Magazine | December 3, 2018, Issue


The Independence-class littoral combat ship USS Jackson departs San Diego, Calif., June 5, 2017. (Mike Blake/Reuters)

A Seaworthy Navy

Jerry Hendrix correctly urges an increase in the number of ships in the Navy in “The Navy We Need” (November 12).

The reasons for the Navy’s present state are many, but I want to highlight two. First are the “clubs” of the Navy. Aviation, submarines, and surface warfare are its three career-enhancing fields. Any aspiring naval officer has to belong to one of the three clubs if he or she hopes to wear stars. Any other area is basically a career dead end. One need only look at the parlous state of mine warfare in the Navy to see this at work. The competition among these clubs drives most decisions, whether they relate to acquisitions, operations, or deployments. There is rivalry for money and careers among the officers who serve. This must stop.

Second, Hendrix talks about the “peace dividend” and other reasons for the reduction in ship numbers. Another important reason is the Navy view that only new is better. Too many admirals in the Navy are like children in a toy store when it comes to ships, always grabbing new and shiny things when there are perfectly usable toys at home. There is no reason a ship cannot serve 30, 40, even 50 years if it is maintained correctly.

And there is the rub. Again, ship maintenance and shipyard assignments are avoided at all cost by naval officers. Additionally, maintenance is an activity constantly kicked down the street in terms of money spent. If the Coast Guard can keep ships in use for as long as it does, why cannot the Navy? An example is the Oliver Hazard Perry class of frigates recently retired in great numbers. Admittedly, they served for decades, but I have to ask: If they were in such bad shape, why were foreign navies lining up to buy them?

Greater numbers, yes, but let’s see some structural changes in the way the Navy makes decisions, too.

Harold N. Boyer
Berwyn, Pa.

Commemorating the Great War

Allen C. Guelzo’s “The Great War’s Great Price” (November 12), an otherwise excellent piece claiming that “Americans have chosen to forget World War I,” overlooks one point. There “is no monument to the First World War on the National Mall. . . . Nothing there memorializes the [first] great American war of the 20th century,” Guelzo asserts. But there is a monument, in a poorly maintained, wooded area not far from the Reflecting Pool. It’s hard to find, rarely visited, and modest compared with the other war memorials, but it does exist. Which is the worse sin, forgetting to honor, or making the honor forgettable?

Colin Calhoon
Via email

Allen C. Guelzo responds: Yes, there is a monument along Independence Avenue, but it’s to the Washingtonians of the war. It’s not a national monument, which is what I was referring to when discussing the national memorials on the Mall to Vietnam, World War II, and Korea. There has been off-and-on-again effort in Congress to convert and expand the D.C. memorial into a national World War I monument, but nothing has so far developed. Oddly, there is a national World War I monument but it’s in Kansas City.

Correction: “A Better Test” (John J. Miller, November 12) referred to an alternative scholastic-aptitude test as the “Classical Learning Test.” Its correct name is the “Classic Learning Test.”

NR Editors includes members of the editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

In This Issue



Books, Arts & Manners


Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More