Posted on 06/08/2003 7:45:48 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON, June 8 — Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho is blocking the promotions of more than 850 Air Force officers, including young pilots who fought in Iraq and the general nominated to bail out the scandal-plagued United States Air Force Academy, in a rare clash between the Pentagon and a senior Republican lawmaker.
Mr. Craig's price to free the frozen promotions now awaiting final Senate approval? Four C-130 cargo planes for the Idaho Air National Guard.
Pentagon officials express outrage that for more than a month Mr. Craig has single-handedly delayed the careers of hundreds of officers and stymied important Air Force business for a handful of parochial planes. They are vowing not to give in to his pressure. Calling the move blackmail, one senior military official said, "If we say yes to this, Katie bar the door." The official, like others contacted for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing retribution from the senator.
But Mr. Craig contends that the Air Force has reneged on a promise made seven years ago to station a squadron of eight C-130's at Gowen Field, an Air National Guard base in Boise, his spokesman said. There are now four C-130's and another training aircraft based there. "This is a problem created by the Air Force that can be easily solved by the Air Force," Will Hart, the spokesman, said.
In the courtly world of the Senate, Mr. Craig's hardball tactics have angered and frustrated even some of his Republican colleagues, including Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee and has tried to mediate the dispute. The committee approved most of the promotions weeks ago. Mr. Warner declined through a spokesman to comment on the issue.
Under a Senate practice intended to encourage consensus, any senator can block action indefinitely and anonymously on a nomination, promotion or legislation. These secret holds are used frequently by senators of both parties to express displeasure not necessarily with a nominee but with an administration's action or policy. But military promotions are typically whisked through the approval process without objection. A former military official disclosed the dispute over the planes to The New York Times.
Four years ago, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, then the majority leader, blocked the final confirmation of Richard C. Holbrooke to be chief diplomat to the United Nations. Mr. Lott's demand? That President Bill Clinton appoint a conservative Ohio law school professor to the Federal Election Commission.
But in recent years, the anonymous holds have proliferated to the point where some senators are pushing for new guidelines to identify any senator who delays a nomination or promotion. The Senate Rules Committee, now led by Mr. Lott, has scheduled a hearing on the issue for June 17.
Mr. Craig's action has been felt throughout the Air Force, especially within its senior ranks, where the promotions or new-job nominations for more than two dozen generals are in a holding pattern with no end in sight.
Gen. Robert H. Foglesong, who has been picked to be commander of all American air forces in Europe, is cooling his heels in Washington in his current job as vice chief of staff of the Air Force.
Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who commanded allied air forces in the Iraq war, is waiting to receive his fourth star and succeed General Foglesong as the vice chief of staff.
Maj. Gen. John W. Rosa Jr. was tapped to pin on a third star and be in place as the new superintendent of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs by last month. But his assignment is still in limbo. Brig. Gen. John A. Weida, the academy's commandant, is filling the position until General Rosa's promotion is approved.
Military officials say to give in to Mr. Craig now would only invite more holds from other senators.
"We obviously can't operate like that," another senior military official said. "Idaho is a great state, but we can't put more planes in there without taking them out of somewhere else." The official called the holds a misuse of the confirmation process.
Why after seven years Mr. Craig is exercising his Senate prerogative now to delay these promotions is a bit of a mystery. The planes have not been a pressing concern for most of his constituents.
"It's not something people here are tapping their fingers over, waiting for them to show up," said Lt. Col. Tim Marsano, spokesman for the Idaho National Guard.
Mr. Hart would say only that "Senator Craig's record of overwhelming support for the military speaks for itself" and blamed the Air Force leadership for disclosing his hold "as some sort of strategy to renege on promises made to Senator Craig."
A buildup of the guard forces could help shield Gowen Field from a new round of military base closings scheduled to be decided in 2005. Increasing the number of C-130's at the field could make it a less attractive installation to close, defense officials said. Gowen's C-130's returned in January from a tour in Oman, where they supported operations in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.
Several states are organizing committees to defend their military bases, which provide jobs and lucrative Pentagon contracts to local communities. "What a lot of people are trying to do is extort such-and-such a service at such-and-such a base to BRAC-proof their base," one senior defense official said, using the acronym for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which would recommend such closings.
As for Mr. Craig, defense officials say their arguments have so far fallen on deaf ears. "We've tried to explain the facts of life to Senator Craig that the Air Force is getting smaller, not bigger," one official said.
Gen. John W. Handy of the Air Force, the head of United States Transportation Command, which controls all transport aircraft, met with Mr. Craig in Washington on May 23 to broker an end to the stalemate, but apparently to no avail. Said one defense official, "Craig is essentially saying, pound sand."
I agree completely.
Nor is the sky a bluish color, my friend.
How do you think we got people like Wesley Clark running Nato, or Shiseki running the Army? Two truely inept losers, except for the fact that they knew which asses to kiss.
Mr. Hart would say only that "Senator Craig's record of overwhelming support for the military speaks for itself" and blamed the Air Force leadership for disclosing his hold "as some sort of strategy to renege on promises made to Senator Craig."
Sounds like his spokesman has confirmed the hold to me...
I hope the Air Force DOES close it, just to make an example out of Sen. Craig. We have, as a country, spent so much time kowtowing to and bowing and scraping before the US Senate that these 100 men and women, Democrat AND Republican, have gotten egos and senses of self importance that have swelled WAY beyond what they should be. They may THINK they should be President, but that doesn't MAKE them President. They have been allowed to forget this lesson, and we really need to teach it again by issuing a major smackdown.
I hope the Idaho members here send some nasty calls and letters Craig's way.
Picture this... a pilot has just flown several dangerous runs, gets back, is due a promotion. Maybe he and the wife can take a little vacation, buy a house with the extra income that was well deserved. There are stories like that going on right now.
Craig obviously thinks that his pork is more important than these families. Honestly though, I would bet that 90 out of 100 senators feel the same way though. Most of the lot are bastards. They do not represent we the people anymore, if they ever did.
Think about that next time as you travel out of W. Virginia on the Robert Byrd Highway, or the Trent Lott shipbuilding boondoggle that you all are paying for by working longer hours, spending less time with your family in the process.
Hey Senator Craig, I know a good place to shove one of your planes. It's where the sun don't shine.
Of course he does, and it's very telling that the Times only hints at what it might be:
Mr. Craig contends that the Air Force has reneged on a promise made seven years ago to station a squadron of eight C-130's at Gowen Field, an Air National Guard base in Boise
They don't say what Senator Craig traded for those extra C-130s. A curious oversight.
NY Times:But Mr. Craig contends that the Air Force has reneged on a promise made seven years ago to station a squadron of eight C-130's at Gowen Field, an Air National Guard base in Boise, his spokesman said. There are now four C-130's and another training aircraft based there. "This is a problem created by the Air Force that can be easily solved by the Air Force," Will Hart, the spokesman, said.
No confirmation here. The "problem" in the above statement as defined by the context of the statement is the lacking number of C-130's and not any "hold" problem.
NYTimes:Mr. Hart would say only that "Senator Craig's record of overwhelming support for the military speaks for itself" and blamed the Air Force leadership for disclosing his hold "as some sort of strategy to renege on promises made to Senator Craig."
Not sure. The last quote in this sentence is badly butchered. If Hart is admitting to a "hold" then why the freep not quote the entire sentence on what Hart says?
I can not draw any conclusions from this article about Senator Craig and any potential "hold".
No debate there. We've always had those who play political games. But the Armed Forces are not political. Three things were never discussed in the mess; work, women, and politics.
To hold an entire promotion list hostage to political pork risks dragging the entire Armed Forces into political activism.
The country cannot endure that prospect.
I agree that the BRAC business has gone far enough. During the Vietnam drawdown, the Air Force reduced the number of Air Material Areas, big logistics bases, (Air Logistics Centers since about '74) to five. BRAC reduced that to three, larger ones. Tinker AFB in Oklahoma, is now so crowded that there is little space to put anything else, which if they closed still another ALC, they would need to do. (Warner-Robbins GA, Ogden UT, and OK city OK are the current three). Additionally they've assigned all the AWACS and the Navy E-6s there.
We've mothballed, or sent to museums, 1/3 of the B-1B, fleet, not because we don't need them, but in order to save enough money on flight hour costs to keep thd other sixty some flying. (UPDATE, I've just discovered Congress has overuled that plan, even though it was already underway, with B-1B. See Air Force Association We've only got about 20 B-2s, and less than 100 B-52Hs. The B-52 is undergoing an avionics "mid-life" upgrade. It needs new engines, the ones it has are as old as the airframes, the last of which came off the line in 1964, and have been rebuilt many, many times and they are tired. Boeing has done much of the design work required to replace the 8 relatively fuel hungry (although not as hungry as those on earlier models) with 4 newer and more fuel efficient engines of the sort used on 747s, 767s, etc. Even though it would save money in the long run, politicians don't care much about the long run.
How is it that, with about the same fraction of total GNP going to government, we can now afford only about 1/3 as much of the GNP going to the military than we did in 1962 ? See AFA Percentage of GDP table. The answer..DemoRat giveaway programs. Yes there is pork involved in the military budget, but at least we get planes, ships, or armor, and trained troops to operate them, out of the deal. What do we get for those other vote buying schemes? Incumbent protection is what they get, we get nada.
Defense has been sucking hind teat since the end of the Vietnam war, with only the Reagan years giving some real relief. Those B-1B mentioned above were Reagan era aquistions. Sinc then the only long range heavy bombers we've bough have been the 20 or so B-2s.
In fact they are in the process of expanding the space available by condeming some housing and businesses accross the highway to the North.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.