The New York Times News Articles
Witch Hunt in the Navy
October 1992
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – The Tailhook scandal has been "spun up," to
borrow a service phrase, into a crisis that affects the Navy
leadership's credibility on a wide range of issues. A botched
internal investigation and the ongoing revelations of inexcusable
harassment of women at a Las Vegas convention of, naval aviators a
year ago have also left in their wake a witch hunt that threatens to
swamp the entire naval service.
Careers have been ruined, often on the basis of mere
innuendo and without a shred of due process And on Sept. 25 Acting
Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe Made a series of sweeping decisions -
and one altogether remarkable pronouncement - guaranteeing that the
effects of this scandal will reverberate for years.
After forcing the retirement of two rear admirals,
reassigning a vice admiral and censuring the Under Secretary of the
Navy, Mr. O'Keefe then told a packed briefing room that he needed to
"emphasize a very, very important message." "We get it," he said.
"We know that the larger issue is a cultural problem which has
allowed demeaning behavior and attitudes toward women to exist
within the Navy."
There is indeed a larger issue at work here, but it is not
the one Mr. O'Keefe mentioned. Mr. O'Keefe, a budgeteer who has yet
to sit for Senate confirmation of his post and who has never served
in the military, decided after conferring with Defense Secretary
Dick Cheney, who likewise has never served, that he has the moral
authority to discredit the cultural ethos of the entire Navy based
on the conduct of a group of drunken, aviators in a hotel suite.
Then last week Mr. O'Keefe announced a budgetary plan that
would move the Navy away from its operational centerpiece, the
aircraft carrier. In an era marked by greater emphasis on swift,
maneuverable response, he reasoned that future confrontations would
begin after lengthy diplomacy - unlike the dozens of recent crises
met or preempted through the quick dispatch of carriers.
A vacuum has emerged where the Navy used to have a spine.
It was evident in the Tailhook investigation, termed a cover-up by
the Pentagon inspector general, that should have been resolved
quickly and without sweeping damnation. It is evident today, as the
Navy is being maligned and diminished before our eyes.
Where are the senior admirals?
We measure the greatness of institutions by their
resilience and tenacity under stress. These traits are manifested
through leaders who were imbued, as they made their way up the
promotional ladder, with a solemn duty to preserve sacrosanct ideals
and pass them on to succeeding generations. A true leader knows that
this obligation transcends his own importance, and must outlast his
individual tour of duty.
In the military the seemingly arcane concepts of tradition,
loyalty, discipline and moral courage have carried the services
through cyclical turbulence in peace and war. Their continuance is
far more important than the survival of any one leader. It is the
function of the military's top officers to articulate that
importance to the civilian political process. And an officer who
allows a weakening of these ideals in exchange for self-preservation
is no leader at all.
Key military officially began making such swaps during the
Vietnam War, beginning an unhealthy pattern that still predominates.
Too often, gaining high promotion means, hitching one's wagon to a
political star, all the while either ducking or finessing
politically sensitive issues. Today at the highest levels of the
U.S. military one searches vainly for a leader who deserves mention
along with the giants of the past. Those who might have reached such
heights failed the "political correctness" test and were retired as
colonels or junior flag officers.
This reality, more than any other factor, explains the
devastating and continuing effect of the Tailhook scandal.. Our
ranking admirals have learned full well to bob and weave when
political issues confront them. And few issues are as volatile as
those surrounding the assimilation of women into the military,
particularly since ardent feminists have focused on the military as
an important symbolic battlefield. Military leaders are at best
passive and most often downright fearful when confronted by
activists who allege that their culture is inherently oppressive
toward females and that full assimilation of women depends only on a
change in the mind-set of its misogynist leaders.
And so at this crucial moment, with the reputations,
credibility and even the missions of their people at risk, the
senior admirals have either hidden or demurred. In the process they
have abandoned their most sacred fiduciary duty. In military terms,
it is called "loyalty down." Its abrogation has meant doing nothing
as civilian officials condemn their subordinates en masse without
rebuttal. It has also meant allowing a few junior admirals to be
"taken out back and shot," as one Pentagon officer put it to me,
while they carefully avoid public comment.
The most egregious case to date involves Rear Adm. Jack
Snyder, who was summarily relieved of his command once his former
aide, Lieut. Paula Coughlin, made her initial accusations regarding
Tailhook. Admiral Snyder is a superb officer known for his
sensitivity as a leader. He has received dual honors as the Navy's
fighter-pilot of the year and commander of its outstanding fighter
squadron.
Once Lieutenant Coughlin told him of the specifics of her
case, he flew in from an out-of-town trip, helped her write her
complaint regarding the incident, put his own cover letter on the
complaint and then hand-carried it to the Chief of Naval Aviation,
urging the matter be investigated.
But a second copy made its way to the Chief of Naval
Personnel through Lieutenant Coughlin's personal friends, without
Admiral Snyder's cover letter. He was then relieved, without being
allowed to present his own case, ostensibly for having failed to act
promptly when Lieutenant Coughlin told him the morning after the
incident of being assaulted. Admiral Snyder denies this conversation
took place, and there is reason from Naval Investigative Service
documents and other interviews to support this denial.
The implications from the forced retirement of the other
two rear admirals, as well as a handful of related cases, suggest
not that the Navy is getting tough on those who practice
intolerance, but that any accusation with political overtones will
be treated as a conviction. A lawsuit seems appropriate. Military
officers relieved of command have never been allowed constitutional
due-process protections, but it would appear that this tradition may
have outlived its day. When loyalty disappears, individual
protections are the only remedy for the wronged. As for the senior
admirals, they cannot have it both ways. Either they agree with Mr.
O'Keefe that the entire Navy has a "cultural problem" which has
encouraged demeaning behavior toward women, in which case they
should be retired for having allowed it to persist without acting on
it. Or they do not agree, in which case they must defend their
culture where it is warranted, take action where it is needed, and
explain why they remained silent while good officers were forced to
walk the plank.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS