I'm not sure if the firt thread actually got posted or not. It was not political or designed to elicit political views. It was mere a civilian looking for the perspective of those who served.
There seems to be some real disconnect between top military leadership and their governing bodies and possibly civilians overseeing them. I was hoping for some perspective on the Captain's actions, his firing, and the crew's reaction to him leaving, which was admonished by the Navy Secretary, etc.
Also, what does it mean he was fired? I understand he was relieved of his command. But, I haven't seen any mention of a discharge, so was he simply reassigned to a desk job?
Are you sure? I haven't seen that reported anywhere.
You go through the chain of command no matter how shit the situation is. You don’t leak to the media and violate operational security like that. Trust me, I have been in some shit situations. I was in Iraq with a unit that we were provided humvees with freaking canvas doors. (Yeah, they don’t work well against IEDs/ AK-47s). We had to find what scrap metal we could and weld it on to vehicles in hopes that would provide us some protection.
Do you go to the newspaper when you are put in a shit situation like that, or do you go through the chain of command? In the military, it is the former. It is far different than civilian life
You guys need to start using your heads before you post.
Precisely. 100% correct. That said the Secretary of the Navy did himself no favor with his comments
Also is the memo he wrote available?
You go through the chain of command no matter how shit the situation is. You don’t leak to the media and violate operational security like that. Trust me, I have been in some shit situations. I was in Iraq with a unit that we were provided humvees with freaking canvas doors. (Yeah, they don’t work well against IEDs/ AK-47s). We had to find what scrap metal we could and weld it on to vehicles in hopes that would provide us some protection.
Do you go to the newspaper when you are put in a shit situation like that, or do you go through the chain of command? In the military, it is the former. It is far different than civilian life
I don’t think it’s been established that he was the one who leaked it to the media. What he did was send it via email to a number of people in the Navy, many outside he chain of command. It could have been leaked by many people. Certainly he was way outside of protocol in how he sent and disseminated the message. Neither he nor the Navy secretary did themselves any favors in this affair.
Quote:
Is a death knell in the Navy. I am a combat veteran, and my cousin has commanded in the Navy. What the commanding officer did, while well intentioned, was a major error in judgment on his part. There have been commanding officers relieved of far less.
You go through the chain of command no matter how shit the situation is. You don’t leak to the media and violate operational security like that. Trust me, I have been in some shit situations. I was in Iraq with a unit that we were provided humvees with freaking canvas doors. (Yeah, they don’t work well against IEDs/ AK-47s). We had to find what scrap metal we could and weld it on to vehicles in hopes that would provide us some protection.
Do you go to the newspaper when you are put in a shit situation like that, or do you go through the chain of command? In the military, it is the former. It is far different than civilian life
I don’t think it’s been established that he was the one who leaked it to the media. What he did was send it via email to a number of people in the Navy, many outside he chain of command. It could have been leaked by many people. Certainly he was way outside of protocol in how he sent and disseminated the message. Neither he nor the Navy secretary did themselves any favors in this affair.
Emailing a bunch of people in the Navy, many who are not in his chain of command, means he is responsible for the leak, whether he did it directly or told a friend who told a friend who told the media.
You guys need to start using your heads before you post.
That is completely contrary to the reported facts. It is not “going through the chain of command” if you send an email to someone in your chain of command, plus many others not in your chain of command. That completely undermines the whole purpose of a chain of command. He is responsible for the email getting leaked. You have no clue what kind of high security measures someone in his position is required to keep.
That he sent a blast Email to 20-30 individuals
That he leaked it to the media.
As a matter of fact, prior to Modley taking his command he stated this:
There is proof that he used an unsecured method of sending it.
With all due respect, you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. It's a legal issue.
Link - ( New Window )
Modly’s speech is not remotely close to the commanding officer’s email in terms of operational security issues.
Modly has handled this extremely poorly. Having served, I am flabbergasted he even gave the speech. He owed no explanation to the ship’s sailors as to why their commanding officer was relieved. COs change all the time. I have never had a speech like that explaining why a CO was relieved of duty. Just bizarre behavior by Modly.
Honest question.
In that case he’s speaking in front of thousands of enlisted men. You can’t possibly have an expectation what you say won’t get leaked. He was an idiot for even being there, and more so for what he said.
The main reason he was relieved of duties was because he endangered his crew and ship. When he told the world of the infections, he announced to everyone that the ship may not have enough healthy personnel to defend itself, making it look like a potential sitting duck to our adversaries. Simply a matter of national security...even if he's seen as hero to his crew.
Honest question.
Ever hear of theUSS Cole? The Russians aren’t going to, but a Terrorist group certainly would if the they had the opportunity.
Quote:
that the Secretary of the Navy's speech to the sailors leaked to the press?
Modly’s speech is not remotely close to the commanding officer’s email in terms of operational security issues.
Modly has handled this extremely poorly. Having served, I am flabbergasted he even gave the speech. He owed no explanation to the ship’s sailors as to why their commanding officer was relieved. COs change all the time. I have never had a speech like that explaining why a CO was relieved of duty. Just bizarre behavior by Modly.
Agree 100%. I also am a Navy vet and that was really poorly handled
Quote:
that the Secretary of the Navy's speech to the sailors leaked to the press?
In that case he’s speaking in front of thousands of enlisted men. You can’t possibly have an expectation what you say won’t get leaked. He was an idiot for even being there, and more so for what he said.
Honest question.
Not really but the military doesn't have the luxury to think like that. They have to take the position that it could go down at any time.
Honest question.
Is that a serious question? Less than eighty years ago, we had more than 20 ships attacked. We had the USS Cole attacked 20 years ago
I’ll say this too, it boggles my mind that someone could achieve that level of command and make such an egregious error of basic judgement.
Quote:
This was more my take. The media immediately jumps on stuff like this making it seem like he was slighted or treated harshly. But, they don't view it from the perspective of security or service, which is all that really matters.
The main reason he was relieved of duties was because he endangered his crew and ship. When he told the world of the infections, he announced to everyone that the ship may not have enough healthy personnel to defend itself, making it look like a potential sitting duck to our adversaries. Simply a matter of national security...even if he's seen as hero to his crew.
What if he didn't tell the world? What if he sent it to his chain of command and someone there leaked it?
No one has seen any proof of what the ex-navy sec claimed in that leaked recording. As I mentioned above just days ago this was what then acting Navy Sec. stated:
All of a sudden that got changed a few days later
You are really only permitted to go outside the chain of command (to a higher rank than your direct report) if you have an illegal order. There is no such thing in this situation. I could never have imagined going over my direct reports head.
Certainly the Falklands War.
SecNav Modly was wrong to bypass the chain of command himself outwardly(although he has the authority to do so). I'd bet a series of 3 and 4 star admirals probably got their noses out of joint on that. He should have discretely relieved Crozier, through one of his Admirals(Task Force, 7th Fleet or CinCPac or CNO). Then speaking directly to the crew using demeaning language about Captain Crozier was uncalled for. I'll bet he was disturbed when the crew cheered Crozier as he disembarked and wanted to nip it quickly. Dollars to doughnuts, Modly lost respect throughout the entire Navy.
Note: was not active duty, merely reserve but a merchant captain.
Id be remiss in not submitting conjecture that slow and bad decisions that did not focus on the sailors trapped without access to medical care for a spreading disease somehow had Modlys name, if not the carrier group Rear Admirals name all over them. Or Both
TR COC CF Timeline - ( New Window )
SecNav Modly was wrong to bypass the chain of command himself outwardly(although he has the authority to do so). I'd bet a series of 3 and 4 star admirals probably got their noses out of joint on that. He should have discretely relieved Crozier, through one of his Admirals(Task Force, 7th Fleet or CinCPac or CNO). Then speaking directly to the crew using demeaning language about Captain Crozier was uncalled for. I'll bet he was disturbed when the crew cheered Crozier as he disembarked and wanted to nip it quickly. Dollars to doughnuts, Modly lost respect throughout the entire Navy.
Note: was not active duty, merely reserve but a merchant captain.
Agree completely. Well said. Neither one was right in what they did, but at least I can understand the Crozier’s motives. He cared for his sailors. Modly’s actions in his speech were just bizarre.
Quote:
Someone attacks a US warship?
Honest question.
Is that a serious question? Less than eighty years ago, we had more than 20 ships attacked. We had the USS Cole attacked 20 years ago
Yes, I’m not really a history buff. U.S.S. cole is a good example of something that could happen again.
My other question would be did he try the proper protocols first before sending the unsecured memo.
Great article! Thanks for that. Will read it more in-depth when less tired. How could Crozier expect to not get removed from command for this?
“Crozier sends an unclassified 4-page memo via unclassified email to 20 or 30 Navy people, including his staff and leaders inside and outside his chain of command. Attached to an email that begins, “Dear Fellow Naval Aviators,” the memo asks for urgent approval and help in executing his proposal to remove all but 10 percent of his crew from the ship, lest sailors die “unnecessarily.” “
Quote:
Since WW2? If yes, I must have missed it. This thread is becoming silly. To my point, whatever the captain did should have resulted in an investigation. Everyone in his chain of command agreed that that was the case. At the end of the investigation, if it determined that he be demoted or fired, that’s fine. But, what the Sec Navy did was bypass the chain of command and Navy procedures that govern adverse actions and that’s not only wrong, it will discourage other commanders from doing the right thing ( in my opinion) to not embarrass politicians. In this case, sailors might die unnecessarily and that was his point.
Certainly the Falklands War.
Good call, I forgot about that one
Quote:
In comment 14862168 ron mexico said:
Quote:
Someone attacks a US warship?
Honest question.
Is that a serious question? Less than eighty years ago, we had more than 20 ships attacked. We had the USS Cole attacked 20 years ago
Yes, I’m not really a history buff. U.S.S. cole is a good example of something that could happen again.
My other question would be did he try the proper protocols first before sending the unsecured memo.
Yes, he did. But the rear admirals (naval equivalent of general) in his direct report favored less extreme mitigation efforts than he did. At that point, you salute, say yes sir, and fo your job the best you can.