Dissent Channels
A radical proposal for increasing a commander's situational awareness
The Distro is proud to present this essay and its author, Major Benjamin Van Horrick, USMC.
Ben is a brilliant officer, a deep thinker, and an excellent writer. I am trying to convince Ben to start his own newsletter because the military and the world needs to hear what he has to say. Please help me convince him by hitting the like button, sharing this post on your social media, and commenting your thoughts below.
Don’t Kill Your Mavericks
FBI Special Agent John P. O'Neill was a patriot, maverick, and dissenter.
The colorful, flawed, and talented O’Neill sounded the alarm during the 90s on the threats posed by Al-Qaida. A power struggle within the FBI led to his retirement. On the morning of 9/11, O’Neill went off to work in his job — head of security for the World Trade Center. O’Neill was among the 2,801 who lost their life.
The 2002 Frontline documentary titled “The Man Who Knew” best documented O’Neill bureaucratic fight within the FBI.
One of O’Neill’s bosses, Robert H. “Bear” Bryant, remarked:
My daddy always said, “Don't kill your mavericks. They might save your life some day, and they're the ones that will always have the great ideas. So try to take care of them.”
John O’Neill was a maverick—a brilliant maverick.
Mavericks and dissenters can save your life and organization, if only you let them.
Commanders maneuver organizations as they absorb, interpret, and apply information into their mental maps, even if the information is uncomfortable.
Dissent could be the most vital piece of information a commander needs.
For the military, a dissent mechanism can provide valuable feedback to inform decisions and alter the direction of the command.
Dissent in the Military
Voicing a dissenting opinion in the proper channels does not represent a threat to a military command and its mission. In fact, the expression of such opinions, and their support, can strengthen a command and a service. The recent high-profile resignation letters from a military officer and a State Department official in response to America’s support for Israel underscore the need for a dissent channel for military members.1 However, these blistering, earnest letters show the need for a better mechanism for communicating with a command or Service and potentially influencing its mission.
As the US Military faces numerous challenges, including boosting retention, jump start recruitment, implementing force design changes, and preventing tinderboxes from becoming flash points, a dissent channel would allow senior military professionals to improve the profession of arms.
The Diplomatic Corps Dissent Channel
The US diplomatic corps offers its senior-level diplomats a dissent channel to voice their objections and concerns. The use of this channel has provided State Department senior leadership with pointed and often prescient feedback. The State Department Dissent Channel allows members of the diplomatic corps to register dissent and receive a response from the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff. According to the Foreign Affairs Manual,
It is Department of State policy that all U.S. citizen employees, foreign and domestic, be able to express dissenting or alternative views on substantive issues of policy, in a manner which ensures serious, high-level review and response.
Since the 1970s, senior diplomatic officials have transmitted their most pressing grievances via the Dissent Channel. In July 2021, the Kabul embassy used the Dissent Channel to warn the State Department of the impending collapse of the Afghan state.
Senior military leaders, officers, and enlisted personnel deserve a similar channel to register their serious concerns.
Roll Over or Stand Up?
Col Andrew Milburn, USMC, Ret, writing on dissent in the officer corps, gave the professional a framework for disciplined disobedience. Milburn draws on examples from his Marine Corps career and dives into economics when explaining when and why military officers should voice dissent. He writes,
He [the military officer] has an obligation to the nation, derived from his oath to defend the constitution, and to his subordinates, implicit in the extraordinary position of authority he has over them, to exercise some degree of moral autonomy in the gap between receipt of order and execution. The higher an officer climbs in rank, the closer he comes to the nexus between policy and military strategy, and the weightier that obligation becomes.
A dissent channel to the command and commanders allows senior military professionals to fulfill this obligation in a constructive manner and informs prudent action without the fear of reprisal.
Channeling Emotions
A military dissent channel would provide a forum for cogent, sober arguments that challenge the prevailing direction of the command, service, and DoD. The initial DoD or dissent channels would include all O6s and above, along with all E9s. Those who file a dissenting opinion could include multiple signatories or register a sole-authored dissent. All designated members of the dissent channel would receive the dissent. Upon the release of a dissent, the commander or service lead would have 96 hours to reply in writing, placing the onus on the commander or service to respond.
Send in Case of Fire
A dissent channel can change the military communication landscape. With this measure in place, each command affords its members a means of lodging anonymous complaints, requesting mast, accessing equal opportunity representatives, and calling for congressional inquiries as a means of changing behaviors and holding others accountable for misdeeds. A dissent channel within a command or service not only holds the command to account but also stimulates discussion within the unit or service. The wide dissemination of the dissent channel serves as an accountability mechanism as well. Dissenters and the command must defend their arguments. Those choosing to dissent must do so with sound logic and sharp prose.
Is Anybody Out There?
A dissent channel for senior military members is a potential feedback mechanism for commanders, not a thorn in their side. Those senior leaders in uniform willing to formulate, articulate, and refine their thinking into a sharp dispatch animated by professional obligation and personal conviction, fulfill the professional and moral obligation of a military officer. Those within the ranks, not just those retiring, should voice any serious misgivings about the direction of the command or the service.
Keep It in the Family
This publication and others provide a forum for military members to voice concerns, advocate for change, and advance new ideas. However, certain disagreements should remain within commands and services. For instance, the improper fielding of a new piece of equipment that risks the lives of personnel demands immediate attention. A well-reasoned and researched dissent making a recommendation, rather than airing dirty laundry and letting concerns fester, advances the interest of the command.
Show Your Work
It is the commander, not the dissenter, who benefits from having a dissent channel. Holding a command to account for its decision-making process is not an act of hostility. A response to a dissent is a chance for the commander to further explain the rationale and concept of the mission. The commander can ask probing questions, request additional information, or express how their intent changed. The initial commander’s guidance can grow stale. Only so many staff members can sit or dial into briefings. Even then, the commander gives guidance, but how the commander’s feedback is received varies widely. A response to a dissent serves as in-stream guidance to the command, providing planners with clearer direction and necessary nuance.
The New Battlefield
Military leaders must now navigate contentious internal issues, all while preparing for a conflict with Iran, Russia, and China. Persistent recruitment and retention challenges hamstring readiness. Moving towards full operational capabilities of nascent units such as MDTF and MLR exposes potential shortfalls in planning while testing the underlying assumptions that have birthed these new formations. The ongoing implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives fuels intense debate on the rate of change and the value of the programs themselves. Scores of ongoing issues simmer and will emerge. A dissent channel can challenge and strengthen commands as they confront internal and external hotly contested topics.
Accountability Is Not Hostility
Dissent is part of the moral and professional obligation of senior military personnel. The country relies on the judgment of these senior leaders, not their obedience. Dissent is not hostility towards the command. When properly articulated, a dissenting opinion stokes discussion, refines arguments, and produces better ideas. Informed dissent does not threaten unity of command, unity of effort, or unit effectiveness—conformity does. Waiting until retirement to voice deep personal convictions informed by decades of experience is a self-serving and expedient act. Voicing meaningful dissent in uniform is an act of moral courage. Providing a dissent mechanism to senior leaders strengthens commands and the republic they serve. Dissent may not be the highest form of patriotism, but it can alter the course of a command for the better.
Summary
In Oliver Stone’s Wall Street, Gordan Gekko tells Bud Fox, “The most valuable commodity I know of is information.” Dissent is a form of information commanders need when making decisions. When a staff offers divergent opinions or challenges the prevailing narrative, the commander better understands the staff’s talents and how the staff reached a conclusion. The dissent channel can show commanders trust the judgment and discretion of their senior subordinate leaders. It gives senior military leaders, officers, and enlisted alike a direct line to the commander to highlight how the command overlooked or ignored critical factors. Staff working within commands, particularly commands led by general officers, can fall victim to a hive mentality. Those using the dissent channel will do so out of concern for the command and its critical mission. Given the opportunity, these senior leaders will rise to the occasion, benefitting the person who makes the final call: the commander.
Major Benjamin Van Horrick serves as the 3d Marine Expeditionary Brigade current logistics operations officer.
The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Department of Defense.
Thank you for reading The Distro!
If you liked this essay, check out these other ones:
This author does not agree with the conclusions drawn in the letters. However, the earnest and well-written response warrants reflection. Major Harrion Mann’s words were matched with his actions, giving up his career for his conviction.
 | A guest post by
|
I think dissent channels have the possibility of serving all organizations beyond the military or governmental agencies. Unfortunately, people have to be taught to use them properly. Effective dissent has to be modeled and encouraged. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of anonymous people venting on chat boards to other anonymous unhappy people, none of whom who have power to change things.
Your basic premise is sound, but the application is seriously flawed.
I learned as a young officer that every lieutenant knows what needs to be changed to improve the system. However, one must go along with the system to become senior enough that anyone will listen. Then, by the time one is senior enough to affect change, one has become part of the system and no longer remembers or wants to change things.
By restricting the initial dissent channel to O6 / E9 and above you have already lost the most agile minds and ideas. Once in a while someone like an Gen. Al Gray will break through, but it seldom happens.
The Marine Corps already has a dissent channel, limited though as it is, the Marine Corps Gazette. The Gazette offers a forum for any Marine to submit ideas and arguments for Corps wide discussion.
My career illustrates this. I served in the communications field. During the 70s and 80s we constantly argued for major systematic changes in the communications and computer fields. They were mostly ignored or slow-rolled for "later." We continued to do our best, knowing that things would likely never change.
All this only got fixed during the lead-up to the Gulf war when the communication system totally failed. Because of the emergency situation, there was only one directive, "fix it!"
A group of experienced folks were given a pile of equipment in Germany with those instructions. Within 6 weeks they completely overhauled the military communication system. After that war, the "process" took over again and we have been plodding along with the original rules.
I recently read that a junior maintenance tech pointed out a flaw that saved the over $100 million. We need to be more flexible in our willingness to listen to junior members, not just the "we never did it that way before." attitude that permeates with the old salts.