Call for Articles: Short Story Fiction

By Dmitry Filipoff

Stories Due: December 2, 2019
Week Dates: December 9–13, 2019

Story Length: 1000-5000 Words
Submit to:

Fiction has long served as a powerful means for exploring hypotheticals and envisioning alternatives. As a regular annual feature, CIMSEC will be publishing a week’s worth of short stories that look to explore conflict and competition through fiction. 

Authors can explore the future, and flesh out concepts for how potential conflicts may play out. They could probe the past, and use historical fiction as a device to explore alternative histories. Authors are invited to submit their stories along these lines and more as they craft their compelling narratives.

View previous CIMSEC Fiction Weeks below:

Short Story Fiction Week 2018
Short Story Fiction Week 2017
CIMSEC and Atlantic Council Fiction Contest 2016

Dmitry Filipoff is CIMSEC’s Director of Online Content. Contact him at

Featured Image: “Fly” by Dmitry Vishnevsky, via Artstation

Invite: CIMSEC DC Lightning Rounds, 12 Nov

By Scott Cheney-Peters

**Presenters Needed**

Join CIMSEC’s DC Chapter Tuesday, November 12th, at Franklin Hall’s Roosevelt Room.  This is your chance to provide a brief, informal 3-5 minute update on something you’re working on or just interested in related to maritime security.  Or, just stop by for a drink and discussion on the latest maritime security developments and meet some interesting people – all are welcome!  RSVPs not necessary but appreciated at  Please indicate whether you are interested in participating in the lightning rounds.

Time: Tuesday, 12 Nov, 5:30-7:30pm; 6pm Start

Place: Franklin Hall, (Roosevelt Room) 1348 Florida Ave NW, Washington, DC (U Street/African-American Civil War/Cardozo stop on the Green/Yellow Line).  Photo Credit: Rey Lopez,

Mattis is Mortal

Snodgrass, Guy. Holding the Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon With Secretary MattisSentinel, 2019, 352 pp. hardcover/$27.00.

By LT Daniel Stefanus, USN

Secretary Jim Mattis is one of America’s greatest living military leaders, and this candid account by CDR (ret.) Guy Snodgrass of Mattis’ tenure does nothing to challenge that. His combat record and rise from the enlisted reserve ranks, to four-star general, to Secretary of Defense is unlike that of any other American of the post-Cold War era. And beyond his service, his National Defense Strategy and relentless work to restore funding and readiness to the United States military will remain historic achievements for our armed forces during the Trump Administration. His example has rightly inspired millions of servicemembers.

CDR Snodgrass’ book supports all of this, revering Secretary Mattis for his strengths while allowing a peek behind the curtain on some of the key moments in the Secretary’s time leading the Department of Defense. This book will be picked up by the wider press for its insights into the Trump Administration’s internal dynamics, Secretary Mattis’ attempts to keep the military calm and focused on restoring readiness and lethality, and the difficult tight-rope Secretary Mattis had to walk in comforting our partners and buttressing our international system of alliances. However, for the discerning military officer or national security professional, this book is a graduate course in understanding the dynamics and processes at the highest level of the U.S. military.

This book cannot be reviewed without addressing the controversy surrounding it and its two protagonists: Secretary Mattis and the author. Mattis issued the following statement through an aide regarding the book:

“General Mattis hasn’t read the book and doesn’t intend to… [CDR Snodgrass’] choice to write a book reveals an absence of character… surreptitiously taking notes without authorization for a self-promoting personal project is a clear violation of that trust… [CDR Snodgrass] may receive a few brief moments of attention for this book. But those moments will be greatly outweighed by the fact that to get them, he surrendered his honor.”

This statement is puzzling given that if Secretary Mattis hasn’t read it, then any criticism after that statement is instinctive rather than facts-based. The Secretary believes the book is personally aggrandizing and that it is a violation of honor and morality, but none of that is borne out in the text. I was surprised, frankly, at how pro-Mattis CDR Snodgrass is throughout the book given how his exit from Mattis’ staff went. I walked away from Holding the Line with my opinion of Secretary Mattis still quite high and with a reaffirmed faith in the Secretary’s commitment to the mission, the United States, and the security of Americans.

This book is no takedown. It is a candid account of what it was like inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense for most of Secretary Mattis’ tenure, and the victories and the defeats that transpired.

From Mattis’ recent autobiography Call Sign Chaos, “Leaders at all ranks, but especially at high ranks, must keep in their inner circle people who will unhesitatingly point out when a leader’s personal behavior or decisions are not appropriate.” CDR Snodgrass may have aired moments of failure or embarrassment for the Secretary, but that is for the good of the nation. This book allows citizens to better understand the experiences of the current administration, the president’s thinking on national security matters, and the reasons for major shifts in national security policy since the administration took office.  

CDR Snodgrass is also not your average observer. He was hand-picked to join Mattis’ staff, accepting the offer and giving up his golden path to aviation major command and time to recover with his family after a decade of operations and deployments in order to serve the Secretary. CDR Snodgrass had previously been speechwriter for Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Greenert, was asked to help write the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, has a Master’s degree in Nuclear Engineering from MIT, was the valedictorian of his Naval War College class, and has flown thousands of hours as a Super Hornet pilot – to include command of a squadron of Hornets in Japan where him and his squadron won a Battle “E” award as one of the top units in the Navy. He also won awards as the 2008 Strike Fighter Wing Pacific Pilot of the Year, 2009 Strike Fighter Wing Pacific Tactical Aviator of the Year, 2010 Naval Air Forces Pacific Michael G. Hoff Attack Aviator of the Year, and for the peer-awarded 2010 Naval Air Forces Pacific Navy and Marine Corps Leadership Award.

The book deftly toes the line between personal account, Secretary Mattis as a leader, and the national security events of our time. Interesting insights from the book include the dominance of military personnel over civilians on the Secretary’s team, and that those military personnel were primarily naval officers, with few Army or Air Force officers holding sway. Scenes of Mattis kicking out the embassy team in Norway during a brief, denigrating the press, torpedoing the author’s attempt to transfer to elsewhere in the DoD after 18 months, and pushing his staff to work with little sleep or time for their families paint a portrait of a less-than-optimal working environment, one that can be confirmed by other former members of the team.

However, the book does not cast the Secretary in a negative light. It emphases his brilliance, tireless effort, commitment to U.S. security and values, endeavors to keep the Defense Department apolitical, belief in rebuilding the military’s readiness and lethality, and his deep feelings for men and women in uniform – as well as their families. His appearance at a staff member’s wedding even during an exceptionally difficult period of his time as Secretary, his gifts and kind words to the children of staff members during official events, and his respect for those on his team all paint a positive portrait of the Secretary.

While contentious due to its high-profile subject matter, the book is compellingly written, praises and criticizes leaders in ways that are reasonable and based on facts and not partisanship, and offers a serious account of what happened within the Pentagon under Secretary Mattis’ leadership.

Having read both Call Sign Chaos and Holding the Line, I believe each work is an excellent addition to any defense professional’s library. However, I found the candid insights and gravity of Holding the Line to be more unique and resonant than Secretary Mattis’ personal history of the last few decades of American military operations.

As Mattis stated in his autobiography, “You must unleash initiative rather than suffocate it.”

BZ CDR Snodgass.

LT Daniel Stefanus is a surface warfare officer and currently works for the Chief of Naval Personnel on strategic engagement and personnel system reform. He commissioned through the Duke University NROTC program and will begin studying at Harvard Business School next fall. He is a former president of CIMSEC. These views are presented in a personal capacity.

Featured Image: Defense Secretary James N. Mattis meets with His Excellency Prawit Wongsuwon, Minister of Defence for the Kingdom of Thailand at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., April 23, 2018. (DoD photo by Tech Sgt. Vernon Young Jr.)

An Artist at War – The Life of George Plante

By Christopher Nelson

I recently had the chance to correspond with Dr. Kathleen Williams about her new book, Painting War: George Plante’s Combat Art in World War II. I am personally fascinated with the intersection of art and war, and works that explore the lives of artists that were not behind a gun but who observed and captured war with their art are certainly worthwhile.

Nelson: Kathy, thanks for joining me to discuss your new book. To begin, who was George Plante? Give us a brief biographical sketch of this man, the center of your book.

Williams: George Plante, a Scot, was born in Edinburgh in 1914. He trained as an artist at the Edinburgh College of Art and the Contempora School of Applied Arts in Berlin. On the outbreak of WWII he was working for an advertising agency in London when he took radio officer’s training and spent the next several years in the British Merchant Navy traversing the North Atlantic on oil tankers. On his many stops in New York, he cultivated American advertising contacts and developed a profound affinity for the country and its people.

He also secured the support of the War Artist’s Advisory Committee and was assigned to spend much of his time at sea painting the Battle of the Atlantic. His paintings were widely exhibited in the U.S. and became a part of the British campaign to encourage American support for the war against the Nazis. On shore leave in London after his tanker was torpedoed under him in March 1943, Plante was recruited to work for the clandestine Political Warfare Executive. He was sent to Cairo and spent the rest of the war there and in Italy producing illustrations for propaganda leaflets that were dropped over Nazi-occupied southern and eastern Europe. This propaganda effort was a joint Allied endeavor and once again Plante worked closely with American colleagues.

Photo of George Plante as radio officer

After the end of the war Plante spent the rest of his working life carving out a very successful career in advertising, for many years with the London branch of an American agency and finally with a British company. He also continued to paint for his own pleasure and had numbers of well-received shows. In the 1950s he married an American and on his retirement they moved to the States were he lived until his death in 1995, not long after becoming a U.S. citizen

Nelson: As you mentioned, he spent a deployment on a merchant vessel, operating in waters off the Gulf Coast and the East Coast of the United States. As you write in your book, U-boats were a concern for all in those waters during the early war years. Yet he was drawing and making art while working as a radio operator. How did he do this? That is, the sea changes every minute, every hour, how does an artist capture that scene – and doing so during the war?

Williams: Plante had a lifelong habit of making quick sketches of whatever he saw. He also developed his own detailed vocabulary for rapidly recording color, tone and fleeting impressions, so that when he had a chance to paint he had prompts to remind him exactly how the action had looked. Of course, it also took a fierce concentration to be able to paint on a pitching, tossing deck with the constant threat of U-boat attacks. He was greatly helped in his artistic endeavors by being relieved of many of his radio watch duties because his work in support of the British war effort was seen as extremely important.

Gouache painting of a destroyer dropping depth charges (Courtesy Ms. Williams)

Nelson: In your acknowledgments, you thank George Plante’s son, Derek, for providing you with many of George’s letters and copies of his sketches. How important were these for you when writing the book?

Williams: Plante’s letters to his Scottish wife provide the backbone of the first part of the book. Without those letters the official account of his tours at sea, his correspondence with the War Artist’s Advisory Committee, and several newspaper articles based on interviews with him would have made for a much less interesting and informative account of his work as an artist in wartime. His letters from Cairo were equally important in providing insight into the activities of an artist engaged in an Anglo-American propaganda effort against the Axis. Plante was an evocative and entertaining writer and continued to write amusing articles and letters for the rest of his life. His sketches provide the visual evidence of his immediate connection to the war and vividly illustrate what he saw and experienced.

Nelson: Was there a particular letter you found touching or that moved you more than others?

Williams: Yes, many, especially the ones from spring/summer 1943 to his wife, Evelyn, when he knew she was pregnant and he wrote “My dearest Evelyn, and Oscar or Judy.” He also wrote a charming letter from Cairo in September 1943 when his son turned one year old. He bought Derek a pair of shoes in the Mousky (the open air market) writing that “they probably won’t fit and might make him have turned-up- toes if they did. But they amused me and I think they’ll make you laugh too.” He also referred to his son as “Little Chief One-Year-Old.”

Nelson: Did he sketch in his letters?

Williams: No, none of his letters have sketches – perhaps they would not have passed the censors?

Nelson: I recall in your introduction that George Plante didn’t enjoy his wartime painting style. Why didn’t he?

Williams: In later years he disliked his wartime painting style, which he found heavy and dark and he often noted that he was glad so many of his paintings had disappeared into the Soviet Union when sent there with an exhibition after the war. Of course the dark realism of his wartime art reflected not only the style of the time but the dark subject matter.

Nelson: If not his war painting style, what style was his favorite?

Williams: He much preferred the soft colors and bright play of light in his later paintings. He particularly enjoyed painting scenery, often including old buildings, and any people were usually small and more or less incidental to the composition as a whole.

Nelson: Some of his sketches, particularly the one of a survivor on the New Zealand ship Takoa, are done with confidence – few strokes, clean lines, and the talent of a graphic illustrator. The sketch of the sailor on the Takoa reminds me of Ronald Searle’s work. Here I’m thinking about Searle’s work during his captivity in Singapore. To that point, did he work with other artists for his propaganda pieces? And did he ever comment about other contemporary artists that were working during the war that he admired?

Williams: Well, he was quite picky about the work of other artists and fairly critical. He did go to as many art shows as he could, especially in Edinburgh and London, and he did admire the work of Erik Ravilious, John Nash, and Edward Ardizzone. In Cairo he worked closely with American artist John Pike whose illustrations he found “certainly very good, sound stuff” although when he arrived in Egypt he pronounced that the work being done was generally of a “dreadfully low” standard. He also thought the work of most Americans was not nearly as efficient as that produced by the British.

Nelson: Tell us about some of the propaganda art operations he did during the war. Here I’m thinking about the one you describe focused on the Allied operations during the Italian campaign.

Williams: On his arrival in Cairo in the summer of 1943 Plante immediately began work on the propaganda campaign designed to break down Italian opposition to the Allies. Among other endeavors he illustrated a small booklet designed to emphasize the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Italians. He was also deeply involved in illustrating pamphlets, leaflets, and news sheets aimed at the campaigns in Greece, Crete, and the Italian-controlled Dodecanese, in Yugoslavia and in Albania. Nearing the end of the war he also worked on propaganda leaflets aimed at Norway and finally, also at Allied occupied Germany.

Illustration of a German Solider attacked by two-headed eagles (Plante papers)

Nelson: He also drew maps. This is something I think many of us take for granted in the days of Google and other online mapping services and easy-to-find vector art of geographic features. What were some of the maps he drew and why did he draw them?

Williams: Late in the war Plante produced some rough sketch maps for leaflets demonstrating to occupied populations (and to German occupation troops) the steady Allied advances, both in the Battle of the Atlantic and on the European mainland.

Nelson: As an artist, what was his preferred medium? I see a large mix in the pictures in the book – ink, gouache, and oils. Was he comfortable across all mediums?

Williams: Yes, he was comfortable in all mediums. To the end of his life he seldom went anywhere without his sketchbook which he filled with drawings in pencil. He
produced more finished sketches in ink and also painted scenes in watercolor from his travels all over the world. After the war he seldom painted in gouache and most of his later work was either in watercolor or in oils. His more substantial work was almost always in oil although he produced many smaller very evocative pieces in watercolor.

Nelson: To close, what are some of your favorite drawings that he did? Why do you enjoy them?

Williams: From the wartime I love his painting of his tanker, Southern Princess, burning after being torpedoed. Otherwise I find his postwar art much more appealing, especially some of his paintings of old churches in Greece and on the French Riviera, and a wonderful series of watercolors he was commissioned to paint of Bahrain.

Nelson: Kathy, thanks so much for taking the time to discuss your new book. All the best to you.

Dr. Kathleen Broome Williams holds a BA from Wellesley College, an MA from Columbia University and a PhD in military history from the City University of New York. She has taught at Sophia University in Tokyo; at Florida State University in Panama; at Bronx Community College, City University of New York and also served as Deputy Executive Officer, of the CUNY Graduate Center’s Ph.D. Program in History; at Cogswell Polytechnical College in California; and since retirement she has taught part time at Holy Names University in Oakland. She spent the 2018-19 academic year at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland as the Class of 1957 Distinguished Chair in Naval Heritage. Her published work includes Secret Weapon: U.S. High-frequency Direction Finding in the Battle of the Atlantic (Naval Institute Press, 1996), Improbable Warriors: Women Scientists and the U.S. Navy in World War II, (Naval Institute Press, 2001) John Lyman award for best book in U.S. Naval History, NASOH, 2001; Grace Hopper: Admiral of the Cyber Sea (Naval Institute Press, 2004), John Lyman award for best biography/autobiography in U.S. Naval History, NASOH, 2004; and The Measure of a Man: My Father, the Marine Corps, and Saipan, (Naval Institute Press, 2013) as well as articles and book chapters on naval science and technology. Her new book, Painting War, also published by the Naval Institute Press, was released in May 2019. Formerly executive director of the New York Military Affairs Symposium, trustee of the Societyfor Military History, and regional coordinator for the SMH, she served on the Nominations Committee of NASOH and is now a member of the editorial advisory board of The Journal of Military History, the U.S. Naval Institute’s naval history advisory board, and Marine Corps History magazine’s editorial review board. Although born in the United States, Professor Williams was raised in Italy and England, and later spent many years in Germany, Puerto Rico, Japan, and Panama.

Christopher Nelson is an intelligence officer stationed at the Office of Naval Intelligence in Suitland, Maryland. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval War College and the Maritime Advanced Warfighting School in Newport, Rhode Island. He is a regular contributor to the Center for International Maritime Security. The views here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Navy or the Department of Defense.

Featured Image: Photo of George Plante from cover of Beaufort and South Carolina Low Country Magazine (George Plante papers).

Fostering the Discussion on Securing the Seas.