Official websites use .mil
Secure .mil websites use HTTPS
Adm. Buck, Adm. Daly, Adm. Cox, and to everyone at U.S. Naval Institute – and the Naval History and Heritage Command – thank you for organizing this essay contest and this ceremony. I know there are many invisible hands that make this event possible, so my sincere thanks to all of you who have worked so hard behind the scenes to make this event such a success.
Let me also take a moment up front to thank the Judging Committee – the naval historians from USNI, the U.S. Naval Academy, the Naval War College, the Naval Postgraduate School, NHHC, and on the Navy Staff at the Pentagon.
All of you have made some outstanding selections for this year’s awards. Thank you for your expertise, time, and support.
And to our award winners and their families, congratulations on a truly impressive achievement.
As I was preparing my remarks for today, I was reflecting on an essay by the American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. entitled, “The Challenge of Change.” In thinking about the accelerating rate of technological change that continues to profoundly shape our world, Schlesinger argued that we must not underestimate the importance of history, which allows us to draw sustenance and wisdom from the past.
“Science and technology,” he wrote, “revolutionize our lives … but memory and tradition frame our response. … The past helps explain where we are today … how we got here.” And – I would add – where we might be heading. For often, what’s past is prologue.
So as a Navy, even as we strive for modernization, invention, and innovation in weapons, platforms, and sensors, it is equally important that we study our history and remember our heritage. For there we will find inspiration, instruction, and enlightenment. Warfighting excellence lies not just in technical mastery, but also in historical literacy and institutional memory.
This imperative is what brings us together today. As you all know, the purpose of this essay contest is to engage and leverage the intellectual talents of the members of the U.S. maritime services to provide insights, catalyze discussion, and apply lessons from history on how we can establish and maintain maritime superiority in an era of strategic competition.
This year’s winners have done exactly that. And in the best traditions of historical analysis, their essays engage in a conversation between the past and the future. So that what has already occurred can prepare us for what may come. Allow me to share with you some of my key takeaways from their writing.
Lt. Col. Owens reminds us that during World War II, Marine Corps aviation played a significant role as a land-based, fleet air component helping clear the way for naval forces to gain sea control. So when – as Col. Owens reminds us – the Commandant announced in 2018 that Marines will focus on “defending key maritime terrain that enables persistent sea control and denial operations,” he was simply returning the Corps to the kind of mission Marine aviation has historically played.
In his essay on “Just in Time Production,” Cmdr. Wright warns us that as World War II fades further into the past, we risk developing a dangerous misperception about the triumph over Japan.
The narrative that has emerged is the story of American industry – awakened by the attack on Pearl Harbor, producing an unstoppable military juggernaut. However, Cmdr. Wright reminds us that the ships which fought in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Guadalcanal campaign, and the Battle of Midway—including the three aircraft carriers Yorktown, Enterprise, and Hornet—were all built as part of a “peacetime navy” in the 1930s, even as our nation was struggling through the Great Depression. The lessons for today’s peacetime Navy are clear: we can build now … or pay later.
Maj. Nicholson draws lessons from the 1942 Solomon Islands Campaign and the 1982 Falkland Islands Campaign to provide insight into how we could prevail in a conflict over the first island chain.
First, he suggests that Americans need Allies and partners who can allow the first island chain to become a maritime perimeter that constrains the PRC by offering American forces a “home-team advantage” through access and integration. Second, we should capitalize on this advantage by building “forts,” land-based positions on key terrain from which to project power and enable sea control at decisive points. Third, we must establish a trusted scouting network to efficiently and effectively close the kill chain. As Maj. Nicholson suggests, the first island chain is the front line of maritime strategic competition with the PRC – and we should be thoughtful about the strategic role its geography plays.
Let me note that Maj. Nicholson could not be here because he is out there on the front lines in Okinawa with III MEF. His father, Doctor Nigel Nicholson, will receive the award on his son’s behalf. Doctor Nicholson, thank you for being here today, thank you for your service, and thank you for raising such a terrific son.
The two other prize-winning essays each examined the ill-fated American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, known as “ABDA.” This was a supreme allied command formed in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack which lasted less than two months. Mr. Andrew Blackley suggests that the command failed for several reasons – all tied to a lack of unity: multinational force elements had never previously worked together, spoke different languages, and operated within very different military cultures.
ABDA’s reactive efforts to cobble together a combined force with an ad-hoc strategy were doomed to fail, and in hindsight, it’s no surprise the coalition was so short-lived. As Mr. Blackley suggests, the future success of combined operations will depend on the planning and integration we can establish prior to conflict.
Lt. Cregge also sees the ABDA command as an object lesson for a future conflict in the Pacific, and he makes the case for a new American-British-Japanese-Australian, or ABJA, Combined Joint Task Force. Forming such a unified command prior to conflict would allow for regular, integrated, high-end warfighting exercises across the theater while strengthening staff linkages and synchronizing national war plans.
Multinational, high-end combat – he warns – is not a pickup game. He’ll get no argument from me!
So as you can see, this year’s award winners have done some terrific work. These essays have certainly stimulated my thinking, and I know they will advance the broader strategic conversations we are having throughout our maritime services. And their timing couldn’t be better.
The President has just released our new National Security Strategy … and it is clear: we are now in the early years of a decisive decade for America – and the world. This is a decade in which the terms of geopolitical competition between the major powers will be set. I believe that the terms of this competition will have maritime characteristics, as the principal field of competition will be the sea.
And when I see the talent in today’s award winners, I am as optimistic as ever about the future of our maritime force … and the future of our nation.
As a predecessor of mine, the 16th CNO, Adm. George W. Anderson once said: “The Navy has both a tradition and a future … and we look with pride and confidence in both directions.”
Thank you all. Now let’s present the awards!
Adm. Mike Gilday
25 October 2022
Subject specific information for the media
Events or announcements of note for the media
Official Navy statements
Given by Navy leadership
HASC, SASC and Congressional testimony
Google Translation Disclaimer