by David Poyer
MRS. MACLAY. That’s my cue to go into closed session, is it not? Before going further, let’s make sure the room is secure.
Dan sat back, trying not to slump while accommodating the pain in his upper spine. When the room was reported secure and the mikes were off, the hearing resumed.
MRS. MACLAY. One point we wanted to get to today is recent Navy actions in the eastern Mediterranean. Though there hasn’t been much press coverage, we’ve been briefed that two TBMs were intercepted and two were missed. Then, in a second … event, I guess you could call it, an Israeli missile was shot down and an Iranian ship was sunk. Some reports say two were sunk. Several members have called for clarification.
VICE ADMIRAL NILES. Madam Chairman, we will go as deeply into that action as this subcommittee desires. However, let me make one point first.
As you know, the Navy has a long tradition of allowing its commanding officers considerable latitude in how they fight their ships. We try not to micromanage them when they are deployed, especially in situations that require swift and decisive reactions for own-ship defense. Instead, we provide general combat guidance and rules of engagement.
The surface action against an Iranian task group falls under the ROEs for self-defense. I will venture the statement, to the extent I can speak for the Navy, that Captain Lenson, of USS Savo Island, acted properly in responding to actual weapon launch by the Iranians. In the subsequent action, although we’re still sorting out “who shot John,” the Iranian frigate took major damage and a gunboat was sunk. Once the threat was resolved, Captain Lenson took appropriate action to rescue survivors and tow the derelict frigate to a friendly port.
MR. HOLLIGER. This ship was captured by our forces, correct? Are you saying Captain Lenson then gave her back?
VICE ADMIRAL NILES. A state of war did not exist, and the Iranian authorities held that their missile launch was accidental. Thus, we had no legal right to retain the frigate as a prize. Captain Lenson kept us informed of his thinking in that regard, and we concurred in his actions.
However, to go on. Immediately prior to that engagement, Savo Island had engaged two Iraqi missiles targeted against Israel, utilizing a small loadout of experimental SM-2 Block 4 ABM rounds. She was the first ship to deploy with this nascent capability, and frankly, we did not expect much; both software and missile are still developmental.
MRS. MACLAY. So it’s your opinion that Captain Lenson’s conduct in this engagement was within the guidance the Navy had given him?
VICE ADMIRAL NILES. This indeed, ma’am, is the crux of the question. He is here with us. Perhaps it would be best to let him speak for himself.
MRS. MACLAY. Good morning, Captain Lenson. We’re glad you could be with us today to clarify your actions. I understand from my staff that you are one of the most highly decorated naval officers still on active duty. And in fact, that you hold—and I am reading from your Navy Department summary record—the Silver Star, the Navy Cross, the Navy–Marine Corps Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with a V, a Defense Superior Service Medal, four Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and one Navy Expeditionary Medal, six Navy Sea Service Medals, four Purple Hearts, a POW Medal, two Overseas Service Ribbons, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with two battle stars, the Presidential Unit Citation, the National Defense Service Medal with one star, and various other ribbons, some, I note, from other countries—Indonesia, France, the Republic of Korea. I congratulate you on what has obviously been a long and no doubt stressful career.
CAPTAIN LENSON. Thank you, ma’am.
MR. LA BLANC. Is the chairwoman’s summary essentially correct, Captain?
CAPTAIN LENSON. Um, if it is from my record, probably. I would have to check before I could say it was definitive.
MR. LA BLANC. Meaning you have been decorated so much and so often you no longer are able to keep them straight. I would submit that Captain Lenson is a warrior. Unlike most who testify before this committee, who are rear-echelon figures.
MRS. MACLAY. Thank you, Mr. La Blanc. Captain, would you summarize your actions this winter, specifically those which led to your firing four antiballistic missiles?
CAPTAIN LENSON. Yes, ma’am. USS Savo Island was posted off the Levant on a defense of Israel mission. I have brought a copy of those orders for the record, if desired. They are classified. During our time on station several enhanced-range Scud-type variants knows as Al-Husayns were fired from the Western Operating Area.
On the night in question, three TBMs were fired simultaneously from the Al-Anbar area. We were cued via satellite and prepared to engage. However, I had only two missile defense rounds available at that time, due to a casualty in the after magazine. The impact point prediction for the first missile resolved to an aim point directly over Savo Island. Missiles 2 and 3 were targeted against cities in Israel. I directed that we take missiles 2 and 3 with Standard.
MR. LA BLANC. Not the first? The one that was aimed at you?
CAPTAIN LENSON. Doctrine assigned us a lower value than the defended area. This is actually pretty common, in that the mission of a cruiser, or a destroyer, is typically to defend a higher-value unit.
MR. LA BLANC. I see. Proceed, please. I take it that the first shot, aimed at you, missed.
CAPTAIN LENSON. The first reentry body, which I believe was a terminal homer, disintegrated during its reentry phase.
MRS. MACLAY. What were the results of your own two shots?
CAPTAIN LENSON. We achieved one successful intercept and one miss. The warhead we missed impacted on a shelter in Tel Aviv. I have seen media reports that upwards of two hundred people died.
MR. PARKS. Were you satisfied with that performance? Captain Widermann, I would like you to comment as well.
CAPTAIN LENSON. I was not satisfied, sir, but it was consistent with the results we had seen up to then in the test series.
CAPTAIN WIDERMANN. Sir, Captain Lenson’s statement is basically accurate. The Block 4 is not yet in the production phase. He was issued developmental rounds and beta software in order to respond to an emergent operational necessity at the strategic level. Given the limited resources devoted to the program thus far, I would say we were lucky to get the results he did.
MRS. MACLAY. I see. Then two days later …
CAPTAIN LENSON. Two days later, more or less, we received intel that a retaliatory launch was being planned. This was to be an Israeli launch of their Jericho missile against Baghdad. We followed this very closely.
MR. LA BLANC. Did you seek guidance as to how to react?
CAPTAIN LENSON. Yes sir. Via naval channels, and also directly from the West Wing via a civilian White House staffer who was aboard, a Mr. Adam Ammermann.
MR. PARKS. Was such guidance forthcoming?
CAPTAIN LENSON. Not in a timely enough fashion to guide my actions.
MRS. MACLAY. Let’s go back to this civilian staffer. What was his function aboard your ship?
CAPTAIN LENSON. He informed us his mission was liaison with the administration.
MRS. MACLAY. Doctor, was this one of your people? This sounds very irregular.
DR. SZERENCI. Mr. Ammermann is not attached to my office. He is, or was, I understand, a junior-level staffer in the Office of Public Liaison. I am not aware of any orders to him through my office, which stands separate.
Dan ran his gaze along the row of faces above him. Some seemed interested; others, tuned out; one or two, hostile; most, impassive. Sandy kept staring down at him. Her head seemed to be weaving slightly. As their eyes crossed she smiled again, but it wasn’t friendly. More like someone contemplating a tasty meal.
A nudge; one of the staffers passed up a note. When he unfolded it, it was Blair’s handwriting. Who is the woman on the right? She keeps staring at you.
He pocketed it, then changed his mind. Wrote, Knew her in Dr. Szerenci’s class. You met her at vice president’s house. Tennessee congresswoman. Folded it, and held i
t behind his back until someone took it.
MRS. MACLAY. Back to you, Captain Lenson. Your actions vis-à-vis the Israeli counterstrike. That is the crux of the matter we want to get to.
CAPTAIN LENSON. Yes, ma’am. To cut to the bottom line, we detected the Israeli launch, and I took it under fire and destroyed it.
MR. PARKS. Without authorization.
CAPTAIN LENSON. Under the guidance provided in my orders. Specifically, the directive to safeguard civilian populations.
MR. PARKS. You were aware we were at war with Iraq?
CAPTAIN LENSON. With respect, sir, I understood we were engaged in regime change. This did not, in my view, change the intent of the orders.
MRS. MACLAY. All right. I think we have clarified Captain Lenson’s view of the matter, as the commander on the scene. If I understand correctly, his position is that he made that decision based on his written rules of engagement. What we are concerned with here is, first, if he actually followed those rules, and, second, if so, whether those guidelines are sufficiently transparent and inclusive so as to avoid having our commanders subject to having to reinterpret them at short notice. Believe me, we here do not enjoy having to second-guess our military commanders. That is far from our intent. I would like now to have, first, Dr. Hui’s, then Admiral Niles’s position on those two questions. After that, if Dr. Szerenci has anything he would like to contribute, the subcommittee would be glad to have his input as well.
DR. HUI. Madam Chairman, you are entering upon questions of national security, questions as to the strategic employment of certain new weapons, that go to the heart of our alliance relationships, commitments outside my portfolio. As scientists, we can comment on the technical aspects of developing antiballistic systems. But you are asking a policy question that needs to be addressed at the military command level.
MRS. MACLAY. Your response is noted. Admiral Niles, it seems like the buck is on your desk.
ADMIRAL NILES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will answer both questions. First, Captain Lenson made, perhaps not the only possible decision he could logically derive from his guidance, but still, a rational decision under conditions of great pressure. Would I have made that same decision? Possibly not. But it is justifiable under the terms of his orders.
The answer to your second question will be unsatisfactory, perhaps. It has to do with the latitude one allows commanders in combat. As you recall, I began with the comment that Navy tradition allows its commanding officers considerable leeway in how they fight their ships. It is possible that his rules of engagement should have specified that they did not mean for him to forestall acts of war by our allies. However, that, in my view, would be a mistake.
MR. PARKS. That is a less than satisfactory answer, Admiral.
ADMIRAL NILES. Then I will have to say that if a more detailed guidance is necessary, it properly needs to come from the secretary of defense. Inasmuch as it concerns a conflict between our commitments to an ally, and relevant sections of UN treaty and international law, it should be studied at the highest political level.
MRS. MACLAY. All right, thank you, Admiral. Dr. Szerenci: you represent that highest political level, as the national security adviser to the president. We would be glad to hear your opinion.
DR. SZERENCI. With all due respect, ma’am, this is a question we are debating within the administration. I would not care to vouchsafe a personal opinion until we have had time to exercise due diligence and take legal counsel.
However, I would like to point out that the very fact we are able to have a debate like this—to discuss whether the United States should exercise some sort of international police power, to abort or strike down any ballistic attack or counterattack, by whatever country—is a source of considerable deterrent effect.
Deeper than this, however, lies a question of the limits of national power. Let’s move past whether this officer acted rightly or wrongly, to a broader issue. I have heard the idea advanced that if we have technology to prevent a strike, we are bound by international law to stop it, irrespective of its origin. Certain quarters are even calling this—to Captain Lenson’s outrage, I feel sure—the “Lenson Doctrine,” and calling for its adoption as policy.
Though such a policy might be superficially appealing, I can hardly imagine a more dangerous course. It would place the United States in the position of an officer of the law on the most dangerous corners of the world, but without the legitimacy of that corner policeman. The only way to legitimize such a mission would be under the aegis of the United Nations; and this is unacceptable to large portions of our public. Also, many of our closest allies have or are developing such missile systems, for defensive purposes. Finally, it would require massive investments in equipment, sensors, and manpower. As the funding authority for our forces, Congress should tread especially carefully here.
Thank you for the opportunity to state my position.
MRS. MACLAY. Thank you, Dr. Szerenci. For the insight into geopolitical realities, and also for the reminder that we fund the armed forces.
DR. SZERENCI. I apologize, ma’am.
MRS. TREHERNE. Madam Chairman?
MRS. MACLAY. The chair recognizes Congresswoman Treherne as a guest of the committee.
Dan sat erect, skin prickling with a foretaste of storm. Treherne’s cheeks were flushed bright red. Her hair looked as if she hadn’t combed it. Niles beckoned an aide to his side and whispered into his ear. Szerenci sat frowning, twiddling a gold mechanical pencil.
MRS. TREHERNE. It seems to me that an important part of all this is being left out. That is, does everyone realize certain things about this man—Lenson?
MRS. MACLAY. Can the congresswoman please expand on her statement?
MRS. TREHERNE. I will be happy to do so. I have known this … officer for many years, and frankly, I am astonished his likes are still tolerated in our armed forces. I’m sitting here listening to this list of his medals and all this praise, but the truth is, this man is a closet pacifist. He was closely associated with antiwar elements in this city, including the radical Dorothy Day House, home of the convicted saboteur Carl Haneghan and the Griffiss Four. How did such a man get promoted? Is the subcommittee going to take his anti-American activities into account?
MR. PARKS. These are surprising allegations. If true, they are serious indeed.
MRS. TREHERNE. They are both true and serious. They point to a dangerous penetration of peace elements, elements that desire the weakening and defeat of the United States, into our national defense. What exactly is Lenson advocating? I think Dr. Szerenci hit the nail on the head. Nothing less than turning our armed forces into some sort of Gestapo that enforces the will of the United Nations around the world, ending in tyranny.
“This woman knows you?” Niles whispered from behind a large hand. “She’s drunk.”
MRS. MACLAY. Admiral Niles, were you aware of such activities on the part of Mr. Lenson, Captain Lenson, before his being placed in command?
ADMIRAL NILES. Ma’am, I have known Daniel V. Lenson since he was a junior officer. I believe that at one time he dated a woman who was involved in those circles. However, he has rendered sterling service in very demanding circumstances. I have never believed all leaders are cast from the same mold, or that one step out of line, as long as it’s for praiseworthy reasons, renders an officer unfit for command.
MRS. TREHERNE. Is that so, Admiral? Then he’s pulled the wool over your eyes, that’s for sure. Let me ask him one question. Lenson. One direct question.
MR. LA BLANC. Really, this is going beyond the prerogatives of a guest of the subcommittee. Did we come here to conduct a witch hunt, or to examine policy?
MRS. MACLAY. I rather agree, but in the interests of clarification, I would tend to let the congresswoman ask her single question of the witness. One only.
MRS. TREHERNE. Very good. Captain Lenson, then.
CAPTAIN LENSON. Yes, Congresswoman.
MRS. TREHERNE. You are in command of a ship that
has these antimissile missiles. We, the Americans, launch a missile that’s headed for an enemy population center. Not a military installation. A city. Will you shoot that down? Yes or no?
Dan took a deep breath. Beside him Niles was still as a mountain. Szerenci’s proton-beam stare was scorching him from the opposite side. The national security adviser hissed, “Of course you wouldn’t. Just say so.” And Blair, no doubt, was glaring at his back.
MRS. MACLAY. Captain Lenson? Will you respond to the question?
CAPTAIN LENSON. To my knowledge, attacks on population centers are not part of our war planning.
ADMIRAL NILES. If I may? This is a speculative question based on a highly unlikely hypothetical. It’s unfair to pose this as some kind of litmus test, without first providing the ROEs and guidance from higher authority we are discussing in this subcommittee.
MRS. TREHERNE. But we attacked cities in World War II. If we do it again, whose side will you be on, Captain Lenson? I ask once more, yes or no: would you shoot down our own missile?
DR. SZERENCI. I must protest. I understand this is closed session. But this type of discussion, on the record in any way … if made public, it could seriously compromise our deterrent posture.
MRS. TREHERNE. I see he’s avoiding the question. Hiding behind his superiors. Or is he taking the Fifth?
Dan sat with his head propped on his right hand. Answer the question, then shut up … and, by the way, don’t make news. Unfortunately, it wasn’t turning out that straightforwardly. Each second seemed to stretch out even longer than it had when a missile had been burning its way down toward Savo Island. And only flawed engineering, or too-hasty assembly, had resulted in its not tearing through steel and flesh to explode at last deep inside her hull. He’d put his crew’s life on the line, to defend others. Just like any cop on the street, any day, in any city.
