Navy Secretary Richard Spencer has proved himself unfit to continue in his position. President Trump should fire him.
In all institutions, leadership starts at the top. Where leaders fail to set an example for subordinates, they must be removed. But in the military, where success rests on winning the nation’s wars, the stakes are multiplied exponentially.
Judged on that metric, it’s clear that Spencer isn’t fit to lead the U.S. Navy.
For a start, Spencer has failed to live up to his word. As Craig Hooper notes at Forbes, Spencer pledged to Trump that all eleven of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier’s weapons elevators would be operational by the time it launched sea trials. If he failed, as Spencer told the president last year, he should be fired.
Well, sea trials began last Friday, and only four elevators are certified operational. The Ford is now six years behind schedule. But that’s just one problem with Spencer. He also thinks it’s unfair that he take responsibility for failing.
Last week Virginia Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria, a 20-year Navy veteran and nuclear reactor engineer, challenged the Navy over the Ford’s delays. Spencer should have taken that criticism on the chin, apologized, and pledged to get a grip. Instead, he had a temper tantrum.
Speaking at the Brookings Institution the following day, Spencer lamented Luria and others who “continually disparage the Ford as a program.”
“And I get a little upset when I go, wow, Richard [talking to himself] think of the positive here. You could not ask for leaders in Congress who make disparaging comments against a platform we’re developing with new technologies; you could not ask for a better disinformation program for our competitors. And I truly mean that” Spencer said.
That is an idiotic and immoral comment.
Rather than look in the mirror and think, “Man, we have got to get a grip here,” Spencer is basically accusing Luria of being a Chinese asset. Spencer’s description of Luria’s “disinformation” is also patently ridiculous. After all, the Ford’s failure to be fight-ready isn’t disinformation, it’s fact.
It gets worse. Spencer used his Brookings appearance to offer more evidence in favor of his expedient dismissal.
At one point, he pontificated, “People ask me what keeps me up at night, and everyone expects me to say, you know, China, Russia. What keeps me up at night, believe it or not, is the supply chain.” Spencer later added that he is “pretty comfortable” the carriers can survive Sino-Russian strike capabilities.
Sorry folks, this is nuts.
Improved fleet supply is, obviously, a key concern. But I’m sorry, if China and Russia don’t keep the secretary of the Navy up at night, we have a big problem.
Those nations have developed and are continuing to develop capabilities that could send the U.S. Navy’s carrier strike groups to the bottom of the ocean. But under Spencer, the Navy remains obsessed with aircraft carriers even though China has stockpiled increasingly advanced carrier-killer missiles that use increasingly survivable targeting systems. Even with upcoming drone and refueling improvements, Navy carrier air wings will struggle to make a difference unless the carriers are operating inside the Pacific’s first island chain. And that means operating inside a massive Chinese military stronghold.
The U.S. Navy must challenge China’s imperialism. But to do so effectively, it needs realigned deployment priorities, more submarines and underwater drones, and more long-range missiles. Spencer is adequately focused only on the latter concern.
Yes, it is unfair to hold Spencer wholly responsible here. His disastrous Obama administration predecessor, Ray Mabus, also deserves much criticism — more, in fact. As with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ removal of senior Air Force officers following lapses in nuclear weapons protocols, senior uniformed naval officers should also be held accountable alongside Spencer (a whole other problem).
But it’s clear that Spencer has failed. Trump or Secretary of Defense Mark Esper must remove him. The alternative is to accept poor leadership for a force that is likely to fight the Chinese military at some point in the next ten years.
