Chowder II - Setting the Record Straight

A Reply to the MCA Post, "Transparency"

Setting the Record Straight: Making “Transparency” Transparent

Compass Points endeavors each day to focus on open and honest debate about issues important to the Marine Corps. Occasionally, though, an event occurs that is a distraction, yet a distraction that requires deeper examination.  The Editor of the Marine Corps Gazette has taken to the Marine Corps Association web site with a post he calls, “Transparency.” It purports to be an explanation of why he belatedly decided not to publish the three articles written by Chowder II members. 

The “Transparency” post is not transparent. It is not an accurate portrayal of the events leading to the Gazette editor’s decision not to publish the three articles and the events following that decision.  Below are the facts:

Fact 1

Regarding his decision not to publish the articles the Editor wrote in “Transparency,” “No pressure or influence from the leadership of the Association, HQMC, or anyone else forced me to change course.”  How are we to square that statement to one he made earlier in an email to a Chowder II member dated Wednesday, 30 November at 3:49 PM: “Break, break, we [MCA/Gazette] have also started taking heavy fire from HQMC over this [the three articles]”?

Two members of Chowder II asked the President and CEO of the MCA about pressure from HQMC, and he said, “the Editor had received no pressure from the Commandant, Assistant Commandant, or anyone of consequence.”  When we asked him to clarify the term “anyone of consequence” he said it was a colonel.  So, in fact the Editor did receive pressure from HQMC.

Fact 2

The Gazette Editor wrote in “Transparency” that, “we hastily published the ‘Preface’ to the Chowder II series online while starting the editing process on the other three articles.”  In fact, Chowder II provided the Preface and the three articles to the Gazette two weeks before publication and in that interval, members had numerous interactions with the Editor clarifying and checking content.  We have available copies of the numerous emails detailing the exchanges that occurred during this process.  The Gazette staff prepared and provided to Chowder II print-ready copies of the Preface and the three articles a few days before scheduled publication.  So, in fact there was nothing hasty about this process.

Fact 3

In “Transparency” the Gazette Editor asserts that in our three articles, “FD 2030 becomes the military problem and the only solution is ‘not FD 2030’.”  Our second article argues that Force Design 2030 focuses on the wrong problem, not that it is the problem, and after a detailed analysis of the right problem the author concludes: “I have proposed an alternative problem framing—preserving or restoring the ability to maneuver in an age of precision weapons—which I believe is both consistent with traditional Marine Corps roles and missions and responsive to the emerging security environment. Solving that problem will lead to a very different force design.”   (John Schmitt, author of Warfighting wrote these words.)  Compass Points readers will be able to read this article in its entirety on Tuesday, 13 December when it appears in a national magazine, to which we will provide a link. So, the fact is Chowder II’s article focuses on the real problem, not Force Design 2030 as the problem.

Fact 4

In “Transparency” the Gazette Editor wrote regarding a debate, “The arguments in such a debate need to be fact-based and logically valid” implying our three articles did not meet that standard.  We dispute that allegation but are puzzled why he came to that conclusion the night before publication rather than during the two weeks of deliberation. Could his decision have been influenced by the colonel representing HQMC? 

Nonetheless, honoring his last-minute request in an email dated Thursday, 1 December  at 10:26 AM, Chowder II provided sources for every item of concern that the Editor identified and informed him in an email dated Thursday, 1 December at 3:55 PM that we stood by to answer any questions he might have about sources.  Chowder II members, have previously authored many articles for the Gazette where there was no last minute, exaggerated concern about sources and endnotes. 

As to our articles being logically valid, we leave it to readers next week to determine if our case is argued logically.  Apparently, the editor of the major magazine that will publish them believes they are argued logically.  (We note that this media outlet has more than a million unique visitors each month compared to the hundreds or perhaps thousands who visit the MCA web site in that same time.). So, we see no valid evidence to support the Gazette Editor’s assertion about a lack of logical argument.

Fact 5

The Gazette Editor expresses concern in “Transparency” about our use of the pseudonym Chowder II.  If he had asked, we would have shared the names of the two Four-Star Generals who have signed the first article and the two Four-Star Generals who have signed the third article.  The second article was identified from the outset as one produced by former Marine John F. Schmitt, who as we noted, is the author of the seminal manual Warfighting.  So, if the Editor had called a Chowder member (a retired Lieutenant General) as the general requested, he would have been provided these names.

Fact 6

The Editor writes in “Transparency” that, “I made the representatives of Chowder II aware of these issues and established the following conditions for publication . . . .  To date they have refused [to meet the conditions] and intend to seek out publication in another journal.”

While he did make us aware of these conditions in an email on Thursday, 1 December at 10:26 AM, Chowder II members were happy to polish the articles.  A Chowder II member replied in an email on Thursday, 1 December at 3:55 PM: “Jerry and I and our whole team are here to assist you in getting the article right (foolproof if possible).  You can call me anytime day or night for assistance getting things back on track.”

Some 96 hours passed between that appeal for him to call and his “Transparency” post.  He never called. If he had called, he would have been told Chowder II members were more than willing to meet many of his conditions.

To counter the claim of the Editor that we did not respond is the fact that a member of Chowder II sent an email to the President and CEO of MCA on Friday, 2 December at 1:01 PM and informed him we were willing to accept many of the conditions and asked him to have the Editor call.  The Editor was copied on that email.  The same message was repeated in another email to the President and CEO on Saturday, 3 December who said he would ask the Editor to call on Monday, 5 December.  The Editor never called.  So, the fact is Chowder II did respond.  The Editor was the one who did not respond.

As an aside, we note that the Gazette Editor did not allow our online response to his “Transparency” post to appear on the MCA web site.  It appears he has shut down the “Transparency” comment function.  Transparent it is not!

It is worth emphasizing that all Marines can be justifiably proud of the Marine Corps Gazette and its long history of open and spirited debate about important topics.  Few professional military journals can equal the record of our Gazette and we urge the continued support of the Marine Corps Association and all its publications.

The above post is the end of our discussion on the issue.  It is time to move beyond distractions and focus on the stated purpose of Compass Points: open debate on the direction of the Marine Corps. The publication of Vision 2035, will help stimulate worthwhile discussion. Compass Points asks readers to please join the debate on these pages as we strive for a ready, relevant, and capable Marine Corps.