So the decision has been made and the lead ship of the "CVN-21" class has been named (yeah, it's not going to enter service until 2015, but how can politicians resist naming mutil-billion dollar projects years in advance?). This mighty warship, filled with the latest in technological innovations, that will sail the seas, striking fear in would-be opponents of our country, is getting named ... (drum roll) ... after the oh-so nice and collegial Gerald Ford.
The USS Gerald Ford. Terrifying, no? That'll make terrorists or the Chinese think twice about commiting bad acts, no? Okay, no. Supporters of naming the ship "America" were the big losers in all this, though apparently they are going to keep up their fight and try to get the next carrier after the Gerald Ford named "America".
Wonkette has a funny review of how this cat was let out of the proverbial bag - apparently Donald Rumsfeld was once again breaking protocol and annoying the US military leadership when he announced this decision at the late president's funeral.
In a final public act of sabotage against America’s Military, the hateful little man announced at Ford's funeral that the carrier would bear Jerry's name. The Pentagon, as usual, was furious at Rumsfeld. The name of the ship was supposed to be announced at a ceremony in two weeks, and it was supposed to be a surprise. But Donald Rumsfeld is still a threat, and he’s always plotting against America’s armed forces.Posted by armand at January 4, 2007 06:26 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Military Affairs
I loathe that name too. Basically I don't think warships should be named after politicians unless their greatness has really stood the test of time. If it has, and as a society we've decided they represent US, okay then. So I'm fine with the Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and if we had one named the John Hancock, that would probably be fine too (especially since we already had a Hancock that was a decorated carrier in WWII), as would an Alexander Hamilton. But modern politicians? I don't like that idea. I mean I can see the argument if the politician in question was closely tied to the Navy, as in the case of the destroyer we have (or will) named after the late Sen. Chafee. But generally I think it's tiresome political posturing, and you might end up forcing thousands of brave Americans to serve and risk their lives on a vessel named for someone whose politics is anathema to them, or in some cases to the core of what their country stands for (as in the case of the racist Sen. Stennis). I much prefer the British model for naming warships - Vanguard, Victorious, Illustrious, Bulwark, Majestic, Triumph - now those are names for warships. If nothing else, go back to our early model of naming our carriers after important battles or important US warships of the past. Let's have another Saratoga, Lexington, Bennington or Midway - and leave post offices, airports and the like to be named after John Stennis, Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman.
Posted by: Armand at January 5, 2007 12:08 AM | PERMALINK