He lost his fight with Carlucci and resigned in protest.
That's how I understand it. It was a long time ago and I'm going largely on my memory of the coverage in the papers back then. Everyone feel free to correct me.
I was in Naval ROTC at the time of the reach toward a 600 ship Navy. The reason, as I understand it, was more to do with choke points and restricting Soviet fleet movements (especially their subs). If you look at a map of the old Soviet Union, you can see how land locked they actually were for a huge country- in Europe you had all sorts of American friendly straights the fleet had to go through to get to the Atlantic. In the Pacific you had Alaska and Japan choking their access to ice free waters. When they invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the Soviets were heading south toward a warm water port in either Iran or Pakistan. I seem to recall that they had friendly relations with the Iranians, that sort of got screwed up by our little Saddam in the mid-80s.
Remember, in the mid-80s, we faced something that makes the GWOT look like small potatos- 20,000 nukes aimed at us. And the ability of Soviet subs to get out undetected and park off our coasts was a HUGE concern (remember the Hunt for Red October?).
Hope that helps some. And yes, Webb quit because he wanted that same ability to control the Soviets and the administration backed down from that commitment (along with Congress).
Casper Weingberger was the one who recruited Webb. Weinberger resigned about 7 months into Webb's SecNav term (after having served 7 years under Reagan). The spat involved Webb and Weinberger's successor Frank Carlucci.
The 600 fleet Navy was at the center of the dispute. Reagan had stated that this was a priority of his throughout his presidency. Webb signed on in the belief that this was in fact "office policy". He believed that the 600 ship Navy was essential and tried to accomodate Carlucci by finding cuts in other areas of the Navy budget.
Carlucci refused and insisted that the cuts come from downsizing the fleet (Timberg suggests that Carlucci was pushing for ship cuts to curry favor with congress--although there's no verification on this). Reagan's point-of-view on the issue was largely absent--although odds are he would have sided with the more senior administrative official.
Caught in a no-win situation, Webb resigned rather than execute an order that he believed was contrary to the interests of the Navy and the nation.
February 22, 1988Dear Mr. President:
Over the past three months the Department of Defense has been struggling to implement a mandated 33 billion dollar reduction of the FY 89 budget approved by you last year. The Navy Department was directed to absorb a significant share of this reduction, which eventually became approximately 12 billion dollars.
Like many others, I have serious concerns regarding the entire budget reduction process. First, the Department of Defense has been required to absorb cuts at a ratio almost twice as great as non-defense programs. Second, many Defense reductions themselves have been made in the wrong areas, and without clear strategic thought. I am particularly upset with the nature of the cuts as they affect the Department under my authority.
On three separate occasions, the uniformed and civilian leadership of the Navy Department provided the Secretary of Defense with proposed cuts totaling the amount required to meet the budget reduction, but which also would preserve the cherished goal of your administration to rebuild our Navy to a minimum level of 600 ships. In each case the advice of this senior leadership, concurred in by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ignored. I can only conclude that the decision to reduce the level of our fleet to a point that it may never reach the 600 ship goal was motivated by other than military and strategic reasoning.
During the four years I have served in your Administration, I have repeatedly expressed my gratitude at your decision to rebuild the greatest Navy in the world. Since I became Secretary of the Navy last year, I have stated just as frequently my belief that the force levels of our sea services remain minimal and must not be reduced. Even in the current budget environment such force levels could have been maintained. Since recommendations to that effect were rejected by your Secretary of Defense, I am unable to support him personally, or to defend this amended budget during budget deliberations. Consequently, I find it necessary to resign from my position as Secretary of the Navy.
Thank you for the opportunity to have served our country during four of our nation's most critical and productive years.
Respectfully yours,
James H. Webb, Jr.
Reagan's Letter Accepting the Resignation of James H. Webb, Jr., as Secretary of the Navy
February 23, 1988Dear Jim:
It is with regret that I accept your resignation as Secretary of the Navy, effective February 22, 1988.
During the past four years, you have served our country with honor and courage, just as you have throughout your distinguished career. As my first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, you played a major role in revitalizing the reserve components of our Armed Forces. You were instrumental in restoring confidence and pride in one of our most noble national traditions -- the concept of the American citizen-soldier.
Since taking the helm a year ago as Secretary of the Navy, you continued to press forward the highest standards of excellence throughout the Navy and Marine Corps. From the most remote outposts to the lecture halls of Annapolis, your commitment to the quality of our military capability and the well-being of our men and women in uniform has been undivided.
As your service to this Administration comes to a close, I want to thank you for the selflessness and loyalty that you have always personified. In the end, it is these qualities that will ensure that freedom endures in this generation and in every generation to come.
Godspeed in all your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan