Is there any matter of principle that the senior leadership of the U.S. Navy is willing to resign over? Is there nothing left that they find objectionable?
The zenith of the politically correct witch hunt has been reached with the case of Admiral Stanley R. Arthur. While a distinguished admiral’s career is trashed by a publicity-seeking, politically correct senator, the Navy and the Clinton administration run away like beaten puppies to avoid the sting of what (they think) will be the whip of more bad publicity.
Admiral Arthur was doing his job as Vice Chief of Naval Operations when he decided that Lieutenant (j.g.) Rebecca Hansen should not continue flight training. She had been the victim of sexual harassment a year earlier. In the intervening year, her poor initial flight grades had not improved, and multiple evaluations stated that she was unfit to earn her wings. Given today’s political climate, it must have taken a lot of guts to attrite Hansen. After all, Admiral Arthur wouldn’t be the one riding along in her helicopter if she did fly for the fleet. But he made a tough decision: that the Navy should not have marginal pilots flying—period.
Hansen disagreed with the decision and notified her home-state Senator Dave Durenberger (R-MN). Durenberger then told the Navy of his concern. Arthur, the President’s nominee for Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, had his nomination pulled by the Navy after Durenberger decided to delay confirmation to protest Hansen’s washout. And that is a short course in how to end the career of a four-star admiral in today’s version of the Spanish Inquisition.
The sexual harassment and Hansen’s inability to fly a helicopter are apparently coincidental. Still, her failure at the stick could stem from the harassment and its lingering effects. That would be tragic, of course, but does it make any sense to assume that she will be any better in the future? Ample extensions and waivers have proved futile in improving her flying skill. No, the damage—if any—is done. Durenberger would have an unsatisfactory pilot (for whatever reason) at the controls solely on the basis of her sex and the possibility of her being wronged. If pilots in training are injured to the point that they can never fly effectively again, would it still be their “right” to fly a helicopter anyway? Of course not. Unfortunately, things happen that sometimes degrade pilot abilities, and no matter how sad the story the aviation environment will not forgive any inadequacies—either induced or inherent.
Senator Durenberger’s “brave” action of punishing Admiral Arthur for Hansen’s removal has implications that are not lost on anyone, anywhere in today’s frightened Navy. Knowing that the Navy will avoid bad publicity at all costs, even to the point of sacrificing a four-star admiral, anyone with an ax to grind, can make any accusation, jump the chain of command, and torpedo the career of any superior—female or male. The Navy is accepting the standard of the witch hunts: to make the accusation is to prove the guilt. Can this breed anything other than timidity in officers and chiefs? Can this result in decreasing standards, to allow for insidious gender norming? Can this result in anything other than ultimate catastrophe?
In the continuing battle against sexual harassment, CNO has implemented new guidelines for dealing with the problem. Unfortunately, they are perilously flawed because they essentially are voluntary for those making accusations. Service members can ignore them, with a simple phone call to their congressmen. The Arthur case shows that our elected representatives are not particularly interested in due process or using the chain of command. In the sacking of Admiral Arthur, the Navy has accepted the practice of any disgruntled sailor making any accusation—real or imagined—to Congress.
As long as the complaint is veiled in overtones of sexual harassment or discrimination, the command is automatically found guilty and the command structure is brought to its knees until someone is punished, guilty or not.
Giving in now on Admiral Arthur’s nomination only provides a taste of blood to the politically correct sharks.
If the senior commanders in the Navy cannot and will not make a stand, matters will deteriorate beyond their control. If our mixed-gender Navy has commanders afraid to act against incompetence, it will proliferate. The precedent the Arthur case sets will leave our commanders unable to lead, unable to fight their ships, and unable to carry out their missions.
Is there anything that our civilian masters can do to us that will make us say “stop?” Is there any decision, no matter how wrong—possibly illegal—that we will not go along with?
Arthur’s case raises the interesting point of how we react when rights embraced in the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are trampled on by the politicians appointed over us. Is our senior leadership exempt from the protection of those fundamental rights?
How much longer will the Navy keep caving in to every demand the politically correct crowd makes, just to avoid any fights? Admiral Arthur was railroaded for doing his job. Is there anyone—anyone at all who is in charge anywhere—who doesn’t think so? If you do believe he was treated unjustly, now is not the time to be quiet, not the time to let this go unchallenged. Silence now means that it will keep happening time and time again until there is nothing left in the Navy but a bunch of passive “yes” men who are mere stooges for the politicians.
In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was wrongly convicted of treason in a French military court and sentenced to life in prison. A Jew, Dreyfus had been convicted on forged evidence as a scapegoat for German espionage in the French Army. Eventually, he was pardoned and released from Devil’s Island, but the ramifications of that case have haunted the French Army for most of this century. The specter of an innocent man punished for something he didn’t do is something that also will haunt the U.S. Navy, for allowing a blameless man to be convicted without trial or even the benefit of a hearing.
If Admiral Arthur was wrong in his decision, senior Navy leadership should tell us why. But I don’t believe Arthur was wrong. This has to stop somewhere. A stand must be taken. Now is the time.
Senator Durenberger has howled about Admiral Stanley Arthur, and the Navy has fed him to the wolves. The lesson the Navy still has to learn is that the wolves will stay hungry—and will keep demanding more.