Secretary of the Navy Edwin “Ray” Mabus, under fire from members of Congress, veterans’ associations, and others, has announced that the Navy will return to traditional sources for naming Navy ships.1 This decision follows a spate of ship names that have been described as stupid and insensitive.
The current run of “problem names” began with a “good name” in early 2009, when then–Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, in one of his last acts in the George W. Bush administration, named the nuclear-propelled attack submarine SSN-785 for Senator John Warner (R-VA). The senator had served in the Navy and Marine Corps, as Under Secretary and then Secretary of the Navy, and as a U.S. Senator. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had a key role in shaping the Navy. Senator Warner certainly deserved to be honored with a ship—a destroyer, as was traditional for members of Congress who have helped the Navy (or, since the 1970s, an aircraft carrier).2
After the fiasco of naming the Seawolf class—three different name sources for three submarines—the Navy had settled down to naming attack submarines for states. Thus, the USS Virginia (SS-774) was followed by ten attack submarines with state names. Then came the John Warner (SSN-785).
But the latest series of “problem names” has shown a total disregard for naval custom, tradition, and—in this writer’s opinion—good sense. On 23 April 2010, Secretary Mabus named the amphibious transport dock LPD-26 for the late Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA). All 25 previous LPDs, going back to the Raleigh (LPD-1), commissioned in 1962, have been named for geographic locations.
Murtha may have deserved to have a Navy ship named in his honor. He had served 37 years (active and reserve) in the Marine Corps, retiring as a colonel, and was a member of Congress from 1974 until his death in 2010. However, in recent years he has been heavily criticized by serving Marines and veterans because of his statements that Marines killed Iraqi women and children “in cold blood,” and other critical comments. At the time an official investigation of an incident in Iraq was under way, and some observers contend that his comments may have prejudiced the findings. Subsequently, only one Marine was convicted, on a charge of dereliction of duty. (A court has ruled that Murtha was protected by a 1988 law that says that federal employees cannot be sued for things they do and say in the course of their official duties, hence he was immune from prosecution.) At the time of his death Murtha was also under federal investigation related to the funding of family-owned firms.
On 18 May 2011, Secretary Mabus named the replenishment ship T-AKE-14 for the late Cesar Chavez, a civil-rights and labor activist and oft-cited “hero” of President Barack Obama. The 13 previous ships of the class have been named for “American heroes”—explorers Lewis and Clark, and their guide Sacagawea; astronauts Alan Shepard and Wally Schirra; explorers Richard E. Byrd and Robert E. Peary; civil-rights leader Medgar Evers; and others.
American-born and impoverished, Chavez rose to become a major U.S. labor organizer. In 1944, at age 17, he enlisted in the Navy. He later described his naval service as “the two worst years of my life.” How will future sailors feel serving on board a ship named for someone who hated the Navy? Again, a poor, insensitive choice.
On 10 February 2012, Mabus named the littoral combat ship LCS-10 for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). A member of Congress since 2007, she survived a deadly attack in 2011 in which six people were killed and 13 injured; she was shot in the head, and her promising political and congressional career was curtailed.
But by what criteria should a U.S. Navy warship carry her name? Another political decision? Indeed, her husband, Navy Captain Mark Kelly, a space-shuttle commander, was probably more suitable for such an honor.
The nine previous littoral combat ships and subsequent vessels are being named for towns and small cities, although the two lead ships, the Freedom (LCS-1) and Independence (LCS-2), carry more stirring names than those honoring American communities. Thus, the choice is not only insensitive, but also ignores the scheme for naming this type of warship.
Obviously recognizing the poor choice of names that he had given to those ships, Secretary Mabus in February 2012 belatedly recognized three American combat heroes and two American cities. Destroyers were named for Navy Lieutenant John Finn (Medal of Honor), Marine Private First Class Ralph Henry (Medal of Honor), and Marine Staff Sergeant Rafael Peralta (Navy Cross). Littoral combat ships will be named for Sioux City, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska.
These five names are definitely warranted for U.S. Navy ships. But the three previous names—Murtha, Chavez, Giffords—are completely political and unacceptable. Those ships should be renamed; the Navy has, admittedly on rare occasions, renamed ships, including destroyers. Quietly, Secretary Mabus should ask Giffords as well as the families of Murtha and Chavez to forgo the honor. Other awards could be forthcoming. For example, President Obama welcomed the family of Cesar Chavez to the White House on what would have been his 83rd birthday, and proclaimed 31 March 2010 “Cesar Chavez Day.” Why doesn’t the White House proclaim a Representative Murtha Day and a Representative Giffords Day? But why force on the Navy—and the sailors who will man those ships—those highly unsuitable names?
Appropriate names for those ships should then be selected. To do less would dishonor real American heroes, especially those who served in, and appreciated their service in, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.3
1. Rowan Scarborough, “Naming of Navy ships returns to tradition,” The Washington Times, 14 February 2012.
2. See Norman Polmar, “Misnaming Navy Ships (Again),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2009, p. 89.
3. A recent and useful analysis of this subject is Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1 April 2011).