Air Force boss aimed deep at nuclear missile corps' ills
WASHINGTON — When Deborah Lee James became top boss of the Air Force seven months ago, she had no inkling a nuclear crisis was brewing. But once it erupted in the form of exam cheating by dozens of missile launch officers, she quickly announced conclusions that no Air Force leader before her had dared state publicly.
The nuclear missile corps' problems run deep, she said, morale is “spotty” and forceful fixes are needed.
James reached those conclusions in January after a short visit to the three Air Force bases that operate intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. She met not only with commanders but also with the rank and file, including enlisted airmen who keep the missiles running properly and junior officers trained to launch them.
“I walked away believing there was something systemic, cultural if you will, that went beyond cheating and (that's) why I felt like we needed to not just address cheating — yes, we have to fix that — but we need to go farther than that,” she said in an interview.
To her it seemed natural to acknowledge that publicly, although others in the Air Force had chosen not to.
“I hope and believe I am a straight talker,” she said. “I think it's better to just say it. Don't mince words. And so I thought it was important to just stand up publicly and say what seemed to be obvious to me.”
Her candor and crisis management have won praise from Republicans and Democrats.
“She has forged relationships with troops and listened to their inputs,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “She has identified shortfalls in ICBM leadership and made corrections. That is a sharp difference from the way Air Force leadership has handled these issues in the past.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.