Businessman John Phelan has been confirmed as Secretary of
the Navy and I have severe anxiety about this pick.
Phelan has no military experience or even exposure, as far
as I can ascertain. While I firmly
believe that a non-military person can succeed in the position by leaning on
the subject matter experts that are available to him, I have grave misgivings
in this situation. Who will Phelan look
to for honest assessments of the Navy’s problems, needs, and possible
solutions? Will it be the admirals who
created and continue all the current problems?
Will it be Congress who has abetted the current situation and refused to
exercise effective oversight? I’m concerned
that Phelan has no subject expertise and, far worse, no one to turn to for
guidance in the areas he is not knowledgeable about.
Beyond that, some of his public statements do not inspire
confidence. For example, here’s
something he told the Senate Armed Services Committee about his plans:
That’s just buzzword bingo gibberish. That does not sound like a decisive, focused, knowledgeable Secretary of the Navy. I hope I’m wrong but what’s the odds of that?
_____________________________
The Navy and the Marine Corps already possess extraordinary operational expertise within their ranks. My role is to utilize that expertise and strengthen it to step outside the status quo and take decisive action with a results-oriented approach.[1]
That’s just buzzword bingo gibberish. That does not sound like a decisive, focused, knowledgeable Secretary of the Navy. I hope I’m wrong but what’s the odds of that?
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/senate-phelan-navy/2025/03/24/id/1204177/
In terms of "military qualifications", P.Hegseth culminated at the captain rank, M.Waltz served only 4 years on active duty, M.Esper served on active duty only for 10 years, L.Panetta served on active duty only 2 years, R.Gates was CIA not military ..., D.Cheney dodged the draft, C.Weinberger served in WWII but was not career ... etc. Quite a difference from J.Mattis and L.Austin !
ReplyDeleteAs you say, a non military person can succeed - the question is does it has the rare capability / leadership to run a very large / complex / bureaucratic and (un)efficient organisation with a very unique culture (at least for the military part).
The main quality of J.Phelan seems to be a "deep pocket donor" - maybe an amabassadorship with lots of receptions could be more suited ?
We here missed our chance, we could have had a GoFundMe to make a big enough donation to POTUS
Deleteto get CNO the SecNav job.
I support the idea to DOGE the service secretaries. Merge everything into DOD and cut 5000 pencil pushers.
ReplyDeleteDOD came in 1947, the War Dept won WWII,
Deletewhat war has the DOD won ?
"what war has the DOD won ?"
DeleteOne might also legitimately ask, what war has the DoD TRIED to win? The DoD is constrained by the conditions set by civilian leadership and, to be honest, we have not been in a war since WWII that the civilian leadership committed us to total victory.
I'm not defending the DoD but I'm not sure the War Dept could do much more with the kind of squishy, nebulous 'victory conditions' that are what we've had to work with since WWII.
What do you think?
I don't think having service secretaries is bad. Having leaders of the services that do generic "leading" without being in operational chain of command is useful. Having hundreds of flag-rank personnel, with the commensurate staffs and bureaucratic bloat, not so much. While many of the commands that exist outside of operational chains are obviously useful and needed, there's also, surely plenty the Navy could exist (or potentially thrive) without!! The fact that the Navy can't fully man their ships, while having more sailor billets ashore than afloat, shows the lack of focus pretty clearly.
DeleteHopefully, the SecDef and others will look at some deregulation within DOD/DON- I'm sure there are plenty of non-warfighting policies and procedures that can go away, to save funds and recycle personnel into useful billets. This Wiki passage made me cringe:
Delete"Pursuant to SecNavInst 5090.5F, the Department of the Navy Environmental Programs Manual, the secretary of the Navy and chief of naval operations recognize a number of commands annually for achievements in such areas as environmental quality, environmental cleanup, natural resources conservation, cultural resources management, pollution prevention, and recycling.[9]"
Seriously???
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/04/01/thousands-of-sailors-get-access-to-trendy-weight-loss-app-in-new-deal/
DeleteGood grief!! How, in the era of DOGE, is a service doing this?? And why would the Navy Times not be trying to bury the story in embarrassment??
Nearly a half million dollars so overweight sailors can have an app?? Effing ridiculous!! Evidently a Chief or LPO taking the chunkies out once or twice a week for "Mando PT" doesn't work anymore?? Unreal.
Smart people surround themselves with smarter people. Without getting too political that doesn't seem to be the standard this administration follows. We'll know soon enough if this Secretary is good or bad.
ReplyDeleteAs Bill Gates once said, A's hire A's, B's hire C's.
DeletePhelan could do well if he simply focuses on getting more shipyards built and getting design back into NAVSEA with no "concurrence" allowed before final bidding. Both are simple (not easy, but simple) things any good businessman could get done.
ReplyDeletePersonnel issues would be an excellent third goal he could get some good things done as well.
3 Goals are all you'll ever be able to make much headway on in one administration anyway.
According to Wikipedia, John Lehman (who was Reagan's very successful SecNav in the 1980's and very nearly achieved a 600 ship Navy) is still alive and active. At 82, he may be too old to be SecNav himself (although he's the same age as Biden and Warren Buffet, who is still running Berkshire Hathaway, is much older), and that job is now taken anyway, he could perhaps be a useful advisor for Phelan. Or perhaps he could run a small team dedicated to figuring out how to overhaul the Navy. We could call it the "Department Of Naval Efficiency" (DONE), or perhaps the "Department Of Maritime Efficiency (DOME)" if the acronym DONE implies a lack of urgency since the job is already complete.
ReplyDeleteI read "pick" as prick 🤔😉
ReplyDeleteYour concerns about John Phelan's appointment as Secretary of the Navy are indeed valid. Several aspects of his background raise questions about his suitability for this critical role.
ReplyDeletePhelan has no prior military service or experience in defense policy, making him the first person in over 15 years to lead the Navy without such a background. This absence may hinder his ability to effectively navigate the complex operational and strategic challenges inherent in managing naval forces.
Phelan was a major contributor to President Trump's 2024 re-election campaign, donating over $890,000. Such substantial financial support raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the motivations behind his nomination. His primary connection to military matters is an advisory role with Spirit of America, a nonprofit organization. This limited involvement does not equate to the depth of experience typically expected for someone tasked with overseeing the Department of the Navy. What staff is he bringing onboard his team to help sort through bad counsel versus good counsel from the very Navy leadership that has put us in the position we now find ourselves?
As the founder of Rugger Management LLC and co-founder of MSD Capital, Phelan's extensive business dealings, particularly any involving defense contractors, could present conflicts of interest in his role as Navy Secretary. Ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of national security rather than personal or financial gain is paramount.
While Phelan has experience managing investment firms, overseeing a vast and complex organization like the U.S. Navy, with its unique culture and bureaucratic structure, presents challenges that differ significantly from those in the private sector. The skills required to manage military operations and personnel may not directly translate from his business background.
I see parallels being drawn between Phelan and John Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan. However, it's important to note that Lehman had substantial defense-related experience prior to his appointment. He served as a staff member to Henry Kissinger on the National Security Council and as deputy director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Additionally, Lehman had military experience, having served in the Air Force Reserves and later as a naval aviator, ultimately attaining the rank of commander. This combination of military service and defense policy experience provided Lehman with a robust foundation for his role, a foundation that Phelan lacks. The real question I ask myself, out of the thousands of superiorly qualified candidates both within and without the Navy, why John Phelan?
Glenn Morgan, para 5: "I ask myself, out of the thousands of superiorly qualified candidates both within and without the Navy, why John Phelan?"
ReplyDeleteGood question. Possible answer supplied by Glenn Morgan, para 2: "Phelan was a major contributor to President Trump's 2024 re-election campaign, donating over $890,000."
I've always wondered if political donations by flag officers (or their spouse or children) affect their promotions.
DeleteWhile trying to avoid this being political- it seems as if this time around, the current administration is crewed by folks who are loyal and willing to implement the President's agenda and plans. Having said that, most appointments seemingly make sense, but the SecNav choice still seems as a bit of an oddity, with Phelan being completely out of his realm. Perhaps military background and experience is necessasary- perhaps not. I suppose we have to just wait and see what happens, but, I'm rather skeptical about this choice. The Navy can't afford to be rudderless any more than it already has been- and waiting a year or so for Phelan to "figure out" his place isn't what the service needs right now. Like I said, I'm not convinced that experience is absolutely needed, but right now I'd be happier with a good O-6 or even E-7-8 that was plucked from the ranks, that has a deck plate veiw of what's good and bad about the Navy right now...
Delete