Don't Get Caught!, or How US Navy Capt. Owen Honors Learned About Filmmaking

[Presley Cannady]

Bruce Fleming, "He was fired over his videos, but Capt. Owen Honors did the right thing"

[Rex Brynen]

There are, I think, two sets of issues here.

One is how offensive the videos were, or were not--especially in the ship-board context in which they were shown. I also think it is rather hard to make a complete judgment based on the selected excerpts that have appeared online.

Second, there is the judgment that Captain Honors demonstrated in showing the videos, repeatedly, to 5,800 diverse members of the Enterprise crew. I would venture that around 75% of the American public would have predicted that these videos a) would eventually leak, and b) when they did, they would likely adversely impact the image of the US, the USN, and the career of Captain Honors. I further imagine that 95% of all federal employees (including clerk-typists, drivers, and janitors) would have predicted the same.

The question then becomes whether you really want command of a CVN in the hands of an officer whose sense of the cultural, media, and political context (outside the bulkheads of his aircraft carrier) really falls in the bottom 5-20% --especially if, in a crisis, he might be called upon to use that range of skills. Can you really trust that an officer who misleads a visiting Hollywood star into appearing in a sophomoric video won't do the same to a local dignitary during a diplomatic port call?

Provided Captain Honors understands how his well-intentioned actions could be problematic (and learns from that), I see no reason why the incident should be a permanent handicap to his future navy career. However, the notion that senior command officers can blithely act as if they weren't embedded in a broader world is hardly anything that any military should want to encourage.

[M.L.]

Glad to see this post generated some discussion.

Two issues come to mind:

1. The core issue of this incident (in my opinion) is not whether or not Capt. Honors deserves to lose his job. Rather, the core issue is hypocrisy. In one sense, Capt. Honors is a victim of his own success, as well as the hypocrisy of his former leaders (many of whom are no doubt flag officers at present).

These leaders, who apparently think that these videos are an offense worthy of firing, did nothing to correct the situation four years ago when the videos were produced and shown. It is only now, when they are public, that Capt. Honors is being punished. Back then, Honors could have been given a reprimand that would not have ended his career. Today, he is relieved of command. His career is done.

The leaders who let Capt. Honors slide back in the day (probably because he was a high performer in mission-related work) weren't doing him any favors. It is their hypocrisy and failure to make a correction on a subordinate which bears as much of the blame for this as does Capt. Honors himself.

2. Second issue, and not quite as large. I've seen many comments that read something to the effect of "I'd rather have a good leader who is tactically sound and but offensive from time to time, than a poor leader who can't fight but who gets promoted because his is so politically correct."

This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason that a leader can't be tactically sound while at the same time acting in a professional manner.

[Pete]

It's futile to expect that all of what DoD and the armed forces do at any point in time will have an absolute logical consistency about them because situations and different parts of the institutions are contantly changing. It is particularly the case involving anything having sexual connotations -- thus the hue and cry about the "wardrobe malfunction" at a Super Bowl halftime show in a society that is awash with sexual imagery. This reminds me of our thead where we try to reconcile everything that Clausewitz and other military writers have said with our current doctrine in FM 3-0.

[Brihard]

There are, I think, two sets of issues here.

One is how offensive the videos were, or were not--especially in the ship-board context in which they were shown. I also think it is rather hard to make a complete judgment based on the selected excerpts that have appeared online.

Second, there is the judgment that Captain Honors demonstrated in showing the videos, repeatedly, to 5,800 diverse members of the Enterprise crew. I would venture that around 75% of the American public would have predicted that these videos a) would eventually leak, and b) when they did, they would likely adversely impact the image of the US, the USN, and the career of Captain Honors. I further imagine that 95% of all federal employees (including clerk-typists, drivers, and janitors) would have predicted the same.

The question then becomes whether you really want command of a CVN in the hands of an officer whose sense of the cultural, media, and political context (outside the bulkheads of his aircraft carrier) really falls in the bottom 5-20% --especially if, in a crisis, he might be called upon to use that range of skills. Can you really trust that an officer who misleads a visiting Hollywood star into appearing in a sophomoric video won't do the same to a local dignitary during a diplomatic port call?

Provided Captain Honors understands how his well-intentioned actions could be problematic (and learns from that), I see no reason why the incident should be a permanent handicap to his future navy career. However, the notion that senior command officers can blithely act as if they weren't embedded in a broader world is hardly anything that any military should want to encourage.

Well said, Rex, overall- although I think it's naive to think this won't handicap his career. Any pilot tagged for command of a CVN is already one of a select few, but in turn is competing for even more select command positions commanding a carrier battle group. That will not happen- he's permanently sidelined himself to desk jobs from here on in, and any later command role he may get will not be an operational one. His navy career is handicapped inasmuch as his rank progression (if any) will not likely involve future commands at sea.

With that said, I agree about your assessment of his judgment. At his level you only need to soil the bed once and you're permanently out of the running for top tier. There are those just as good as he is who have not erred so publicly, nor brought their units into disrepute.

[Ken White]

Here's one take I thought remarkably sensible.

LINK.

Any Commander needs a judicious blend of humility, compassion, ego and ambition -- probably in that order of importance -- and, if those are properly balanced, he or she will rarely be more than a half step away from a line that many believe should not be crossed. Where that line is located varies and in this era the location is almost totally societally based. There's a reason for the word 'political' in political correctness.

Sad thing is that warfare is totally politically incorrect and not societally proper. Makes for some bad decisions -- all the way around...