The New York Times News Articles
Political Correctness Infects
the Pentagon
July 1994
Also available on the New York Times Website
ARLINGTON, Va. —In looking for someone to head the United States complex and dangerous
military operations in the Pacific (including the Korean Peninsula)
one could hardly have found an officer more qualified than Adm.
Stanley R. Arthur - who until recently was indeed the nominee for
the job. And in seeking an example of how far Pentagon leadership
has fallen, and how the issue of sexual harassment has descended
into ugly McCarthyism, one could hardly find a more telling case
than Admiral Arthur's sudden dispatch to early retirement.
Admiral Arthur is a hero of two wars - a pilot who earned an
extraordinary 11 Distinguished Flying Crosses while flying more than
500 combat missions in Vietnam, then commanding the allied naval
armada in the Persian Gulf. His Pentagon experience since is
exemplary, too, including high level budget planning, nearly three
years as chief of the Navy's worldwide logistics system and two
years as Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
After Admiral Arthur was nominated for the Pacific command, Senator
David Durenberger of Minnesota indicated that he would term
questions about the treatment of a constituent, a female officer who
claimed the Navy treated her unfairly when she failed flight
training after accusing an instructor of sexual harassment. Admiral
Arthur's only role in the case was that of final reviewing officer.
He approved earlier findings that although the woman, Lieut. (j.g.)
Rebecca Hansen, had been harassed (the Navy had already disciplined
an instructor), she failed to quality as a pilot because of a poor
flight record, both before and after the incident.
The
inspectors general of the Navy and the Defense Department agreed
with this finding. Navy Secretary John H. Dalton approved a
recommendation that the Navy prepare to discharge her. Key senators
told the Pentagon that Admiral Arthur would be approved for his new
command but that because of Mr. Durenberger's "hold" his
confirmation might be delayed until fall.
Then
on June 24, the Navy said in a terse statement that Admiral Arthur
"agrees with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Boorda" that his
nomination should be withdrawn because an "anticipated delay in
Senate confirmation" would not permit "a prompt relief" for Adm.
Charles R. Larson, the current commander in the Pacific, who is
scheduled to become Superintendent of the Naval Academy. Admiral
Arthur is to be retired as soon as his job is filled.
The
Navy's explanation was disingenuous at best. Admiral Larson's new
assignment is not time-sensitive; in fact, it also awaits Senate
action. It has been widely reported that Admiral Boorda is less
concerned about a delay in Admiral Arthur's confirmation than about
becoming ensnared in another sexual harassment scandal. Even Senator
Durenberger's key staff assistant said he was "flabbergasted" by the
decision to end Admiral Arthur's 37year career in such a manner.
More
important, this episode raises serious questions about Admiral
Boorda's fitness to be Chief of Naval Operations and demonstrates
the Clinton Administration's lack of regard for military leaders.
Admiral Boorda has gained a reputation for political expediency. In
1992, when he was Chief of Personnel, he summarily relieved one of
the Navy's brightest young admirals, Jack Snyder, after the initial
revelations about the Tailhook scandal. Admiral Snyder, who had gone
well beyond what was required in his efforts to assist the key
female witness and urge an investigation, was not even allowed to
defend his actions. This abandonment of a deserving officer in the
face of political attack did not hurt Admiral Boorda's chances for
advancement - which may well have encouraged his shoddy treatment of
Admiral Arthur.
After quashing Admiral Arthur's career, Admiral Boorda disregarded
Secretary Dalton's recommendation to discharge Lieutenant Hansen and
went to Great Lakes, Ill., to meet with her. She presented him with
10 demands, including that the Navy rewrite her fitness reports
using words of her choosing, that they send her to law school at the
Navy's expense and then assign her to work as a lawyer handling
women's issues, and that the Secretary officially apologize to her.
According to The New York Times, Admiral Boorda responded by
offering her a job on his personal staff. (She did not accept it.)
Under any standard of leadership, Admiral Boorda's conduct is
seriously deficient on several grounds: disloyalty to deserving
subordinates, faulty judgment and usurping the authority of the
Secretary of the Navy.
Which leads us to the Clinton Administration's handling of this
event. Once his nomination went forward, Admiral Arthur was the
President's candidate, and it was not within Admiral Boorda's
jurisdiction to withdraw. In fact, since the Pacific command is
"purple" - that is, commanding military units from all the services
- Admiral Arthur was technically never Admiral Boorda's candidate
from the beginning. And yet after the withdrawal we heard no word
from either the Secretary of the Navy or the President, and Defense
Secretary William J. Perry merely said he had decided not to
intervene.
On
July 1 the Administration announced that Vice Adm. Richard Macke, a
capable but far less experienced officer who had been slated to
replace Admiral Arthur as Vice Chief of Naval operations, would be
nominated instead to the Pacific command. Thus a three-star officer
is to be placed in the Navy's most senior and prestigious four-star
bilk partly because his paperwork was already in the White House.
The
casual way in which the Administration has dealt with command
replacement for a theater where war could be imminent indicates
either naiveté or arrogance when it comes to the importance of
strong military leadership. And it is a grim omen for the future of
the U.S. military when competent warriors are sent home by political
admirals.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS