Senior intel officer removed after controversial comments on China

Navy Times — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:26:44 -0500

From: Navy Times

A senior Navy intelligence leader whose provocative comments this year about Chinese bellicosity stirred an international controversy has been shelved in the wake of an investigation into his conduct, Navy Times has learned.

Capt. James Fanell, the director of intelligence and information operations at U.S. Pacific Fleet, has been removed from that position by PACFLT boss Adm. Harry Harris and reassigned within the command, Navy officials confirmed.

Fanell warned during a February public appearance that a recent Chinese amphibious exercise led naval intelligence to assess that China's strategy was to be able to launch a "short, sharp war" with Japan, an unusually frank assessment about a closely watched region.

His comments, which ran counter to the Pentagon's talking points on building ties to the increasingly assertive Chinese navy, were picked up by media outlets from The New York Times and Reuters to London's Financial Times and Daily Telegraph. Top defense officials, including the 4-star head of the Army and the Pentagon spokesman, were forced to respond to his comment in the following days.

PACFLT did not disclose the relief, saying that Fanell was not a commanding officer and therefore was entitled to increased privacy.

"It is inappropriate to publicly discuss the internal reassignment of non-command triad personnel," PACFLT said in an Nov. 7 statement.

Fanell's relief is the latest turmoil in the Navy's intelligence community, and has raised questions about whether an intel officer was cashiered for publicly voicing a view that contradicted Pentagon public statements.

The reasons for Fanell's firing remain cloudy, but two sources said the relief stems from alleged mishandling of classified information and fostering a negative command climate.Capt. Darryn James, top spokesman for PACFLT, declined to say whether Fanell's relief was related to his controversial views, citing privacy concerns.

Fanell, 52, declined an interview request for comment through a spokesman.

Controversial captain

Fanell leaped into the public spotlight earlier this year when the press picked up on remarks he made at the U.S. Naval Institute's WEST 2014 conference, saying naval intelligence believed that China was preparing for a possible war with Japan.

"[We believe] the [People's Liberation Army] has been given the new task to be able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea following with what can only be expected [as] a seizure of the Senkakus or even southern Ryukyu [islands]," Fanell was quoted as saying.

Fanell has also stated that China is at the center of virtually every maritime territorial dispute in the Asia-Pacific and that the Chinese were engaging in a blatant land-grab of islands that would enhance their exclusive economic rights to fishing and natural resources.

"I do not know how Chinese intentions could be more transparent," he said, adding that when Beijing described its activities as the "protection of maritime rights," this was really "a Chinese euphemism for the coerced seizure of coastal rights of China's neighbors," the Financial Times reported.

Fanell's views have supporters inside naval intelligence, and he has become a high-profile spokesman for a more alarmist view of the rise of China than those espoused by Navy senior leadership, an intelligence source who spoke to Navy Times said. Fanell's articles on China have been published by Hoover Digest, Naval Intelligence Professionals Quarterly and the U. S. Naval Institute's Proceedings.

But his public remarks stirred a major controversy and forced both the Pentagon's top spokesman and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to repudiate his comments.

Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters that Fanell's comments were his to express and that they weren't reflective of the organization's stance on China.

"What I can tell you about what [Defense] Secretary [Chuck] Hagel believes is that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world," he said.

Coverage of the comments, which broke in early 2014, came at an awkward time, coinciding with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno's trip to Beijing in February, when he was asked by a reporter to respond to Fanell's analysis.

"I've seen no indications of that at all," he said, according to a Reuters report, referring to Fanell's analysis that China was preparing for war with Japan.

The comments also ran contrary to the messaging from Adm. Jon Greenert, who has made engagement with China one of the hallmarks of his time as chief of naval operations.

Later in 2014, Greenert stated that talking openly of war with China — and a Chinese war with Japan would almost certainly trigger a war with the U.S. — was unnecessarily antagonistic.

"If you talk about it openly, you cross the line and unnecessarily antagonize," Greenert said at a forum in Newport, Rhode Island. "You probably have a sense about how much we trade with that country. It's astounding. "

Fanell is a California native and nearly 29-year career intelligence officer commissioned in 1986. He was responsible for damage assessments for Pacific Fleet during operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield.

He served as a China maritime watch officer at Joint Intelligence Center Pacific in 1991, and served on board the carriers Kitty Hawk, Carl Vinson, as well as the amphibious command ship Blue Ridge.

He has been reassigned as an aid to Rear Adm. Randy Crites, head of the maritime headquarters at PACFLT.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/10/senior-navy-intel-officer-removed-for-controversial-comments-on-china/18789539/

Response by PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith made Nov 10 at 2014 12:50 PM

PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:50:50 -0500

Let's face it, whether or not what the Captain said is true or false is really immaterial. It's the fact he said it at all. He made life difficult for the people above him. That's never a wise career move.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Nov 10 at 2014 1:06 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:06:35 -0500

Sadly, perception is reality most of the time, the facts be damned.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 1:20 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:20:07 -0500

If he made the public remarks in February it makes a tad less likely that his reassignment 9 months later was due to the discomfort his remarks caused the Army Chief of Staff and/or the Chief of Naval Operations. The attempt to link the remarks to the reassignment sound like a re-emergence of the "panda-hugging" charges made against numerous senior intelligence who were experts on East Asia and China. I had the pleasure and honor of working with several of the officials labelled as "panda-huggers" - they were not "pro-China," they were (and are) American patriots.

Our policies regarding China are immensely complex and sometimes contradictory. Why? Because we share some interests with China (e.g. - a peaceful and nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, opposition to terrorism, support for the government of Afghanistan, suppression of piracy in the South China Sea and elsewhere, etc...) and are in opposition on others (e.g. - territorial claims in the South China Sea, suggestions of reunification with Taiwan through the use of force, claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, etc...). Some suggest that we should build relations based on the shared interests, others that we should confront them in the areas we oppose their policies, still others call for a mix of these approaches - for the most part, we have taken that third course over the last 20+ years. This has been immensely frustrating to some who believe that our areas of opposition should define the relationship. IMO, part of why they find a mixed policy so frustrating is that they cannot charge the US government is ignoring expansionist or provocative actions by China.

Response by PO3 Anthony Farhner made Nov 10 at 2014 1:30 PM

PO3 Anthony Farhner — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:30:54 -0500

He was asked to give an honest tactical and strategic assessment of a military exercise performed by a potential rival in a region of the world that our nation , through alliances and treaties, has made an obligation to ensure stays open for trade and commerce. The sea lanes must not be disrupted by conflict otherwise the world economy will be thrown into turmoil more than it already is.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 2:43 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:43:50 -0500

Going against the grains of the current administration is never a good idea. The real question is whether or not he divulged classified information in his remarks. I have a hard time believing that someone didn't approve his making public remarks. There is a reason why the military has public relations officers... PACFLT should have been a little wiser about who they let talk.

I'd also say that as the China Watch Officer at JICPAC would have given him a little bit more credence about Chinese threat analysis than some Admiral or General.

Response by LCDR Graham Cornwell made Nov 10 at 2014 4:13 PM

LCDR Graham Cornwell — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:13:46 -0500

Interesting.. he crossed over some line in the sand...know your audience Sir...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 5:42 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:42:17 -0500

I don't necessarily disagree with his comments! His personal beliefs are his to be shared at appropriate times. However, when speaking in public and as a representative of the Command, it was his duty to speak the Command Stance. Had he made his claims while "not" representing the command, then I would applaud him for his different stance and voicing it.

Many of us probably recall coming back from a Battalion Command and Staff Meeting personnally not liking and disagreeing with a new position or reqirement. When I stood in front of my formation of troops and put the policy out, it was as if it was my policy. I did not come out and say, "Ok folks, this is stupid, I disagree with it, but we have to do it anyway!" Never happened!

Now if/when I was out and maybe having a few beers with my Platoon Sgts/Ploatoon Ldrs, and the subject came up, I had no problem discussing it with them and telling them the truth, but also informed them that my personal thoughts went no further than us and it better stay that way. When you're in position that spotlights the command, you have to be a team memeber, whether you agree or not.

If he was so opposed to the Command's stance (including DOD, & JCS level as well), he should have declined his speaking engagment. He knew beter, he screwed up....and at that level, when you screw it up knowing better, he should have been removed!

I'm not saying I like it, however, reliefs generally are not easy nor taken lightly by Commanders. And in our current politico-military environment....he should have known better. Self Inflicted wounds are just as painful by accident or intentional! Tough one to call!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 8:44 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:44:35 -0500

Another reason to be quiet with this administration. Denial is the lesser of two evils.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 8:47 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:47:49 -0500

What president Reagan did in his term has been all undone...

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 10 at 2014 9:07 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:07:25 -0500

This story is near and dear to my heart. I recently posted a thread that echoes this very concept. Since Hitomi and I go married, I have been watching a lot of Japanese tv (NHK) and what they are dealing with there doesn't even get a blip of media attention here. Thank you Navy Times for reporting this!

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-japan-need-to-start-mining-their-waters

The Professional Military Network | RallyPoint

Find service members and veterans like you, discuss military life, and share professional opportunities on the largest military network.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 11 at 2014 10:29 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:29:43 -0500

The guy wasn't speaking his private, personal opinion after solicitation. He was speaking in a public fashion, and should have reflected the unified front of a Command position. Every single one of us knows we have our own personal opinions. Those of us who've served in a leadership position know that if we wish to be professionals, we don't ever undermine command authority by gainsaying their decision when we pass information down to our subordinates and peers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2014 11:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 23:05:58 -0500

Although his assessment is accurate, he made the cardinal mistake of giving his personal opinion. Especially when you're in a command position and you're in direct contact with the pentagon. This captain has been in for way too long especially at a strategic slot to know you can't deviate off message. For all we know this was probably addressed during the President's meetings in China

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Nov 12 at 2014 1:34 AM

PO3 John Jeter — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:34:34 -0500

It's difficult for me to make a dispassionate judgement call here. On the one hand there is the obligation and duty to present a unified front of the command position on the subject. Then again I see a Captain of the USN, a rank which is not bestowed upon foolish or irrational persons, risking his professional career (if not his actual liberty) to sound a warning in a very public and visible fashion. I cannot help but think of Billy Mitchell, a General who through his passionate belief in Air Power made statements which resulted in his court martial and subsequent resignation. Later he was proven to have been correct in his professional estimates and recommendations, although his methods have never been officially forgiven.
From what I have read, Captain Fanell is no newcomer to the intelligence dept. either. So, knowing the retribution that was certain to fall on his head, he still found it necessary to voice his professional estimate in opposition to the Command Position.
Capt. Fanell will have to suffer the inevitable consequences of his actions, but we need to look very closely indeed at the info that lead him to take that position. Given the track record of NCA the last few years, my concerns run very deep......

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Nov 12 at 2014 11:10 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:10:38 -0500

Brings a whole meaning to "giving an honest opinion". He gave one and they (powers to be) didn't like it because it was different and could cause the apple cart to be upset.

What happens in the future if his opinion just happens to come true? Does he get a public apology? Does he get his job back?

In my opinion, China doesn't have a 5 year plan, they got a 500 year plan. If you're planning on having kids in the future, I would suggest manderin chinese as a second language. Just look at how much China has invested in and over taken in the States and Europe!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 5:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:06:53 -0500

He didn't make a statement to press it's his job to do briefings... Even after he was removed he didn't talk to the media.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Nov 13 at 2014 2:16 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:16:37 -0500

I was listening to the John Batchelor show this evening on talk radio. His interview talked about the advances China has made in it's military; the new fighter which is like our F35, their supersonic anti-ship missile, advancements in airplane technology. I think maybe you may be able to listen to it at the following link. From what I heard on the show, and have read on the net, maybe his assessments might have been a little on the truth side.
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts

John Batchelor Show Podcasts | John Batchelor Show

You can subscribe to the new podcasts (more data, better music) of the New John Batchelor Show on ITunes or with our RSS Feed.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 8:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 20:57:42 -0400

I cannot wait until we get this bunch out of the White House. They are ruining the great wisdom that we had accrued because they dared to speak the truth.