02-08-2005

Guest Column: In Defense of Ed Stanton



By Nat Sands



I am the person responsible for the recent article on civilian guests aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (“Guest Column: No Relief in Sight for the Lincoln,” DefenseWatch, Jan. 20, 2005). I personally know the officer who used the pen name, Ed Stanton. I knew he was serving aboard the Lincoln, and I personally contacted him and solicited his comments. I asked him to provide information regarding problems the Navy might be having in dealing with reporters and relief workers and how our sailors and aviators were coping with possible conflicts between their combat mission and relief efforts. I then contacted DefenseWatch and forwarded the officer’s comments for publication.



In no way did Stanton impinge upon the honor of his supervisors, his Navy contemporaries, or the men serving on the Lincoln. Nor did he question the rationale of the Navy’s relief efforts or criticize any decision to provide assistance and quarters for reporters and relief workers.



He simply stated facts regarding difficulties in maintaining combat readiness, the conduct of civilian guests, and the indisputable fact that many of the civilian relief workers demonstrated utter disregard for civility. Those relief workers may have kissed up to the high brass but they didn’t provide any relief for the officers and men who keep the carrier going and planes flying.



Any officer who would criticize that officer, attempt to identify him, or try to make his life miserable, is simply ignoring a few facts about himself. Prior planning and thorough briefings for sailors and civilians in regards to onboard protocol would have avoided what became an embarrassment to someone’s inability to lead and organize.



Two of the eleven principles of leadership are, “Keep your men informed,” and “Make sure the mission is understood, supervised, and accomplished.” Before any senior officer considers retaliatory action, he should reassess his own conduct and failures in omission.



The mess steward and civilian guests should have been provided explicit instructions as to how civilian guests pay for meals. The civilians should have been briefed on onboard conduct and such things as the necessity for using paper products instead of dishes that require precious water for cleaning. And that’s not Monday morning quarterbacking, it’s simply common sense.



American soldiers, Marines, sailors and Airmen have always tolerated and will continue tolerating a lot of BS as long as they understand that extraordinary situations usually require extraordinary patience. In turn, proper briefings for civilians will provide an opportunity for them to act like guests and not privileged ingrates.



As for Dan Rather, who cares what that pompous prevaricator thinks, says or does? He has repeatedly proven that unearned respect should not be given.



I also take issue with the comments from Lt. Cmdr. Jim Vorce regarding Stanton (“Guest Column: In Defense of Civilian Relief Workers,” DefenseWatch, Jan. 28, 2005). Publicly criticizing a fellow officer for what he didn’t say is what officers in the Army call “brown-nosing your rater.” Stanton never criticized the Navy, the men and women who serve in the Navy, or the Navy’s relief mission. Vorce did him an injustice.



Nat Sands is a criminologist, retired Army officer, and Vietnam veteran. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

Ellie