From a completely legalistic standpoint, I see nothing technically "wrong" in the sense of "unlawful" with the things CNATRA has put out. We are part of the military, and thus have obligations to obey out superiors and sometimes have to suck it up, etc, etc
My strong objection is from a rather broad-based, strategic, "what type of officer are we cultivating by this oversight" view. I worry that the new paradigm in Naval Aviation is safety at the expense of mission effectiveness. Getting a superiors permission instead of exercising individual initiative to make things happen. And while I trust many naval officers to be discerning individuals, I also see an organizational culture overly obsessed with meeting mishap reduction rate numbers as one that views risk-takers as undesirable.
Lest we forget, we are in a war against a foe that we do not only not fundamentally understand, but has the ability to adapt quickly to overcome our technological prowess by cheap and readily available means. The most effective way to combat such an adaptable enemy is by being equally nimble. This requires creative leaders who are willing to buck by-the-book solutions for those that are actually effective. I bet all you marines know platoon and company commanders in Iraq who have successfully completed a mission by discovering new and innovative ways to defeat their enemy.
I look at the greatest military leaders and philosophers of history, and find one overriding theme: initiative and risk-taking.
Lord Nelson - The master of delegation, trusting his captains to use individual initiative and thier own decision making capabilities to carry out the intent of his orders, not concerned with how they did it. Even though he died at Trafalger, his captains knew what they had to do, and utterly crushed the French. That's leadership.
General Grant - One of the first generals to realize the futility of early-1800s mass tactics with the advent of new weapons.
Sun Tzu - The king of deception, knowledge, delegation and fluidity
Patton - outlandish risk-taker with amazing results
The German Bliztkreig, Attilla the Hun, Mongols- All took great risks to challenge entrenched powers using quick, unanticipated tactics.
General Napoleon (not the Emperor - strategically not the same person) - realized the effectiveness of mass tactics and rapid advancement.
Col. John Boyd - Architect of the First Gulf War "left hook" and USMC feignt to the East which would have been even more spectacularily successful had the Army general in charge of the "left hook" not stopped prematurely, due to his entrenched doctrinal beliefs, allowing the republican guard to escape the pincers. Father of all air tactical doctrine (E-M, Thrust/Power, OODA loop) -
John Thatch - developer of the Thatch weave that successfully allowed the inferior Wildcat fighter to defeat the Japanese Zero.
LtGen James Mattis - modern day patton
Rat-catchers, all of them. These are the types of men who win wars. Those that have held back the development of tactics are those who are more traditional. THe vastly superior British should have destroyed the Germans in the battle of Jutland, but instead nearly lost because they were so locked into command and control that relied on signals from their flagship. They had no initiative, for fear of "breaking the line" and the professional repercussions, that when their flagship misinterpreted the situation, all the captains blindly followed, to great loss of life.
We as a country must focus on developing leaders who are willing to take risks and make mistakes sometimes. This is not to say that being stupid is ever helpful, but that some of the greatest lessons come from trying new things and improving on their observed deficiencies. By living in a constant state of fear from "doing something wrong" and being attrited, the naval aviatiors we are training for tomorrow are being imbued in a culture of risk-minimization that could ultimately lead to combat ineffectiveness.
I've heard the mantra that these are the things "we just have to put up with" to become Naval aviators. And put up with them we shall, for we have committed to following the orders of our superiors. But as officers we also have a duty to scrutinize and make judgements. If we see something unwise, we should have the courage to speak up, using the proper chain of command and routing procedures to rectify a wrong while still carrying out the original orders.
In my mind, whenever "intrusive leadership" is necessary, it may be more symbolic of the work that needs to be done by the leaders initiating such directives than a reflection of the percieved deficiencies of subordinates.
