Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

General Likely To Drop Out Hurt By Admission Of Adultery, Ralston Expected To End His Bid To Lead Joint Chiefs On Monday

Bradley Graham And Dana Priest Washington Post

Senior Pentagon officials said Saturday they anticipate that Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who became embroiled last week in controversy over an adulterous affair that ended nine years ago, will not seek to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Ralston, who was Defense Secretary William S. Cohen’s top choice for the job, has been traveling in central Asia and is due to return here today. While the general had intended to stay in the race and has not yet signaled a decision to withdraw, the officials said Ralston, who is now the vice chairman, likely will choose to avoid a fight.

“He’ll have to make his own assessment and give his recommendation to the secretary,” said a senior official, who asked not to be named. “But it’s likely he’ll reach the conclusion that this is not a winnable fight.”

The prediction came as Cohen announced he had asked his legal advisers to review procedures for handling adultery cases amid charges by lawmakers and other critics of a double standard in the military justice system. Pentagon officials said the aim of the review was not to relax the prohibition against adultery but to clarify the circumstances under which it should be considered a crime.

“Recent perceptions that our system is inconsistent damage the morale of our troops,” Cohen said in a statement. “We must address these issues in a thorough, well-informed way that has credibility with the military, Congress and the public.”

Cohen also announced the creation of two panels. One, composed of civilian and military representatives, will review broader policy issues involving sexual relations in the military. The other panel established Saturday will study mixed-sex training and will be headed by former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker, R-Kan.

The measures were announced at an unusual Saturday afternoon news conference in response to the storm of criticism over a series of sexual misconduct cases. The most recent was Cohen’s decision not to disqualify Ralston as a candidate for the Joint Chiefs’ chairmanship because of the adulterous affair, which occurred during two periods between 1984 and 1988 while he was separated from his first wife.

Ralston informed Pentagon aides this week about the affair after news organizations made inquiries about it. Cohen said on Wednesday that he had decided to “draw a line” on the Ralston case, but political support for the general has been weak, causing Pentagon officials to doubt Ralston could win Senate confirmation.

“It’s not a question of his fitness to serve, but a matter of getting there,” said a senior official. “I just don’t know who would would carry the fight in the Senate. Members have indicated they have no stomach for waging this one.”

Among the other candidates Cohen is said to be considering are: Army Gen. John Tilelli, commander of U.S. forces in Korea; Army Gen. George Joulwan, due to step down this summer as the top NATO commander; and Adm. Joseph Lopez, head of NATO’s southern command.

The controversy over Ralston has intensified a sense of open hunting on the reputations of senior military figures. It also has consumed defense officials at a time when they have been grappling with the most dramatic changes in the Pentagon’s world mission and future direction in 50 years.

Cohen’s willingness to excuse Ralston’s affair has clashed with other recent cases in which military officers have ended up demoted, fined and sometimes discharged or retired early for adultery. The contrast in treatment has prompted cries of a double standard from critics in Congress and elsewhere, who dismiss as unpersuasive Cohen’s attempts so far to justify the differences.

Cohen maintains that Ralston’s affair with a civilian did not damage military effectiveness or bring discredit on the Air Force. But the distinction has been lost on many who instead see a very high-ranking general receiving the benefit of the doubt because he is favored by the defense secretary and other top Pentagon officials.

The example of 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn, the female Air Force bomber pilot who chose a less-than-honorable discharge last month to avoid courtmartial for adultery, lying and disobedience, has reinforced a widespread perception that the code is applied unfairly to women and lower-ranking service members.

“It seems as if it’s been applied inconsistently, specifically with regard to senior officers,” said David Sheldon, an attorney with the non-profit Institute for Military Justice. “There’s a tendency for those officers to be overlooked.”

But not all generals and admirals have enjoyed immunity. Army Maj. Gen. John E. Longhouser decided last week to retire as commander of the Aberdeen Proving Ground after admitting he committed adultery more than five years ago. Just before that, Army Brig. Gen. Stephen N. Xenakis was relieved of the command of all Army medical operations in the Southeast region because of an affair with a civilian nurse who was caring for his ill wife.

Rear Adm. Ralph Tindal, deputy commander of the Iberian region off Portugal, was found guilty at an administrative proceeding of adultery in 1995 and was stripped of one star, fined thousands of dollars and confined to quarters for 30 days for an affair he had with a female administrative clerk. In another case that year, Ralston decided to strip Lt. Gen. Thomas R. Griffith of his command of the 12th Air Force after Griffith admitted committing adultery with a civilian.

Pentagon lawyers in position to monitor a broad array of sexual misconduct cases readily acknowledged vagaries in the way adultery cases are handled.

In interviews last week, they characterized such apparent inconsistencies not as shortcomings but strengths of a military justice system meant to be flexible and grant vast discretion to commanders in deciding how to dispose of cases. Such flexibility is necessary, defense officials said, to accommodate the varying military circumstances of war and peace.

But the leeway incorporated into the law’s vague wording can lead to confusion about just where the boundaries lie. Under military law, adultery itself is not criminal. The infidelity becomes a crime only if a commander decides the behavior is prejudicial to good order and discipline or brings discredit on the armed forces.