In my years working in the USG -- always in the bleachers -- it was not unheard of to appoint a figurehead as the main person and stock the positions below that person with professionals. Or as near as politically possible anyway. So Sal's comment "The next palace game is to look at is who is picked as his Under and the ASNs" is particularly relevant to me. I remember a time when a particularly competent Deputy Secretary -- the people who make the trains run on time -- was rewarded with a Secretaryship after three (?) tours as Deputy at different cabinet-level agencies.
Teddy R. was an assistant. But, his boss was weak and sickly, not a figurehead. Also Teddy had long been a navalist. "The Naval War of 1812" was published in 1882; 15 years before.
Sadly, of the two score positions in 2020 "Plum Book" only seven of them are Presidential appointment (with Senate concurrence). The rest are Career appointments. Either normal or Schedule C. Getting the right seven in is very important, but so are the balance of that two score. That could be a bit tougher depending on how Resistance 2.0 turns out.
DoN starts on pg 35 of this PDF showing the 2020 positions.
All of the Plum Book positions are political appointable. Some are staffed with career merely because the administration didnt bother naming appointees to them.
Thank you for the clarification. TBF, if an Administration allows career government employees to fill critical spots when they could appoint someone who shares their vision then they are just letting the System run things.
In light of the topic discussed in the most recent Midrats episode...getting the ASN and Under's dial'd-in is particularly significant if the USN is stop the flooding and start making some headway in preparing for conflict.
So, you don't want a Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) whose primary focus is green fuel for warships and reducing the carbon footprint of food eaten by sailors?
he just needs to shrug off the "that's not the way we do it/done it in the past/that will never work" crowd - which is plentiful on that ring. DoD Failing 7 consecutive audits should tell him all he needs to know about the financial side.
The last "no prior military experience" SECNAV was Donald C. Winter under GW Bush. Of the 26 men to be confirmed as Navy secretary over the last 70 years, all but six have been veterans.
I was going to add that, TRW exec. Unconfirmed, but I am sure a lot of work went their way over his term (although USAF vice USN contracts).
Like Hegseth and others, they pundits dont think are qualified for the job, they are kept apprised from SMEs and also have to work through Joint Chiefs.
I hope these new leaders do the right thing and get our military back to doing what we need done and not social engineering.
The hardest thing for an executive to do is bring change, to overcome the "that's what we've always done" mentality. If he can do that, he'll be fine as long as he has expert deputies who are aware of all the issues and can think outside the box. The Senate confirmation hearings should be interesting.
The best person to change a system is someone who understands how it works, and how it doesn't. Requires Indepth knowledge while not being captured by the system and becoming part of it. Finding those kinds of people is what I hope the new administration has been doing over the last couple of years.
"They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way." Duke of Wellington after Waterloo and Napoleon's defeat
Interesting pick. The battlefield plot is firming up. On the one side we have the Iron Triangle of Congress, DoD, and the Military Industrial Complex or MIC (TM). On the other, the incoming Trump administration. Who is Napoleon, and who is Wellington? Strongly felt opinion: For the new administration to succeed, they must attack at all levels: tactical, operational and strategic with a level of simultaneity not seen previously. This requires the right people and a certain (IMO) level of...ruthlessness. "Pour encourager les autres" examples must be made. That includes high level officers (CJCS? CNO? You decide), non-political appointee Defense Department / Service officials with demonstrated histories of poor / corrupt performance, and mid level flags promoted beyond their capabilities for having politically correct views or for other...non-military performance related...reasons. Leadership involves responsibility AND accountability. Until accountability for poor performance and egregious corruption is restored, one can't expect behavior to change (improve). Human behavior 101. We do indeed live in interesting times.
I want to see what happens with the new Naval SSG org inside SECNAV. It has the POTENTIAL to be a 21st century version of the General Board of the Navy that served us so well from 1900-1950. However, as it exists now it is not staffed with the right mix of mid-grade and flag officers. General Board was at its best with about 60% flag, 40% mid-grade (including a very talented LCDR as secretary). And I should know. Google me and see my two books on the General Board, both published by naval institute press.
First reaction...I am immediately suspect when the validation of "a smart guy" is a Harvard MBA. Hasn't the Navy been damaged enough over the past 3 decades by smart guys with similar qualifications pushing Harvard management initiatives?
Years ago I had to take a professional exam largely based on a Harvard B School business case. I could not understand how the subject company made money—the entire case seemed like it was built on air. I complained to my husband about it. (He had a manufacturing company and it was perfectly clear how he made money.) Anyway, I failed that exam TWICE. The only one of about 25 exams I ever failed, and the pass rate in this profession was 20-30%.
“In August 2024, John and Amy Phelan hosted a private fundraising dinner for Trump at their $38 million home in Aspen, Colorado, with guests including Steve Wynn, Thomas Peterffy, Greg Abbott, Byron Donalds, Lauren Boebert and Cory Gardner.” - wiki
“Trump chose Phelan, who did not serve in the military and does not have a long track record with the Navy, after a round of interviews at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, according to one person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Rep. Mike Garcia of California, a retired naval aviator defeated in his reelection bid to win his battleground seat, and Rep. Ronny Jackson, a close Trump ally and retired captain who served as Trump’s chief medical adviser during his first administration, were also rumored as candidates for the job.” - Politico
We all have our own list of priorities for what we think should be done to fix long-standing issues in the US Navy, and the larger issues in DOD.
My own priority is to sh*t-can DOD 5000 and replace it with a procurement system in which people rather than process are accountable for success or failure, and where process requirements become tools for success rather than being an end in themselves.
But does anyone in the naval blogosphere have any inside knowledge of what the Trump DOD team's marching orders are -- which issues such as DEI/Wokism will get heavy-duty near-term attention, which issues are handled systematically with a mid to long-term plan implemented in phases, and which are deferred indefinitely as being less important in the grand scheme of things?
Hope he's good. I recall that as a young LCDR CNO Briefer, I had occasions to stop by the SECNAV's office in the E Ring. There was a builder's model of a WW II DE outside his door. He was mostly known as a Railroad tycoon. Only much later did I find out that the model was of the DE he served in during WW II, and was in fact aboard when that DE rescued survivors of the Indianapolis. Railroad tycoon he might have been, but real Navy for all that.
I used pass by that same model during my daily stroll into the office - at some point it migrated from the Pentagon to a naval facility on the fringe of the Beltway. A beautiful representation of John C. Butler class DE!
I don’t like the office being used as reward for being a fund raiser and a donor. I’m not naive to see that it doesn’t happen, I am saying I don’t like it.
I don’t think we are going to be ready on “day one” with this guy.
Not an uncommon practice, look at how many of our ambassadors are beneficiaries of political largess. I agree though a position of SECNAV, I'd like that person to have a firm understanding and possibly some background with the very organization they're supported to be in-charge of.
He’s a finance guy that ran a successful finance business. Finance guys are often a disaster when running anything else - see Robert MacNamara. Perhaps he will surround himself with a bunch of young, hard-charging Navy veterans who are aware of how little time is left on the clock. We shall see.
Yes. My experience with finance guys is that they often think they know everything because everything goes through their spreadsheets. But they don’t often understand operations, or management, or the market. As a Navy mom I can only hope he has excellent aides and he listens to them.
First I've heard of him. Board member of Spirit of America https://spiritofamerica.org/about/team/john-phelan
Mattis and Dunford are players in that NGO as well. Read their endorsements of it.
Yikes.
In my years working in the USG -- always in the bleachers -- it was not unheard of to appoint a figurehead as the main person and stock the positions below that person with professionals. Or as near as politically possible anyway. So Sal's comment "The next palace game is to look at is who is picked as his Under and the ASNs" is particularly relevant to me. I remember a time when a particularly competent Deputy Secretary -- the people who make the trains run on time -- was rewarded with a Secretaryship after three (?) tours as Deputy at different cabinet-level agencies.
Teddy R. was an assistant. But, his boss was weak and sickly, not a figurehead. Also Teddy had long been a navalist. "The Naval War of 1812" was published in 1882; 15 years before.
Sadly, of the two score positions in 2020 "Plum Book" only seven of them are Presidential appointment (with Senate concurrence). The rest are Career appointments. Either normal or Schedule C. Getting the right seven in is very important, but so are the balance of that two score. That could be a bit tougher depending on how Resistance 2.0 turns out.
DoN starts on pg 35 of this PDF showing the 2020 positions.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf
All of the Plum Book positions are political appointable. Some are staffed with career merely because the administration didnt bother naming appointees to them.
Thank you for the clarification. TBF, if an Administration allows career government employees to fill critical spots when they could appoint someone who shares their vision then they are just letting the System run things.
In light of the topic discussed in the most recent Midrats episode...getting the ASN and Under's dial'd-in is particularly significant if the USN is stop the flooding and start making some headway in preparing for conflict.
So, you don't want a Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) whose primary focus is green fuel for warships and reducing the carbon footprint of food eaten by sailors?
If so then I concur.
he just needs to shrug off the "that's not the way we do it/done it in the past/that will never work" crowd - which is plentiful on that ring. DoD Failing 7 consecutive audits should tell him all he needs to know about the financial side.
The last "no prior military experience" SECNAV was Donald C. Winter under GW Bush. Of the 26 men to be confirmed as Navy secretary over the last 70 years, all but six have been veterans.
Fair Winds Secretary Phelan!!!
Winter at least came from the Defense ecosystem, having worked for DARPA and TRW.
I was going to add that, TRW exec. Unconfirmed, but I am sure a lot of work went their way over his term (although USAF vice USN contracts).
Like Hegseth and others, they pundits dont think are qualified for the job, they are kept apprised from SMEs and also have to work through Joint Chiefs.
I hope these new leaders do the right thing and get our military back to doing what we need done and not social engineering.
I do not think Trump will allow social engineering from anyone on his team.
The hardest thing for an executive to do is bring change, to overcome the "that's what we've always done" mentality. If he can do that, he'll be fine as long as he has expert deputies who are aware of all the issues and can think outside the box. The Senate confirmation hearings should be interesting.
The best person to change a system is someone who understands how it works, and how it doesn't. Requires Indepth knowledge while not being captured by the system and becoming part of it. Finding those kinds of people is what I hope the new administration has been doing over the last couple of years.
My stock reply would be "And how is that workin' out for ya??"
"They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way." Duke of Wellington after Waterloo and Napoleon's defeat
Interesting pick. The battlefield plot is firming up. On the one side we have the Iron Triangle of Congress, DoD, and the Military Industrial Complex or MIC (TM). On the other, the incoming Trump administration. Who is Napoleon, and who is Wellington? Strongly felt opinion: For the new administration to succeed, they must attack at all levels: tactical, operational and strategic with a level of simultaneity not seen previously. This requires the right people and a certain (IMO) level of...ruthlessness. "Pour encourager les autres" examples must be made. That includes high level officers (CJCS? CNO? You decide), non-political appointee Defense Department / Service officials with demonstrated histories of poor / corrupt performance, and mid level flags promoted beyond their capabilities for having politically correct views or for other...non-military performance related...reasons. Leadership involves responsibility AND accountability. Until accountability for poor performance and egregious corruption is restored, one can't expect behavior to change (improve). Human behavior 101. We do indeed live in interesting times.
I, too would have preferred a veteran with experience at sea and in the Pentagon.
Let's see how Mr. Phelan addresses that obvious shortcoming when he meets with the SASC.
I want to see what happens with the new Naval SSG org inside SECNAV. It has the POTENTIAL to be a 21st century version of the General Board of the Navy that served us so well from 1900-1950. However, as it exists now it is not staffed with the right mix of mid-grade and flag officers. General Board was at its best with about 60% flag, 40% mid-grade (including a very talented LCDR as secretary). And I should know. Google me and see my two books on the General Board, both published by naval institute press.
First reaction...I am immediately suspect when the validation of "a smart guy" is a Harvard MBA. Hasn't the Navy been damaged enough over the past 3 decades by smart guys with similar qualifications pushing Harvard management initiatives?
Years ago I had to take a professional exam largely based on a Harvard B School business case. I could not understand how the subject company made money—the entire case seemed like it was built on air. I complained to my husband about it. (He had a manufacturing company and it was perfectly clear how he made money.) Anyway, I failed that exam TWICE. The only one of about 25 exams I ever failed, and the pass rate in this profession was 20-30%.
The company? Enron.
They should re-grade your test. The federal investigators found that they couldn't make money either, well at least not legally.
Obviously, you missed the part about creative accounting on the part of Arthur Andersen.
Debt? No problem! Just transfer it all to an offshore account. Does wonders for your balance sheet.
He was a donor and bundler for Trump. It seems like graft not experience or talent is the reasons for the appointment.
People like that don't take jobs where they expect to publicly fail. So we'll see.
I have no strong opinion on Phelan, but does anyone "publicly fail" to disgrace nowadays?
The roster of pundits, think-tankers, and board members is full of obvious failures.
I wonder how much he contributed to the campaign. I see a Harvard MBA and all I can do is shrug my shoulders and hope.
A LOT.
Never mind didn’t take long:
“In August 2024, John and Amy Phelan hosted a private fundraising dinner for Trump at their $38 million home in Aspen, Colorado, with guests including Steve Wynn, Thomas Peterffy, Greg Abbott, Byron Donalds, Lauren Boebert and Cory Gardner.” - wiki
“Trump chose Phelan, who did not serve in the military and does not have a long track record with the Navy, after a round of interviews at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, according to one person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Rep. Mike Garcia of California, a retired naval aviator defeated in his reelection bid to win his battleground seat, and Rep. Ronny Jackson, a close Trump ally and retired captain who served as Trump’s chief medical adviser during his first administration, were also rumored as candidates for the job.” - Politico
That's disappointing. We are in too dangerous waters to give the SECNAV job away as just a prize for political donations.
Ok........well, let's see where this goes. You don't donate 800,000 with no strings attached.
We all have our own list of priorities for what we think should be done to fix long-standing issues in the US Navy, and the larger issues in DOD.
My own priority is to sh*t-can DOD 5000 and replace it with a procurement system in which people rather than process are accountable for success or failure, and where process requirements become tools for success rather than being an end in themselves.
But does anyone in the naval blogosphere have any inside knowledge of what the Trump DOD team's marching orders are -- which issues such as DEI/Wokism will get heavy-duty near-term attention, which issues are handled systematically with a mid to long-term plan implemented in phases, and which are deferred indefinitely as being less important in the grand scheme of things?
Hope he's good. I recall that as a young LCDR CNO Briefer, I had occasions to stop by the SECNAV's office in the E Ring. There was a builder's model of a WW II DE outside his door. He was mostly known as a Railroad tycoon. Only much later did I find out that the model was of the DE he served in during WW II, and was in fact aboard when that DE rescued survivors of the Indianapolis. Railroad tycoon he might have been, but real Navy for all that.
Graham Claytor, who rebelled against the Carter admin and advocated for a larger Navy in Sea Plan 2000.
That is the gentleman. I also recall that he had the best looking Marine sergeant I've ever seen on the front desk.
I used pass by that same model during my daily stroll into the office - at some point it migrated from the Pentagon to a naval facility on the fringe of the Beltway. A beautiful representation of John C. Butler class DE!
I was there 1977-81. Briefer and then Navy Command Center desk officer (a.k.a. "Sweat hog").
I don’t like the office being used as reward for being a fund raiser and a donor. I’m not naive to see that it doesn’t happen, I am saying I don’t like it.
I don’t think we are going to be ready on “day one” with this guy.
If you want someone who understands "politics", who better than a successful fund raiser. Politics is raw human nature.
Not an uncommon practice, look at how many of our ambassadors are beneficiaries of political largess. I agree though a position of SECNAV, I'd like that person to have a firm understanding and possibly some background with the very organization they're supported to be in-charge of.
He’s a finance guy that ran a successful finance business. Finance guys are often a disaster when running anything else - see Robert MacNamara. Perhaps he will surround himself with a bunch of young, hard-charging Navy veterans who are aware of how little time is left on the clock. We shall see.
McNamara was a statistics guy who thought that anything that can't be quantified isn't important.
Yes. My experience with finance guys is that they often think they know everything because everything goes through their spreadsheets. But they don’t often understand operations, or management, or the market. As a Navy mom I can only hope he has excellent aides and he listens to them.
Old axiom: "Finance people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing."
Masters of the Universe
Haha that is EXACTLY what I used to call them! My husband worked with a lot of them and it was a type, for sure.
On Wall Street or in The City?