Is there such a thing as a strategic sailor? Civvie ride-along on the HMCS Halifax during TGEX, Nov 2007

When the Strategic Communications unit of Maritime Command invited me to ride along on the HMCS Halifax during the fall exercise TGEX, I didn't hesitate for a second. I thought the experience would broaden my thinking in a way that nothing else could, and I was right. It was like something out of a novel, everything was so foreign to me. I was at the top of my learning curve all the time, and it was really good to experience that as a professor -- it's very easy in my line of work to forget what it is like to learn. More than that, practically every moment was immensely revealing of a whole way of living and working that was completely outside my ken.

Some of the photographs I took can be seen here. In case it's not obvious, the worse I felt, the fewer pictures I took!

What was my hypothesis?

The Chief of Defense Staff, General Hillier, talks every once in a while about a strategic corporal. He 's not the first to talk about this, but it means a corporal who can think globally and act locally. As a strategist, I wondered whether there was such a thing as a strategic sailor. I hypothesized that s/he did exist. For more on the strategic corporal, see my earlier post on that subject.

How did I prepare?

I read everything on the National Defense of Canada website about the navy and the ship, including the strategic plan for the navy to 2020. I looked for academic literature on the Canadian navy, but found only historical stuff. So as a substitute, I read half a dozen Congressional Research Reports on naval issues that were broad enough to be applicable to other navies.

What did I do once on board?

I watched and listened and talked. I got lost quite a bit in what I call the navspeak, i.e. the jargon. I asked some people more questions about their jobs. I watched exercises that involved more or fewer people, I listened to the briefings, I listened when I could to people talking to each other. I observed how they interacted with me and the other three civilians when we were being briefed. I watched for the structure of the thinking behind all of the above.

What did I look for?

Capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff; ability to see the big picture; ability to use non-rational processes of thought and non-rational types of knowledge; multitasking; ability to think with the characteristics of underdog strategy; ability to work intuitively in a productive way; all of the above under the increasing stress of difficult or dangerous work and living conditions.

What did I find?

There are strategic sailors across several ranks and trades, although I cannot tell if they exist across all ranks and trades. There are underdog strategists working aboard, but all the ones I found were statistically unlikely, so there are probably lots more I didn't have a chance to identify.

Did I find mistakes underdogs make?

I didn't look for any, but I didn't notice any either. I did see a few strong-side strategic mistakes, i.e. situations that would have benefited from underdog strategy.

Why should anyone care?

I'm of the opinion that if Canada ever gets into a really big fight, what will save lives is how people think, now how big of a stick we can bring to the fight. I'm with General Patton: ""Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." (Cavalry Journal, September 1933-- thanks to Tony Prudori for digging the quote up for me.) In the meantime, if the navy is to fight terrorism, piracy, smuggling, and rescue people as well, then underdog thinking is also important. What I found is good news in that regard, I personally was reassured and even admiring. Whether I can get that sort of talent identified clearly enough for it to play a role in military planning and execution, however, I have yet to see. I imagine I'm going to run smack into habitus, i.e. established ways of thinking manifested in ordinary situations by skepticism and rolling of the eyes. Well, whatever. That is the challenge to come.