DOCSLIB.ORG

Movement and Maneuver Culture and the Competition for Influence Among the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Movement and Maneuver Culture and the Competition for Influence Among the U.S Movement and Maneuver Culture and the Competition for Influence Among the U.S. Military Services S. Rebecca Zimmerman, Kimberly Jackson, Natasha Lander, Colin Roberts, Dan Madden, Rebeca Orrie C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2270 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0189-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report presents findings intended to assist the Office of the Secretary of Defense to understand the current character of interservice competition and how service culture impacts the ways in which the military services posture themselves to secure institu- tional relevance. We examine cultural shifts and competitive strategies that have devel- oped over the last 30 years, focusing on events and patterns that have emerged since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. In this report, we analyze the cultural characteristics and competitive strategies and tactics exhibited by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Based on this analysis, we assess how each of the services and USSOCOM might adapt and respond if faced with major policy shifts in the future, focusing specifically on contingencies in the Asia-Pacific. This project was sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/isdp.html or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). iii Contents Preface ................................................................................................. iii Figures .................................................................................................vii Tables .................................................................................................. ix Summary .............................................................................................. xi Acknowledgments ................................................................................ xxiii Abbreviations ....................................................................................... xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Our Purpose ............................................................................................ 2 Organizations as Powerful Actors .................................................................... 3 Relative Power and Influence of Services ........................................................... 8 The Changing Character of Competition .........................................................13 Studying Culture and Competition .................................................................15 CHAPTER TWO The Army ..............................................................................................21 Major Defining Characteristics of the Army ..................................................... 22 Arenas of Competition ...............................................................................33 Preferred Tactics of Competition ................................................................... 43 How Others View the Army .........................................................................45 CHAPTER THREE The Navy ..............................................................................................47 Major Defining Characteristics of the Navy .......................................................47 Arenas of Competition ...............................................................................58 Preferred Tactics of Competition ....................................................................65 How Others View the Navy .........................................................................73 v vi Movement and Maneuver CHAPTER FOUR The Air Force ........................................................................................ 77 Major Defining Characteristics of the Air Force ................................................. 77 Arenas of Competition .............................................................................. 84 Preferred Tactics of Competition ................................................................... 90 How Others View the Air Force ....................................................................93 CHAPTER FIVE The Marine Corps ...................................................................................95 Major Defining Characteristics of the Marine Corps ........................................... 96 Arenas of Competition ............................................................................. 108 Preferred Tactics of Competition .................................................................. 115 How Others View the Marine Corps ............................................................. 122 CHAPTER SIX U.S. Special Operations Command ............................................................ 125 Major Defining Characteristics of U.S. Special Operations Command ..................... 127 Cultures of Each Service’s Special Operations Forces Component ........................... 140 Arenas of Competition ............................................................................. 148 Preferred Tactics of Competition .................................................................. 157 How Others View U.S. Special Operations Command and Special Operations Forces ... 164 CHAPTER SEVEN Implications for Future Conflicts .............................................................. 169 The Future of Competition ........................................................................ 169 Army .................................................................................................. 169 Navy .................................................................................................. 171 Air Force ............................................................................................. 174 Marine Corps ........................................................................................ 176 U.S. Special Operations Command .............................................................. 178 CHAPTER EIGHT Conclusion .......................................................................................... 183 Summary of Findings............................................................................... 183 The Future of Competition ........................................................................ 186 APPENDICES A. Historical Milestones Narrative ............................................................ 189 B. Interview Protocol ............................................................................ 217 References ........................................................................................... 219 Figures 1.1. Department of Defense Organization .................................................. 9 2.1. Army Base Budget Versus Contingency Funding, Fiscal Years 2001–2017 ..... 42 5.1. Marine Air Ground Task Forces ...................................................... 97 5.2. Service End Strength (Thousands) .................................................. 112 5.3. Marine Corps FedEx Variant Bumper Sticker ..................................... 117 A.1. Grand Strategic Eras ................................................................... 190 A.2. Unipolar-Era Shocks ................................................................... 195 A.3. Nonstate-Actor-Era Shocks ........................................................... 202 A.4. Budget by Military Department ..................................................... 203 A.5. Funding for U.S. Special Operations Command .................................. 207 A.6. Great-Power-Era Shocks..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Soldiers and Veterans Against the War
    Vietnam Generation Volume 2 Number 1 GI Resistance: Soldiers and Veterans Article 1 Against the War 1-1990 GI Resistance: Soldiers and Veterans Against the War Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/vietnamgeneration Part of the American Studies Commons Recommended Citation (1990) "GI Resistance: Soldiers and Veterans Against the War," Vietnam Generation: Vol. 2 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: http://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/vietnamgeneration/vol2/iss1/1 This Complete Volume is brought to you for free and open access by La Salle University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vietnam Generation by an authorized editor of La Salle University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GI RESISTANCE: S o l d ie r s a n d V e t e r a n s AGAINST THE WAR Victim am Generation Vietnam Generation was founded in 1988 to promote and encourage interdisciplinary study of the Vietnam War era and the Vietnam War generation. The journal is published by Vietnam Generation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation devoted to promoting scholarship on recent history and contemporary issues. ViETNAM G en eratio n , In c . ViCE-pRESidENT PRESidENT SECRETARY, TREASURER Herman Beavers Kali Tal Cindy Fuchs Vietnam G eneration Te c HnIc a I A s s is t a n c e EdiTOR: Kali Tal Lawrence E. Hunter AdvisoRy BoARd NANCY ANISFIELD MICHAEL KLEIN RUTH ROSEN Champlain College University of Ulster UC Davis KEVIN BOWEN GABRIEL KOLKO WILLIAM J. SEARLE William Joiner Center York University Eastern Illinois University University of Massachusetts JACQUELINE LAWSON JAMES C.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs December 9, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41526 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense Summary Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles. These more powerful lasers might, among other things, provide Navy surface ships with a terminal-defense capability against certain ballistic missiles, including the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that China is believed to be developing. The Navy and DOD are developing three principal types of lasers for potential use on Navy surface ships—fiber solid state lasers (SSLs), slab SSLs, and free electron lasers (FELs). The Navy’s fiber SSL prototype demonstrator is called the Laser Weapon System (LaWS). Among DOD’s multiple efforts to develop slab SSLs for military use is the Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD), a prototype laser weapon developed as a rapid demonstration project. The Navy has developed a lower-power FEL prototype and is now developing a prototype with scaled-up power.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Transmission of Commanders Intent
    12th ICCRTS I-038-DraftB Assessing the transmission of Command Intent Geoffrey Hone Ian R Whitworth Andy Farmilo Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA UK Abstract A key requirement for success in any military operation is that the Intentions of the Officer in Command be accurately transmitted down through the command hierarchy. It is these intentions that should convey the commander’s requirements for the proposed operation, and should include a statement both of the purpose, and of the required outcome, of the operation about to be undertaken. Without the accurate transmission of intent, the desired effect may well not be achieved. This paper will discuss a two-stage process directed at assessing the transmission of Commander’s Intent, and which also has potential as a tool for de-risking a proposed operation. There is a further potential for use in the training of junior officers and cadets. INTRODUCTION The passage of orders down through any command structure, has been described by Bateman (1998) as the RUDE Cycle (Receive, Understand, Disseminate, Execute), with the same RUDE process occurring at each stage down the hierarchy. It follows from RUDE that at each level below the top command level, a subordinate commander must carry out the first three components and then prepare for the fourth. Thus, if a Commander carries out an assessment of the orders handed down by his direct subordinates to their subordinates – that is to say: at two levels down from his own – then the Reception, Understanding and Dissemination components can form the basis of a framework for that assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodicals and Recurring Documents
    PERIODICALS AND RECURRING DOCUMENTS May 2012 Legend A ANNUAL S-M SEMI-MONTHLY D DAILY BI-M BI-MONTHLY W WEEKLY Q QUARTERLY BI-W BI-WEEKLY TRI-A TRI-ANNUAL M MONTHLY IRR IRREGULAR S-A SEMI-ANNUAL A ACADEME. (BI-M) 1985-1989 ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. PROCEEDINGS. (IRR) 1960-1991 (MFILM 1975-1980) (MFICHE 1981-1982) ACQUISITION REVIEW QUARTERLY. (Q) 1994-2003 CONTINUED BY DEFENSE ACQUISITION REVIEW JOURNAL. AD ASTRA-TO THE STARS. (M) 1989-1992 ADA. (Q) 1991-1997 FORMERLY AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY. ADF: AFRICA DEFENSE FORUM. (Q) 2008- ADVANCE. (A) 1986-1994 ADVANCED MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. SEE S.A.M. ADVANCED MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. ADVISOR. (Q) 1974-1978 FORMERLY JOURNAL OF NAVY CIVILIAN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT. ADVOCATE. (BI-M) 1982-1984 - 1 - AEI DEFENSE REVIEW. (BI-M) 1977-1978 CONTINUED BY AEI FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE REVIEW. AEI FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE REVIEW. (BI-M) 1979-1986 FORMERLY AEI DEFENSE REVIEW. AEROSPACE. (Q) 1963-1987 AEROSPACE AMERICA. (M) 1984-1998 FORMERLY ASTRONAUTICS & AERONAUTICS. AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE SCIENCE. (Q) 1990-1991 FORMERLY DEFENSE SCIENCE. AEROSPACE HISTORIAN. (Q) 1965-1988 FORMERLY AIRPOWER HISTORIAN. CONTINUED BY AIR POWER HISTORY. AEROSPACE INTERNATIONAL. (BI-M) 1967-1981 FORMERLY AIR FORCE SPACE DIGEST INTERNATIONAL. AEROSPACE MEDICINE. (M) 1973-1974 CONTINUED BY AVIATION SPACE AND EVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE. AEROSPACE POWER JOURNAL. (Q) 1999-2002 FORMERLY AIRPOWER JOURNAL. CONTINUED BY AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL. AEROSPACE SAFETY. (M) 1976-1980 AFRICA REPORT. (BI-M) 1967-1995 (MFICHE 1979-1994) AFRICA TODAY. (Q) 1963-1990; (MFICHE 1979-1990) 1999-2007 AFRICAN SECURITY. (Q) 2010- AGENDA. (M) 1978-1982 AGORA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment
    DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD Submitted to the Secretary of Defense The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: An Assessment DBB FY 20-01 An assessment of the effectiveness, responsibilities, and authorities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense as required by §904 of the FY20 NDAA June 1, 2020 DBB FY20-01 CMO Assessment 1 Executive Summary Tasking and Task Force: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law (Pub. L. 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense (SD) to conduct an independent assessment of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) with six specific areas to be evaluated. The Defense Business Board (DBB) was selected on February 3, 2020 to conduct the independent assessment, with Arnold Punaro and Atul Vashistha assigned to co-chair the effort. Two additional DBB board members comprised the task force: David Walker and David Van Slyke. These individuals more than meet the independence and competencies required by the NDAA. Approach: The DBB task force focused on the CMO office and the Department of Defense (DoD) business transformation activities since 2008 when the office was first established by the Congress as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), and in 2018 when the Congress increased its statutory authority and elevated it to Executive Level (EX) II and the third ranking official in DoD. The taskforce reviewed all previous studies of DoD management and organizations going back twenty years and completed over ninety interviews, including current and former DoD, public and private sector leaders. The assessments of CMO effectiveness since 2008 are focused on the performance of the CMO as an organizational entity, and is not an appraisal of any administration or appointee.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Politics of Defense Reviews
    C O R P O R A T I O N The History and Politics of Defense Reviews Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2278 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9973-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The 1993 Bottom-Up Review starts with this challenge: “Now that the Cold War is over, the questions we face in the Department of Defense are: How do we structure the armed forces of the United States for the future? How much defense is enough in the post–Cold War era?”1 Finding a satisfactory answer to these deceptively simple questions not only motivated the Bottom-Up Review but has arguably animated defense strategy for the past quarter century.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming the Structure of the Military
    Transforming the Structure of the Military Combat Decisions—Rank, Responsibility, or Frontline Position? Case Studies in National Security Transformation Number 4 Bing West December 2006 Sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Forces Transformation and Resources Prepared by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from unclassified materials. Bing West served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Reagan administration. A graduate of Georgetown and Princeton Universities, he served in Marine infantry in Vietnam. His books have won the Marine Corps Heritage Prize and the Colby Award for Military History and have appeared on the Commandant's Reading List. West appears frequently on The News Hour and Fox News. He is a member of St. Crispin's Order of the Infantry and the Council on Foreign Relations. He lives in Newport, RI. ii Introduction This case raises the questions of whether, in this day of advanced information networks, field grade military officers should be present at the scene of complex tactical battles and whether net-centric operations allow commanders to operate effectively from the front lines. Many have assumed that new information technologies lift the fog of war and therefore allow commanders to operate with clear vision from rear positions. This case examines the opposite postulate—that net-centric capabilities allow a commander to control operations and his own rear-based command staff from a forward-based position that enables him to watch the battle unfold firsthand.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Generals
    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE Trump’s Generals: A Natural Experiment in Civil-Military Relations JAMES JOYNER Abstract President Donald Trump’s filling of numerous top policy positions with active and retired officers he called “my generals” generated fears of mili- tarization of foreign policy, loss of civilian control of the military, and politicization of the military—yet also hope that they might restrain his worst impulses. Because the generals were all gone by the halfway mark of his administration, we have a natural experiment that allows us to com- pare a Trump presidency with and without retired generals serving as “adults in the room.” None of the dire predictions turned out to be quite true. While Trump repeatedly flirted with civil- military crises, they were not significantly amplified or deterred by the presence of retired generals in key roles. Further, the pattern continued in the second half of the ad- ministration when “true” civilians filled these billets. Whether longer-term damage was done, however, remains unresolved. ***** he presidency of Donald Trump served as a natural experiment, testing many of the long- debated precepts of the civil-military relations (CMR) literature. His postelection interviewing of Tmore than a half dozen recently retired four- star officers for senior posts in his administration unleashed a torrent of columns pointing to the dangers of further militarization of US foreign policy and damage to the military as a nonpartisan institution. At the same time, many argued that these men were uniquely qualified to rein in Trump’s worst pro- clivities. With Trump’s tenure over, we can begin to evaluate these claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 03 Issue 3
    Autumn Readings Air Base Defense Kenney in the Pacific Wartime Manpower Secretary of the Air Force Dr Donald B. Rice Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Larry D. Welch Commander, Air University Lt Gen Ralph E. Havens Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education Gol Sidney J. Wise Editor Col Keith W. Geiger Associate Editor Maj Michael A. Kirtland Professional Staff Hugh Richardson, Contributing Editor Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor John A. Westcott, Art Director and Production Manager Steven C. Garst, Art Editor and Illustrator The Airpower Journal, published quarterly, is the professional journal of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for presenting and stimulating innovative think- ing on military doctrine, strategy, tactics, force structure, readiness, and other national defense matters. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, the Air Force, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. Articles in this edition may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If repro- duced, the Airpower Journal requests a courtesy line. JOURNAL FALL 1989, Vol. Ill, No. 3 AFRP 50-2 To Protect an Air Base Brig Gen Raymond E. Beil, fr., USAR, Retired 4 One-A-Penny, Two-A-Penny Wing Comdr Brian L. Kavanagh, RAAF Wing Comdr David J. Schubert, RAAF 20 Aggressive Vision Maj Charles M. Westenhoff, USAF 34 US Space Doctrine: Time for a Change? Lt Col Alan J.
    [Show full text]
  • RAND Study of Reserve Xxii Realigning the Stars
    Realigning the Stars A Methodology for Reviewing Active Component General and Flag Officer Requirements RAND National Defense Research Institute C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2384 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0070-3 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Eileen Delson La Russo; image by almagami/Getty Images. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Realigning the Stars Study Team Principal Investigator Lisa M. Harrington Structure and Organization Position-by-Position Position Pyramid Health Analysis Analysis Analysis Igor Mikolic-Torreira, Paul Mayberry, team lead Katharina Ley Best, team lead Sean Mann team lead Kimberly Jackson Joslyn Fleming Peter Schirmer Lisa Davis Alexander D.
    [Show full text]
  • UNL NROTC Battalion to Discuss Ancient Philosophers’ Views on Ethics in the Con- Text of Modern Military Ethics with Our Bright and Engaging Graduating Midshipmen
    Page 24 UNIVERSITYPage 1 OF NEBRASKA NAVAL ROTC S p r i n g 2 0 1 0 University of Nebraska Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Mission CO’s Corner By Captain Jeffrey Whiting To develop Midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically, and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty in order to commission graduates as officers who The spring semester crept by during one of the coldest possess a basic professional background, are motivated toward careers in the naval service, and have a potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest winters in the last 20 years of Nebraska’s history. Luckily, responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government. the weather kept people indoors to study (I hope). It certainly didn’t slow down the thinking and discussions of the seniors in my Leadership and Ethics class. It was quite an experience UNL NROTC Battalion to discuss ancient philosophers’ views on ethics in the con- text of modern military ethics with our bright and engaging graduating midshipmen. I believe all of us learned more than expected. Now that good weather is upon us, we are preparing for the Chancellor’s Review, Navy Day, Graduation and Com- missioning. The end of the year is coming at us fast, and the end of college will soon be upon our graduating seniors. Our seniors will graduate and immediately CO’s Corner 1 afterwards become commissioned officers in the Na- vy and the Marine Corps. We look forward to their XO’s Corner 2 continued successes and hope that we have prepared BNCO’s Corner 3 them for the challenges that they will surely face.
    [Show full text]