Danzig & Mullen? Nonconcur.

ship names send a message

What you name a ship is not a trivial matter. There is a record here.

Rightfully, this news last week struck a nerve with navalists everywhere;

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced the names of the Navy’s newest Arleigh Burke-class Guided Missile Destroyers, the future USS Richard J. Danzig (DDG 143) and the future USS Michael G. Mullen (DDG 144) during a U.S. Naval Academy Commencement Week ceremony, May 22.

A LOT of people sent me emails, DMs, text messages, smoke signals, you name it - in a private way to express their feelings along the spectrum from shock to disgust on the announcement that these were the names of our last BURKE DDGs.

OK, fine … as both of these people are alive, have significant influence, etc etc … I get it. Fine, I’ll write what others can’t … and in many of their cases, shouldn’t.

As a general rule, I am against naming warships after living people. One exception would be for an exceptional leader such as Admiral Arleigh Burke, USN, who was 89 years old when the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) was commissioned on a beautiful day July 4th, 1991.

His service to our Navy in uniform is unmatched in the modern era. I think few would object to naming what wound up being the last functional destroyer class designed by the US Navy in almost four decades after him.

There was precedence in naming after living people - always be careful of tearing down one of Chesterton’s Fences - with the naming of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) commissioned in 1995. Senator Stennis died at age 93, eight-months prior to the commissioning of the STENNIS.

There are a lot of stories as to WHY it was named STENNIS - for the most base political reasons, but it was done. (Fun cultural side note: during the height of the Cultural Revolution when our Red Guards were running around playing American Taliban tearing down things and renaming whatever would accrue clout to them and their comrades, there were moves to rename STENNIS. Funny, in spite of the new zeal against adult men preying on underage boys for sexual satisfaction, no one is coming after USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206). Huh. Anyway, I digress.)

Stennis did have four decades in the Senate shaping the modern US Navy … so if I squint, I can shrug through the politics…but naming ships after politicians … still does not sit right.

The seal was broken, and so we have a feast of consequences.

Do Richard Danzig and Admiral Mike Mullen, USN (Ret.) rise to the levels of a Stennis or a Burke?

Danzig has been a figure in (D) natsec circles since the 1970s. He served as the Undersecretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Navy during the Clinton Administration and as an advisor to (D) political campaigns ever since. (necessary, good, and honorable work for any party, really) Never elected to public office and a lawyer by training, he oversaw the gutting of naval infrastructure, shipbuilding, and maintenance in the post-Cold War era that created the strategically catastrophic conditions we have in these areas in 2024 as we struggle to catch up to the People’s Republic of China west of the International Date Line.

He did not build the Navy of the 21st century; he was in the seat when it was hobbled. A smart man who answered the call by the President to serve in a hard job at a challenging time, doing the best he could - but do the results merit a DDG?

Mullen was Vice Chief of Naval Operations in 2003 and 2004. Prior to that, he was Deputy Director and Director of Surface Warfare and as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Requirements, and Assessments. I want you to stop for a moment and remember what was stewing in the pot during those years. OK, let’s pick up the timeline again.

He was CNO from 2005-2007 and then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007-2011. He approved the uplift of forces I spent my last years of active duty working on, hand in glove. He was briefed on what would happen if we did not follow through. He sat there on December 1st, 2009 as we threw it all away, setting the conditions for the national humiliation in August of 2021.

Our surface force has yet to recover from the Age of Transformationalism that Mullen was at the very heart of. LCS, DDG-1000, CG(X), the teething pains of LDP-17, SWO-in-a-box, the list goes on. No need to cover what he’s done since retirement or the ham-fisted political games he’s played since on the domestic side.

He did not build the Navy of the 21st century; he was in the seat when it was hobbled. A smart man who answered the call by the President to serve in a hard job at a challenging time, doing the best he could - but do the results merit a DDG?

What is one to take away from naming two DDG DANZIG and MULLEN? Political patronage…but my oh my how low the standards have fallen since it was decided that we could explain away STENNIS’s naming.

I don’t know if MULLEN should be too happy having a destroyer named after him. There has always been a robust defense of him when others would criticize his time in uniform as being overtly partisan in nature that continues on after retirement. There was plausible deniability and good people could differ on the topic, but that grey-area of argument has been stripped away. The winning argument now is that, yes, he was partisan… or at a minimum became such. When? No later than December 1st, 2009.

What inspiration will people have when they explain to friends and family why the ship they serve on was named as it was? What will that tell them with regards to what their Navy values, what is honors?

As with STENNIS, with time and a few decades of service, the story of these ships and their performance at sea will eclipse their namesakes…but it will always be there.

Less than with Danzig, but more with Mullen, there will be a bit of a sting when the question is asked, “What did they do that made our Navy what it is today?”

A new bar has been set, I’m not sure anyone should be happy with it.