Richard O'Brien's Feb. 5 Politico article, "The Navy's Hidden Crisis," rightly expresses concern over the decreasing number of ships and its impact on the ability to secure the oceans and project power. However, his analyses tend to be one-sided while his thoughts on messaging reflect a bigger issue as to how the Navy connects with the broader public.

Mr. O'Brien needs to look at all of the civilian leadership and their role, not just that in the White House, and should consider how the message of a strong Navy needs to be personalized for the average voter.

First, Mr. O'Brien opens by laying the issue at the feet of the Navy itself, writing, "It was only the latest revelation, though, about how deeply and how quickly the Navy's ambitions are shrinking — even in an age when our adversaries are growing their own navies in oceans around the world."

Ambition requires resources. I have faith in Navy leadership that if they felt confident that they would get "X" in funding they would do "X" in support of said ambition. However, they must work within the constraints given to them by civilian leadership, both executive and legislative.

Therefore, if one buys into Mr. O'Brien's argument, then it's not the Navy's ambitions that are shrinking but that of the nation's leaders themselves.

Which brings me to the larger concern I have about the article, the near-free pass that Congress gets in his frustration over the shrinking fleet. As a case in point, his discussion about aircraft carriers includes the following quote: "Due to budget cuts and the follow on threat of sequestration, the carrier fleet will likely shrink from the Ccongressionally mandated 11eleven to 10ten or even lower."

Sequestration was created and passed not by the White House but by Congress. In fact, the latest defense budget crafted by DoD and submitted by the pPresident was $86 billion over Congress' self-imposed spending cap enacted in 2011, and includes, among other things, the funds for midlife refueling of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier, keeping the active number at 10, with Gerald Ford on the way as the 11th.

If Mr. O'Brien is to present a fair and balanced argument, then holding accountable those who have the money is as important as those who use the money.

Finally, while I agree broadly with Mr. O'Brien's closing assertion that a strong Navy is worthy of a strong message, I do not share his conviction that it is "... a message that can resonate with just about any voter."

The beauty of the Navy is that since the days of the Barbary pirates in the 1800s it was and is an over-the-horizon ever-present force. While other services surge during crises, the Navy (and its Marine Corps brethren) is constantly deploying. However, when it comes time to sell itself to the public that out-of-sight, out-of-mind becomes its Achilles heel.

Yes, they occasionally make movies or TV shows about ships, but "Battleship" or "The Last Ship" aren't exactly messaging triumphs. In fact, the only thing the public knows about the Navy right now are the SEALs, in some respect the least "Navy" of all the subspecialties.

To be serious about bringing the Navy to voter awareness and action, the messaging needs to move away from lofty language about national security and global commons. Instead, it needs to address their immediate concerns. "Do you want your TV or other electronic device to cost at least twice of what it is now? Are you enjoying the sub-$2 gallon of gas, or would you rather pay $7? Because without the Navy to secure the trade routes, that's what will happen." Speak to a voter's personal stake and you'll get their attention.

Many of us in the naval service share the concerns of Mr. O'Brien, particularly as we deploy longer to cover down on the globe and work harder to maintain aging equipment. However, if a mature discussion about the future of the Navy is to be had, then that discussion must be balanced at the policymaker level and accessible at the voter level.

Mark Seip is the senior Navy fellow at the Atlantic Council. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the Department of Defense or Department of the Navy.

Share:
More In Commentary