SteaminDemon

"The author’s lack of military knowledge does hurt his case, however. Scattered throughout the work are numerous instances wherein he misinterprets the information afforded him and so draws the wrong conclusions. In covering Tailhook, for example, he casts aspersions upon the account of an officer accused of assaulting Lt Paula Coughlin, trying to undermine his image as a good Christian by noting his call sign “*****” as indicative of un-Christian behavior. Aviators do not pick their call signs themselves (their fellow pilots have a ceremony for it), and in this case it was undoubtedly a play on his name (Bonam) with perhaps a reference to a mistake made during training (i.e., a “*****”).

Oddly, it is on the subject of Tailhook that the author is most vulnerable. He takes Lieutenant Coughlin’s story of victimization at face value; he labors to discount her critics without providing the evidence he seems to have at hand throughout the rest of the book. For those who followed Tailhook and its aftermath, this account suffers from a reporter overprotective of his source.

Readers may also have a problem with the heroes and villains emerging from this tale, exposing inherent contradictions in the author’s logic. The great villain is Lehman, who Vistica admits did much to restore the Navy’s self-image while allowing standards to erode. Oddly enough, his successor James Webb, who strove mightily to correct perceived flaws in the Navy officer corps, is vilified as a puritanical troglodyte who despised the notion of women in the military. The only clear-cut heroes to emerge are Lt Paula Coughlin (of course) and Admiral Boorda, despite evidence presented that the “sailor’s sailor” was more “sailor’s politician” than anything else."

Yeah, you failed to include that part of the review and it doesn't "preety much sum it all up". To say the 600 Ship fleet was unsupportable was rediculous. How many ships failed to sail due to lack of manning during the 80's? Are rotations better off now then they were? The people responsible for the Navy's downfall as well as the rest of the Military were many in the Clinton administration. The downfall continues to this day. Have you ever looked at how the "revolution in naval training" is going? Thank goodness there are still many a great sailor from the "oh so bad eighties" that are still around to hand down the knowlege they themselves have gained. If you ask a majority of those who were in during the "horrible 80's" as the author makes it seem, they will tell you that the 80's and the very begining of the 90's were the best times of their careers. A person close to me served 30 years and he said he did enjoy his whole carrer, though the best times were the 80's. (he was in from 63 - 93).

Tell me why ships deployed out of routine has been rising ever since? It was high during the Clinton years when we were down to 318 ships. During those years also, the Navy had to respond to less incidents as it did during the Reagan years. It has since remained the same. As of today they say there is a goal of "313" ships by 2035, but due to the ever increasing costs (if a majority of what you rely on is cost plus fee, a lack of competition it is only natural) it just may not happen. The way the author sounds, he makes it seem like he is against any sort of military build up. He fails to mention in the 80's how many "pork barrel" R&D projects were cut, as well as the money that the tax payers saved through restructuring the way the Navy went about contracting, and the sucessfulness of the BOSS program. If we were to try a buildup like that today, the cost would be astranomically higher than that of the 80's (in todays dollars).

Things like Sea Swap, FRP (as we jokingly call it, family reduction plan) are like putting a band aid on a ruptured steam pipe. The problems are being swept under the rug. Tell me why ships that are in need of maintanence are deffering their work just so they could meet underway obligations? Why are we accepting ships like the San Antonio, only to later find more than 5000 discrepancies and have to pay for the work that should have been done right in the first place? If your views are based off of that book, so be it.

It is a view of many a person to only look at failures, and not bother to look at accomplishments, or completely ignore them. There were far more accomplishments then failures during the Reagan years.