Following Hamas’ attack on Israel, the U.S. Navy has mobilized one of largest concentrations of force in the Eastern Mediterranean in four decades. And just last week, a Navy destroyer reportedly shot down cruise missiles headed for Israel. The Navy is also being led by an acting chief, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, instead of a chief confirmed by the Senate because Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville has a hold on her confirmation. That’s in addition to 370 other Defense Department nominations and promotions the senator is blocking due to the Pentagon’s abortion policy.
Tuberville has refused to budge on his blockade, even as various international wars rage on and the military is warning about the danger of escalation that involves attacks on U.S. forces. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told ABC’s "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl that the Pentagon is “concerned about potential escalation. In fact, what we're seeing ... is the prospect of a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and our people throughout the region.” Austin continued, “If any group or any country is looking to widen this conflict and take advantage of this very unfortunate situation ... our advice is: don’t.”
The U.S. military is in a precarious situation, and our adversaries could be trying to exploit that due in very large part to Tuberville’s stunt. Throughout the military, senior officers are serving in an acting capacity, and the lower ranks of officers are operating under uncertainty because their careers have been put in limbo by Tuberville’s hold on promotions and confirmations. And still, the senator won’t budge.
So maybe the Senate needs to change and curtail the ability of one lawmaker to wield this much power. That’s what scholars Jake Barnes, Zachary Griffiths, Scott Limbocker, and Lee Robinson at the U.S. Military Academy argue in an article for Lawfare.
“Focusing solely on the holds of one senator misses the larger problem: that the U.S. government subjects the appointment and nomination of general officers to the political whims of elected officials rather than merit-based promotion principles in the first place,” they write. “It is time to revisit this practice.”
There’s a historical reason for this, the authors explain. Under President George Washington, Secretary of War Henry Knox was in charge of appointing generals, and Knox wanted to make sure that the relatively small officer corps wasn’t concentrated geographically and had reliable, trustworthy people in it. He required “home-state senators to vouch for the character of their appointees,” they write. Keeping the tradition of congressional confirmation was part of the system of checks and balances: Military brass wouldn’t be in the pockets of either the president or lawmakers—in theory, anyway. Eventually, political patronage deepened throughout the 19th century, the authors argue, not just in military appointments but in the civil service as well.
The civil service grew to such a point in the 20th century that more merit-based systems and laws were created. There’s still a huge number of positions subject to Senate approval—a number that grew 59% between 1960 and 2016—and the politicization of those confirmations is an increasing problem. In the military, however, similar reforms haven’t taken place, and career military personnel are still having to rely on the political preferences and whims of senators.
The Senate’s power here invites politicization, especially when it and the executive branch are held by opposing parties. Or when one crank in the Senate can decide he or she will gum up everything and endanger national security—just because they feel like it, and the Senate rules allow for it.
This is one more area in which the Senate is stuck in ancient history, not responding to either the government and society of the 21st century, or the GOP’s scorched-earth politics. Like the filibuster—a “Jim Crow relic,” as former President Barack Obama called it—or blue slips that give veto power to single senators on judicial nominations, the general officer promotion and confirmation process is archaic and broken.
It’s dangerous for the Senate to be the place where a committed and destructive minority can block everything. But it’s a threat to national security when a single zealot can handcuff the whole military. In the short term, Senate Democrats have to find a way to circumvent Tuberville or make it so politically painful for his fellow Republicans that they have to stop enabling him.
In the long term, as with the filibuster and blue slips, the Senate needs to reform and stop letting the minority control the place.
Sign the petition: Tell Sen. Tommy Tuberville to stop endangering national security.
RELATED STORIES:
Tuberville under increased pressure to end military blockade amid Israel crisis
Warren wants to 'turn up the heat' on Tuberville's military promotion block
McConnell's white supremacist roots are showing in his filibuster fight