Hunter Objects To US Navy Ship Named For Carl Levin

[Jonathan]

Hunter Objects To US Navy Ship Named For Carl Levin
Christopher P. Cavas, Defense News 3:34 p.m. EDT April 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — When Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, mentioned April 6 that the
US Navy would name a new destroyer after retired Sen. Carl Levin,
D-Wis., fellow members of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Seapower
subcommittee were quick to praise the choice.

“Thank you for that pleasant news item about the [USS] Carl Levin,” said
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the subcommittee. “I think you
saw heads nodding on both sides of the table. Senator Levin is a
distinguished and thoughtful American statesman and was as even-handed a
chairman as I've ever served with in my 21 years in the House and
Senate. So, that's excellent news.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., echoed Wicker’s approval.

“Let me just add my congratulations to Senator Levin,” Ayotte said. “I
can't think of a better person to name the ship after. That's great.”

But at least one prominent Republican in the House begs to differ with
the choice.

“I would like an explanation as to how this decision properly reflects
Navy ship-naming rules,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., wrote Tuesday in
a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who oversees the service’s
ship-naming process.

“It is important that the Navy adhere to its own ship-naming rules and
take every effort necessary to avoid politicization of this process,”
Hunter wrote.

Hunter is a long-time critic of Mabus’ choices for ship names, in
particular the secretary’s 2011 choice to name a support ship after
union organizer and activist César Chavez, a selection that annoyed many
conservatives. Hunter raised enough of a ruckus that the Navy and the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) each produced reports on current
and past ship-naming practices.

Hunter, in his letter, took pains to note this most recent objection was
not directed at Levin personally, rather it’s aimed at the choice of the
name of a non-veteran for a destroyer.

Such ships, the Navy notes in its online explanation, are “named for
American naval leaders and heroes.” The Navy and CRS also note that
exceptions to the rule are not unusual.

“There are the typical exceptions,” the Navy explains in an online
document produced by the History and Heritage Command. “Roosevelt was
named in honor of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, while Winston
Churchill honors the great war leader of World War II.” Churchill, of
course, was English, although his mother was American-born.

Joe Kasper, Hunter’s chief of staff, explained that the objections are
based on the congressman’s feeling that Mabus has improperly politicized
the ship-naming process.

“There very well could be a ship out there for the USS Carl Levin, it’s
just not in the destroyer class,” Kasper said.

“People who are strictly politicians don’t fit the criteria for that
particular kind of vessel. It has nothing to do with the individual
himself, it has to do with the decision to name a destroyer after him.

“This is just another example,” Kasper added, “of how Ray Mabus has
politicized the Navy to the point of no return.”

Hunter’s letter noted that, according to CRS, “destroyers are to be
named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard
including Secretaries of the Navy.”

The letter noted recent exceptions to the ship-naming rules, citing
destroyers named for Thomas Hudner, a retired Navy flag officer, Paul
Ignatius, a former Navy secretary, and former Sen. Daniel Inouye, who
was awarded the Medal of Honor for World War II Army combat service in
Italy.



The Navy for several generations avoided the practice of naming ships
for living persons, but in recent years a number of still-living people
have been so honored. Hudner and Ignatius are listed as exceptions by
Hunter because both are still alive.

Kasper also acknowledged the exception of the late Senator Inouye, a war
hero.

But Levin, Hunter and Kasper argue, doesn’t qualify for a deviation from
the rules.

“If you want to make an exception, justify it,” Kasper said. “Maybe
there is a perfectly good explanation for why Secretary Mabus
circumvented the rule book. But this name in no way fits the Navy’s
ship-naming convention for destroyers.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/04/13/navy-ship-names-hunter-mabus-levin/82984096/