Firing the Captain - a contrarian view
-
The Captain was PROPERLY relieved
tl;dr version - He communicated via insecure channels that an entire carrier group was not battle-ready.
Captain Crozier composed a memorandum and sent it through unsecured channels (email) while also sending copies to several other folks who may or may not have had clearance or need to know. By doing so, he provided EEFI to our global competitors. He let them know that one of our major strategic assets was about to be non mission capable. In short, he violated standing orders regarding Operational Security (OPSEC). Even more egregious, as pointed out by one of my military comrades, he exposed the lack of readiness of an entire Carrier Battle Group, not just his own vessel.
Captain Crozier wrote in his unsecured email, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors.”That sounds oh so very noble. However, it also sounds like the mewling of a junior officer who had not been through a grueling selection process for a senior leadership position as Commander of an American Strategic Asset. I had this kind of discussion with one of my subordinate commanders back in 2005. He had come to me wanting a waiver for one of his Sergeants who had come up “hot” on a drug test. His argument was that this particular NCO was a “good Soldier” and I should retain him in the Army. My response to him was, “How could he (the Company Commander) profess to his other ‘good Soldiers’ that he was providing a safe, drug free work environment when he was going to bat for a substandard ‘leader?’”
This is the same issue. Although this Captain might have been looking out for the welfare of his Sailors, he obviously has a lot to learn about the Chain of Command and Operational Security. As acknowledged by the Secretary of the Navy, this Captain of a United States Navy Capital Ship, had all the tools necessary to transmit an Operational Immediate message through secure channels to convey his concerns. He chose a different path. The fact that he did such through non secure channels and to many persons not cleared for the information, does indeed cast question on his ability to command. The SECNAV was entirely correct to relieve this officer.
-
And he follows up:
Putting all of this together, it’s fairly easy to see that relieving Captain Crozier was not only the right thing to do for good order and discipline, but also a strategic imperative. The Chinese are looking at us through a microscope, trying to find any advantage…in materiel…or in men. In an era where the Middle Kingdom is getting more and more aggressive, the last thing we need, is senior officers in our military flagrantly telling the whole World, especially our adversaries, that major strategic platforms are far less than fully mission capable, and/or our military leaders are morally weak.
-
-
-
I don’t know the details of this.
My reaction when I heard was that this, in conjunction with the stories of hospitals punishing people for complaining about conditions on the ground, really undermines our complaints about China covering up their Coronavirus problems.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
That makes sense. More sense than TDS anyway. I have never seen such projection of deeply held fallacies on to each and every action.
@Mik said in Firing the Captain - a contrarian view:
That makes sense. More sense than TDS anyway. I have never seen such projection of deeply held fallacies on to each and every action.
In the briefing yesterday, Trump said the decision to relieve the captain was made by the Navy in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense. He was not involved, only informed.
-
Inside the ouster of Capt. Brett Crozier
Civilian control of the military is part of the American bedrock. Acting Navy secretary Thomas Modly used that prerogative unwisely Thursday when he short-circuited a preliminary military investigation and fired an aircraft carrier captain who had pleaded for help against the coronavirus pandemic sweeping his crew.
The sudden firing of Capt. Brett Crozier, the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, has created another unsettling moment for a country traumatized by the worsening pandemic — and for a Navy already rocked by President Trump’s remarkable intervention last year in disciplinary cases involving the elite Navy SEALs. Crozier’s crew cheered him as a hero as he walked alone down the gangway, leaving what will almost surely be his last command. Former vice president Joe Biden tweeted his support for Crozier.
It isn’t clear what role Trump may have played in Crozier’s ouster. Modly told one colleague Wednesday, the day before he announced the move: “Breaking news: Trump wants him fired.” Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper apparently obtained White House approval for a preliminary investigation into Crozier’s conduct, a probe that Modly preempted with the firing. Esper appears to have left the final decision about how to handle the matter to Modly, who last month was passed over as Trump’s permanent choice for the job.
In taking the extraordinary step of relieving Crozier in the midst of the outbreak on board his ship, Modly argued that the commander had become “overwhelmed” by the crisis and violated the chain of command by writing an emotional four-page plea for help on March 30. That unclassified document leaked into print the next day. “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die,” he wrote in the unclassified memo. Some Pentagon officials believed Crozier’s inflammatory language added to panic aboard the ship and among crew members’ families.
A half-dozen former top Navy officials said in interviews Saturday that Modly’s intervention was a mistake that they feared would have a chilling effect on commanders and encourage them to suppress bad news that might upset political leaders.
“I think the firing was a really bad decision, because it undermines the authority of the military commanders who are trying to take care of their troops, and significantly negatively impacts the willingness of commanders to speak truth to power,” said retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview Saturday.
The crisis aboard the Roosevelt has been building for weeks, as the virus spread among the ship’s roughly 4,800 officers and sailors. Coronavirus test kits were rushed to the ship, and it sought refuge in Guam. But moving infected sailors off the ship was complicated, for logistical, political and readiness reasons. As of Friday, Modly said about 140 members of the Roosevelt’s crew had tested positive for covid-19.
One of the surprising aspects of the Roosevelt drama is how closely Modly became involved in matters that would normally be handled by uniformed officers. Appointed undersecretary with White House support in 2017, Modly has been an aggressive communicator since becoming acting secretary in November, following the firing of Richard Spencer, who had clashed with Trump over the treatment of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher. Modly has sent out 18 communiques, which he calls “Vectors,” to Navy personnel that mix command advice with folksy references to sports heroes includer pitcher Bob Feller and quarterback Tom Brady.
Modly told colleagues that before Crozier’s desperate memo surfaced, he had asked his chief of staff to call the Roosevelt’s captain and give him Modly’s personal cellphone number. Modly also pressed Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, on whether he had spoken to Crozier. Gilday apparently preferred to leave such communications to the normal chain of command.
By Wednesday, Modly told a colleague he was thinking of relieving Crozier and that Trump “wants him fired.” He was advised by several current and former colleagues, reportedly including Gilday, that such a dismissal would be unwise, and that the matter was best left to the military.
The situation became more political Wednesday afternoon, when Esper, Gilday and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attended the daily coronavirus briefing at the White House to join Trump in announcing an oddly timed new anti-drug offensive. The memo about the dire situation aboard the Roosevelt had already surfaced, and Gilday was asked about it in Trump’s presence.Gilday answered that the Navy had made “great progress” and had moved more than 1,000 crew members off the ship in Guam — a number that he said would increase to 2,700 by Friday. As Gilday was explaining these protective measures, Trump interjected: “And not too many people are going to be getting off at various ports anymore. Right?” The briefing moved on.
Gilday told colleagues Wednesday night that Trump had allowed a preliminary Navy investigation into what had gone wrong aboard the Roosevelt and how Crozier’s letter had surfaced. One detail that especially troubled Modly was that Crozier allegedly hadn’t shared the memo with Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the commander of the multi-ship Roosevelt strike group and Crozier’s immediate superior.
The matter came to a head Thursday. Esper, Milley and Gilday are said to have favored continuing the investigation. But Modly said he wanted to relieve Crozier immediately, and Esper said, “I’ll do what you want.” Gilday argued against the firing but was overruled by the civilians. Baker, the strike group commander, announced the firing later that day.One retired four-star officer said he was worried about “undue command influence” by Modly. The acting secretary had the authority to sack Crozier but in doing so undermined the uniformed officers who normally oversee such personnel decisions. “This is much bigger than the CO of the Theodore Roosevelt,” he said. “We’ve been working for years to make our commanding officers feel free to speak out about problems.” That openness might now be quashed.
Crozier “was running up an SOS,” said Sean O’Keefe, who served as Navy secretary for George H.W. Bush. “It’s a judgment call, but you have to support the action of a deployed commander.”
Richard Danzig, who served as Navy secretary during the Clinton administration, told me: “If Capt. Crozier carelessly or intentionally jumped abruptly outside of military channels, then the Navy had good cause for removing him. But I doubt it was good judgment to rush to do it at this time.”
-
-
SECNAV speaks:
-
This is the military. Everyone did the right thing. The officer did what he felt best and most appropriate for his crew. There's so much clutter in communication, that he felt he needed to do something out of bounds. He's not the first. At the same time, going out of bounds is not to be encouraged - and thus, it is appropriate for him to be relieved of command. He knew this was the likely outcome when he wrote the letter. It took courage. At the same time, his out-of-bounds conduct needed to be addressed and disciplined. Thus, the dismissal would appear appropriate.
Bad optics are a result of President Trump's recent actions - with the Navy Seal who had violated his code of conduct and who was pardoned by the President. The President also went after the prosecutors in that case. The claim will be made that he was compassionate with a war criminal and supportive of the dismissal of a humanitarian captain.
-
