GovernmentExecutive.com

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday morning will consider the nomination of Francis Harvey to be secretary of the Army. The White House nominated Harvey for the position on Sept. 14. Harvey, a longtime defense industry executive, has no military experience.

Harvey currently serves on the boards of three companies backed by the Carlyle Groups, a private equity firm with ties to influential Republicans, including George H.W. Bush. Prior to that, he was at Westinghouse where he filled a number of senior executive positions. Observers say the nomination is resented by many service officials and some members of Congress who wonder why the White House would consider installing a new secretary a month prior to the presidential election and in the middle of a war.

The nomination of Harvey for the Army's top position stung many serving officers who want to see Acting Secretary Les Brownlee fill the position. Brownlee, who has been acting secretary for 16 months, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran with years of experience working in defense issues on Capitol Hill and is widely respected by members and staff of both parties.

Brownlee, by all accounts an extraordinarily hard worker, served for several years on the staff of Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Warner has provoked the ire of some in the White House and Pentagon for his criticism of the administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the subject of a number of hearings this summer. Some Army officers speculate that the nomination of Harvey is payback for those hearings.

Warner could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

COMMENTS

• Please, if you don't need any experience the field you're being nominated for, then even you and I are more than qualified. Just because someone is a good businessman, it doesn't mean he's qualified to be Secretary of the Army. GovExec.com reader Posted October 8, 2004 10:12 AM
• The previous comment, "Gee, imagine, the administration wants to put someone in charge of the military that has no military experience. Who would've thought?" looks just like a political attack. If I remember correctly, you want the Secretary to manage, direct, and provide new leadership to the Army. There is no requirement that that person be a soldier. Just like FDR was in a wheelchair and the Commander in Chief, there should be not problem with the person not having worn green. The question is, will that person select the next generation of Army Generals that will do their mission, or do their own thing? GovExec.com reader Posted October 7, 2004 10:34 AM
• Seems to be very short sighted. We need an experienced individual who knows what the military is all about in this key position. The individual nominated might be great at what he does but he is lacking in the one thing that should be required - military experience. This nomination is purely political and will cause the Army great harm. I am very disappointed in President Bush. Robert Winstead Posted October 7, 2004 9:06 AM