to learn their own history that their peer competitor knew.
That, sir, should be an understanding writ large not only at USNA and Navy ROTC, but all services' acquisition programs and later PME.
Along with the admonishment, "Your most likely foe takes this very seriously, do you?"
Even with the removal of the sociopolitical aspects is the culture at the College brutal enough to weed out the Pyes? After all where did he go after he was fired?
I graduated in 1973 (C&S) and 1984. NWC today bers little if any resemblence to the curricula I studied then. NOT good.
I keep hearing that President Trump has adopted a 'hemispheric defense strategy' as the core of his national security policy.
Is there any discussion out there in the military blogosphere which goes into detail concerning the objectives of this hemispheric defense strategy, including details concerning how Trump intends to go about achieving those objectives?
Had a "fair bit of experience" in the Joint Wargaming "enterprise" (with NWC occasionally). Wargaming and simulation are obviously not the same, but when used properly in combination, can provide granular insights above and beyond the obvious. Big problem over the last ten years was the results were universally bad for us, so were quickly glossed over, dismissed as "not reflecting reality" (we needed more logistics fairy dust!), or just flat out ignored. Still remember a very senior flag some years ago saying (paraphrasing): "You told me nothing I didn't already know, and offered no solutions for the problems I already knew I had." Sometimes reality sucks. OBTW, now due nuclear exchange wargaming...