I will begin this post by conceding that it is internally inconsistent. I make this concession for two reasons, the first, to ensure that readers are able to discern that I have thought the matter through, and the second, so that those who delight in pointing such things out in the comments section are denied the opportunity.
I believe one of the enduring strengths of our Navy is its reverence for tradition. However, this blog post will advocate for an alteration of one of them; namely, the nearly complete power and authority of the Secretary of the Navy to name ships.
For those interested in a deeper understanding of the issues and history, I refer you to the indispensable Ron O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service, whose April 2011 report "Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress" is a concise and complete summary of the subject.
The matter arises (again) in response to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus' decision Friday to name the latest LCS after former Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords. The blogosphere is aflame with negative reaction to this act, though I have seen no one speak ill against Mrs. Giffords personally. The complaints are generally of two varieties; the first, that in naming the ship after a person, the convention of naming LCS after small/medium US cities has been broken after only 5 ships. The second is a sense that while her brave recovery from an assassination attempt last year is something for all Americans to cheer, the naming of a ship for her is inappropriate given the number of what many consider to be "more deserving" military heroes, both alive and dead. I agree with those who disagree with the Secretary's decision, and I do so on both grounds cited above.
Secretary Mabus has shown a propensity to break tradition in ship names in his tenure, breaking the string of naming LPD-17's after US cities in order to name one of them after a controversial member of Congress who is now deceased. Additionally, the Secretary selected T-AKE-14 for the name "USNS CESAR CHAVEZ" after a leading Latino civil rights figure, who described his two years in the Navy as "the two worst years of my life". Yet anyone who believes that Secretary Mabus is the first to politicize the naming of ships would be sorely mistaken. Two weeks prior to the end of the second Bush Administration, Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that the heretofore state-named VIRGINIA Class Submarines would have one named for retired Republican Senator John Warner. Reading Ron O'Rourke's summary (linked to above) provides ample evidence of the frequency with which past Secretaries of both parties have broken with tradition.
In a conflict between the tradition of the Secretary of the Navy having the authority to name ships, and the tradition of having ship classes with coherent and integral naming conventions, I come down in support of the latter. And as the current process for naming ships is almost exclusively governed by tradition (the Secretary of the Navy having been removed by name from the responsibility in US law in 1925), I would urge the Congress to bring order and rigor to this process in the following manner:
1. The Congress should direct the Secretary of the Navy to create and maintain a standing board whose job it would be to make recommendations to the Secretary on ship class conventions and individual ship names. The board would be Co-chaired by the Director of Naval History and the President of the Naval Institute (subject of course, to overcoming other legal impediments that could preclude either from participating), and would contain an additional five members, three of which would be appointed by the CNO and two of which would be appointed by the CMC. If a member had to leave the board, the Service that had appointed him or her would select a replacement.
2. The board would be required to submit to the Secretary in each instance (class naming convention and individual ship names), three alternatives with sufficient justification for each. The Secretary would then make a selection from among the three alternatives presented. The board would be required by law to post on the internet the alternatives it had presented to the Secretary, with the capability for the public to comment on the alternatives. The Secretary would be prohibited from making a decision until 30 days had passed, enabling a rich public dialogue. In the event that the board is unable to reach consensus, the decision would then revert to the Secretary.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment