Senator Blocks 850 Promotions in the Air Force

The New York Times ^ | 06/09/03 | ERIC SCHMITT

[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."

[Atchafalaya]

It does my heart good to hear that Idaho is a "hick" state; I thought that was only applied to us southner's. Welcome to the fold; you have wide open spaces, we have bayou's and the Gulf. We, Mississippi, Alabama, and occasionally Georgia(when LSU wins) are the definition of hickness. We are a friendly and gracious people that welcome all refugees. I'll show you how to make a roux, take me pheasant hunting.
BTW optik-b there are rules and I'm thinking you are one of the reasons we make them!

[leadpenny]

With the Estrada Filibuster, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I celebrate gridlock.

[patj]

Nicely done!

[Bonaparte]

"This strikes me as really bizarre. He may have some reason for doing this that the NY Times isn't reporting..."

IMO, that's a virtual certainty. His ACU ratings --

Senator Larry Craig

2002 - 100
2001 - 96
Life - 94
Years of service - 22

[Bonaparte]

"...because of the institution of the Senate that rewards them with 2 senators..."

What could the authors of the Constitution have been thinking? Too bad they didn't have you there to guide them.

[Trace21230]

"With that attitude and your obvious respect for authority, I'm sincerely happy that you have completed your time in the USAF"

After having given over 6 years of my life to this country, I'm entitled to my opinion.

Since you know nothing about my tour of duty, or my decorated service to this country, your opinion about the value of my service to you and the country is meaningless.

Telling someone to "chill out" is hardly "attitude."

Trace

[gaspar]

This is the worst Senate since Reconstruction. Bush could end this tomorrow (and a man like Lyndon Johnson would) by threatening to run a television commercial in Idaho. Come to think of it, maybe he's afraid of all the nut-cases that live there.

[AFCdt]

I'm not talking about you saying "chill out".

I don't question your service or dedication to this country, and I am grateful for your service. In addition, I'm completely supportive of you expressing your opinion.

I'm merely saying that your lack of faith in the leadership is quite apparent, and so now was probably a great time for you to get out of the USAF before your disgust poisons morale.

In addition, rather than going on a general rant about the poor leadership of USAF officers, why not instead make a poignant criticism of specific instances of poor leadership from poor officers?

[Dog Gone]

The Senate is a pain in the ass.

[Trace21230]

"In addition, rather than going on a general rant about the poor leadership of USAF officers, why not instead make a poignant criticism of specific instances of poor leadership from poor officers?"

To be honest, I don't have the time to engage in this kind of exercise. But I can type a few paragraphs for you.

Let's just say that in my experience, I found most officers to be woefully incompetent and genuinely unlikable characters to boot. There were some good ones, but they were rare. In general, they were interested in themselves, even if their self-interest came at the expense of the people they were supposed to lead.

The problem with the Air Force is institutional. The "whole person" concept they rely upon for promotions is a joke. Basically, it means that job performance means nothing, just as long as you're busy sucking up to the higher-ups and running raffles to fund the squadron picnic, you're qualified for a promotion, regardless of whether you are capable of doing your job.

I understand that any organization will tend to reward those that politic and suck up better. I can't even say the entire USAF has this problem. But in my field, intelligence, it was miserable.

My superior officers were not capable of doing what I did every day. Many of them had less education than I did. Yet, they worked half-days, golfed, and got paid twice as much.

When there was credit, they would take it, and when there was a failure, they would shift blame to the "stupid" enlisted personnel.

So yes, it is probably a good thing that I left when I did.

Trace

[optik_b]

"What could the authors of the Constitution have been thinking? Too bad they didn't have you there to guide them."

You mean the Great Compromise?

Well they were thinking how can we come up with a compromise to get all these 13 states to unite. They gave the small states like Rhode Island as many votes in the Senate as a much larger more populous states, but also created the House of Representatives to balance that out. They compromised with Slavery also, by creating the three-fifth's compromise, which mean that slaves counted as three-fifth's when calculating a states's population to determine the number of seats in the House.

The Senate is a big reason why today you have states that get a lot more out of the Federal government than they pay in. Year in year out while other states like California foot the bill for the billions in spending redirected to these States.

[technomage]

IF this is true it is yet another prime example of the only thing that can hurt Republicans in the upcoming election: THEMSELVES!!

[af_vet_rr]

Yes, this is ridiculous. This is also a symptom of a larger problem. A politician who thinks he is more important than everybody else. He thinks it is okay to hold up the careers of almost a thousand people for one of his pet projects.

Unfortunately, I don't think is all that uncommon and I'm not shocked. There have always been politicians who will hold up all kinds of things in order to basically blackmail others into funding their pet projects, whether it be some old cargo planes for the state ANG, or an expensive statue located in some little podunk town.

If I were in Idaho, I would definitly work against this Senator when he was up for re-election. The military has been crapped on for years by the politicians, and this is no different.

[Bonaparte]

The funding advantage to the smaller states is actually fairly small and I believe it's a reasonable price to pay to keep them in the game. A similar reason (plus others) applies to the slight advantage they are given in the electoral college.

[jackbill]

Having just finished a six-plus year stint in the Air Force last May, pardon me if I don't feel too sorry for these officers.

Let me guess. You were enlisted?

[jackbill]

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.

Prior to my retirement in 1991 I worked for a large defense contractor, in avionics systems. In the late 1980's I went on several "logistics tours", one to Warner Robbins and one to the ALC at McClelland(Sacramento). Warner Robbins looked fairly busy but McClelland was virtually deserted. It deserved to be closed by BRAC, and Clinton violated the terms of BRAC by trying to keep it open.

At WR we saw federal civilian workers stripping down F-15's and rebuilding them. Since you seem knowledgeable, could you tell me why this work isn't done by the people who built them?

[T.Smith]

Ass kissing has nothing to do with enlisted promotion. Sounds like you needed to spend more time with your PFT and studying your job, and less time stewing over the officers' privileges.

Good think you're out.

[T.Smith]

think = thing

[Trace21230]

Ass kissing has nothing to do with enlisted promotion.

LOL. Obviously you have never sat for an Airman of the Quarter/Year board. Ass kissing has everything to do with who gets recognized, and contrary to your mistaken belief, these items DO figure into the promotions process, especially for things like Below-the-Zone (BTZ) promotions.

Before you open your mouth, make sure you know what you are talking about.

Trace

[T.Smith]

I know exactly what I am talking about. I have sat for BTZ - I lost - and I have been Airman of the Quarter. Sure, BTZ pissed me off since I had to go up for a single stripe at the squadron level against 9 other airmen, while guys who went up just after me got to go to a wing level board with 5 guys and 3 available stripes. But, you know, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It felt unfair, but there was nothing political about it. Enlisted promotion - which is TOTALLY unrelated to Airman of the Quarter - is based on objective test scores, Enlisted Performance Reports and decorations. If you can't get promoted then it's YOUR fault.

You want to see politics in promotion? Try and get promoted to anything above O-4.