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?
Quote:
In article linked below. TR COC CF Timeline - ( New Window )
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.” “
Happy to help. For those that know, the most head scratching thing here is the captain’s judgement. It’s like death by cop for a Naval career. Do not understand how he thought that was gonna play any different than it did. And you do not assume that command without plenty of friends and a well connected back channel. Tbh, I have zero no problem with acting secnav comments either. Not the hardest words I ever heard on the deck of a ship, but not the most polished either I suppose. This virus does some crazy stuff to us - made me cry like Mary without her lamb - so - not judging. Anyway...
Before this one also gets deleted, there have been many discussions I have had as well as witnessed amongst not only Naval Academy grads but just service members and veterans as well as civilians. While the Captain was in the wrong to send off the letter knowing that it would most likely end up in the media, he took ownership of his actions. His career is over. What the acting Secretary of the Navy did in relieving the Captain was one thing that can definitely have disagreements on; however, his speech to the TR crew was just unacceptable and completely made him unfit to be the head of the Navy. And he knew it last night that he had lost the respect of majority of the sailors he was in charge of as the service secretary.
Quote:
In comment 14862216 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
In article linked below. TR COC CF Timeline - ( New Window )
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.” “
Happy to help. For those that know, the most head scratching thing here is the captain’s judgement. It’s like death by cop for a Naval career. Do not understand how he thought that was gonna play any different than it did. And you do not assume that command without plenty of friends and a well connected back channel. Tbh, I have zero no problem with acting secnav comments either. Not the hardest words I ever heard on the deck of a ship, but not the most polished either I suppose. This virus does some crazy stuff to us - made me cry like Mary without her lamb - so - not judging. Anyway...
Your take on Modly's speech focus on the manner of his speech rather than the content and context and the audience. He flew 8000 miles to lecture the sailors then took off within 30 minutes. He admonished the Captain of using poor judgement born of emotions, yet his entire actions were born of emotions and stupidity (why would he ever assume that his speech wouldn't be made public?). Also, his PAO team knew that he fucked up because they tried to save him by sending out a memo to prevent the speech from going public as well (one of his PAO is my classmate); however, all it did was make the situation even worse.
In the end, Crozier was wrong, and his career is over. But he will be viewed favorably by his peers and those in uniform. Modly will be the butt of a joke for a bit.
safely of the sailors and more to do with optics and not getting someone angry. I could see the reaction of those in the chain of command, the rear admirals, more interested in their careers as well as the Sec than anything else. You can disobey a command when youre asked to do something illegal. Is it a reach to think he was attempting to save the lives of sailors under his command? Whether you agree or not, go thru a proper & thorough investigation (unless they were afraid of what they might find)
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
Not trying to be an ass, I had to look this up myself your former should actually be latter: former (f=first), latter (l=last).
Take a guess who history will treat more kindly.
safely of the sailors and more to do with optics and not getting someone angry. I could see the reaction of those in the chain of command, the rear admirals, more interested in their careers as well as the Sec than anything else. You can disobey a command when youre asked to do something illegal. Is it a reach to think he was attempting to save the lives of sailors under his command? Whether you agree or not, go thru a proper & thorough investigation (unless they were afraid of what they might find)
I respectfully think you are pushing an agenda and have been, throughout. I think that was probably the lowest of low on the order of precedence for actions taken. Plainly, and I think perhaps RC will agree as well as other former service members, the failure was disregard for chain of command and it was true for both SecNav as well as Capt Crozier. Obviously Capt Crozier's had a major violation of procedure, while SecNav did have the authority to relieve Capt Crozier. It was the manor of said relief that was his mistake.
I am sure Capt Crozier was given instructions from his immediate superior and he disagreed with that order and maybe went above that superior to Fleet Command. Not getting the action he wanted Crozier "went nuclear," knowing full well he would be admonished and relieved. While I respect that he had his crews' well being at heart, his actions were simply wrong. While maybe the Navy did not react with the speed Capt Crozier wanted, I seriously doubt that they were leaving that ship to fend for itself. I'm sure there was a contingency plan in order, a procedure.
Eventually the story will emerge. SecNav Modly overreacted, maybe because he didn't want to look impotent to SecDef Esper or lost sight of his role. Whatever the reason, it looked as bad as what Crozier did, worse in my view. Crozier's intentions were to protect his crew. Modly's appear to be to slap down a perceived insubordination and abandoning his chain of command. A ship Captain cannot ignore instructions from superiors without damaging/weakening the fleet. The SecNav cannot appear to be too invested in what surely could have been handled in the Pacific. And then to fly out to personally speak to the crew? Bad look. Again, if this is something needed to gain control of the crew (which I seriously doubt), the Task Force Commander could have done that, not SecNav. If he went out to reassure the crew, he should have spoken with the XO, Division Officers, Senior Enlisted and Air Wing Command, not admonish the former Captain. But maybe I'm wrong.
This is MHO and I concede that I am speculating.
So Modly flies out and addresses them over it in what most there considered hearing it to be an unprofessional way. It was jarring to them. A guy said a friend texted him about it and he thought “on MC1. No way...” Modly called the Captain naïve and stupid for thinking it wouldn’t get out. Meanwhile he’s being the same for thinking that of his own speech. Then he also basically says stop whining. And tells them to care for their sailors like their own family and consider what’s best for them first, as he replaced a guy who seemingly did just that. Sailors can be heard saying “wtf” while listening.
Cozier might have been wrong, but I suspect he was neither naive nor stupid, but sacrificed his career for his people who he believed were being put in harms way unnecessarily.
I also think the idea that we couldn’t treat these people that are serving their country because if the ship wasn’t active we’d be instantly attacked is vastly overstated. “One ship is docking for a few days, quick start a conventional war with the US...” I think the fact that we had several ships collide over the last few years is a bigger invitation to F with us as a statement about our readiness than a ship stopping to get sick people treated. This was just handled poorly.
So Modly flies out and addresses them over it in what most there considered hearing it to be an unprofessional way. It was jarring to them. A guy said a friend texted him about it and he thought “on MC1. No way...” Modly called the Captain naïve and stupid for thinking it wouldn’t get out. Meanwhile he’s being the same for thinking that of his own speech. Then he also basically says stop whining. And tells them to care for their sailors like their own family and consider what’s best for them first, as he replaced a guy who seemingly did just that. Sailors can be heard saying “wtf” while listening.
Cozier might have been wrong, but I suspect he was neither naive nor stupid, but sacrificed his career for his people who he believed were being put in harms way unnecessarily.
I also think the idea that we couldn’t treat these people that are serving their country because if the ship wasn’t active we’d be instantly attacked is vastly overstated. “One ship is docking for a few days, quick start a conventional war with the US...” I think the fact that we had several ships collide over the last few years is a bigger invitation to F with us as a statement about our readiness than a ship stopping to get sick people treated. This was just handled poorly.
I was a Sonar Tech on a Frigate. It was a daily joke to get on the MC1 and do Professor Beaker from Sesame Street (it was the 80's what can I say).
The other thing to keep in mind is a Carrier is assigned a Carrier Strike group. That group consists of usually 1-2 CG's which are Guided Missle Cruisers. A Destroyer Squadron which runs the picket for the Carrier. 1-2 Attack Subs that assist the DG's. An Air Wing that consists of multiple squadrons. And a Supply ship.
The Carrier sits in the middle of that and other ships will actually take a strike aimed for the Carrier. Priority one is protecting the Carrier
safely of the sailors and more to do with optics and not getting someone angry. I could see the reaction of those in the chain of command, the rear admirals, more interested in their careers as well as the Sec than anything else. You can disobey a command when youre asked to do something illegal. Is it a reach to think he was attempting to save the lives of sailors under his command? Whether you agree or not, go thru a proper & thorough investigation (unless they were afraid of what they might find)
There is a huge difference between refusing to obey an illegal order and refusing to obey an order that you think puts the welfare or lives of some of your sailors in danger. While the coronavirus is dangerous, it overwhelmingly kills the older, and the vulnerable with underlying health conditions. The bulk of those conditions, you are not allowed in the military if you have them.
When you sign up for the military, you are putting your life on the line for your country. Not just in wartime. There are many training exercises which result in death. There are many peacetime exercises the public has no clue about and the military is not allowed to disclose their purpose for security reasons.
I am not the least bit surprised that the rear admiral and highers refused to cut the majority of the crew on an aircraft carrier. That would have greatly effected the mission not only of the Teddy Roosevelt, but Likely of other Ships/planes as well. While the coronavirus is new, following orders and sacrificing self for mission is not.
It may sound cold, but it’s the reality of the situation and a large reason why much of the public is lauding the Captain as a hero. Having never served, and having no knowledge of the military, they see the Captain as merely trying to save his sailor’s lives. They see the sailors cheering for him. In reality, that means nothing. I’ve seen plenty of bad officers who were well loved by those who he was in charge of. I’ve seen plenty of great officers who were hated by those they were in charge of. You are not put in charge of soldiers or sailors to be the fun dad. You are put in charge to get the mission done. Yes, it is important to take care of your soldiers and sailors, but not at the expense of the mission
Tell that to Commander Evans of the USS Johnston...
"The media" is a tell of that camp. It is tolerated. I don't believe (at least I hope not) that it is conscious. That's what makes it a tell.
KDavies...great posts.
Evaluating this through the eyes of mission and the rules of one of the worlds great institutions is not only the only way but it is far from the norms rightfully used in civilian life.
Nor is thinking through how to handle an outbreak on a carrier that easier ( besides the obvious of flying the ppe, meds, tests and doctors into the carrier).
Do we take the planes and pilots out of commission? What are the risks and consequences of skipping a rotation off the vital shipping routes of Asia? Protect Japan and SK and Singapore much less the Straits of Malacca?
Only a handful of nations have the firepower and accuracy to outperform a single carrier force. There are only so many a available in each ocean. With all due respect to caring for our men, it's just not that simple to match mission and compassion. If a commander cannot handle a bounded multi objective situation then he is operating machinery that is too complex for him.
Quote:
I know its a problem a waste but will turn in after this. I agree with the comments by RC in MD. I also thought that Espers comments early in the article were revealing. He didnt want anything or anyone contradicting the party line coming out of Washington. It had little to do with the
safely of the sailors and more to do with optics and not getting someone angry. I could see the reaction of those in the chain of command, the rear admirals, more interested in their careers as well as the Sec than anything else. You can disobey a command when youre asked to do something illegal. Is it a reach to think he was attempting to save the lives of sailors under his command? Whether you agree or not, go thru a proper & thorough investigation (unless they were afraid of what they might find)
There is a huge difference between refusing to obey an illegal order and refusing to obey an order that you think puts the welfare or lives of some of your sailors in danger. While the coronavirus is dangerous, it overwhelmingly kills the older, and the vulnerable with underlying health conditions. The bulk of those conditions, you are not allowed in the military if you have them.
When you sign up for the military, you are putting your life on the line for your country. Not just in wartime. There are many training exercises which result in death. There are many peacetime exercises the public has no clue about and the military is not allowed to disclose their purpose for security reasons.
I am not the least bit surprised that the rear admiral and highers refused to cut the majority of the crew on an aircraft carrier. That would have greatly effected the mission not only of the Teddy Roosevelt, but Likely of other Ships/planes as well. While the coronavirus is new, following orders and sacrificing self for mission is not.
It may sound cold, but it’s the reality of the situation and a large reason why much of the public is lauding the Captain as a hero. Having never served, and having no knowledge of the military, they see the Captain as merely trying to save his sailor’s lives. They see the sailors cheering for him. In reality, that means nothing. I’ve seen plenty of bad officers who were well loved by those who he was in charge of. I’ve seen plenty of great officers who were hated by those they were in charge of. You are not put in charge of soldiers or sailors to be the fun dad. You are put in charge to get the mission done. Yes, it is important to take care of your soldiers and sailors, but not at the expense of the mission
This. Thanks
He, way more than Crozier damaged the credibility of civilian leadership and progress of the institution ( which does self learn and self evaluate) towards being better able to respond to health crisis aboard a vital naval ship.
Imo
Now.
Quote:
I know its a problem a waste but will turn in after this. I agree with the comments by RC in MD. I also thought that Espers comments early in the article were revealing. He didnt want anything or anyone contradicting the party line coming out of Washington. It had little to do with the
safely of the sailors and more to do with optics and not getting someone angry. I could see the reaction of those in the chain of command, the rear admirals, more interested in their careers as well as the Sec than anything else. You can disobey a command when youre asked to do something illegal. Is it a reach to think he was attempting to save the lives of sailors under his command? Whether you agree or not, go thru a proper & thorough investigation (unless they were afraid of what they might find)
There is a huge difference between refusing to obey an illegal order and refusing to obey an order that you think puts the welfare or lives of some of your sailors in danger. While the coronavirus is dangerous, it overwhelmingly kills the older, and the vulnerable with underlying health conditions. The bulk of those conditions, you are not allowed in the military if you have them.
When you sign up for the military, you are putting your life on the line for your country. Not just in wartime. There are many training exercises which result in death. There are many peacetime exercises the public has no clue about and the military is not allowed to disclose their purpose for security reasons.
I am not the least bit surprised that the rear admiral and highers refused to cut the majority of the crew on an aircraft carrier. That would have greatly effected the mission not only of the Teddy Roosevelt, but Likely of other Ships/planes as well. While the coronavirus is new, following orders and sacrificing self for mission is not.
It may sound cold, but it’s the reality of the situation and a large reason why much of the public is lauding the Captain as a hero. Having never served, and having no knowledge of the military, they see the Captain as merely trying to save his sailor’s lives. They see the sailors cheering for him. In reality, that means nothing. I’ve seen plenty of bad officers who were well loved by those who he was in charge of. I’ve seen plenty of great officers who were hated by those they were in charge of. You are not put in charge of soldiers or sailors to be the fun dad. You are put in charge to get the mission done. Yes, it is important to take care of your soldiers and sailors, but not at the expense of the mission
Very well said KDavies. Many people do not understand following a set of rules (or rules with in rules as the military has)
I agree that both of these men went about their agenda's in the wrong way. The military Chain of Command has many branches and avenues, it seems he just chose not to completely use one of those paths.
I will add, anyone who thinks the US is not volnurable to attack may want to look back in history of the other Super Power countries that have existed. Attacks do not have to be force on force, especially in todays world.
He, way more than Crozier damaged the credibility of civilian leadership and progress of the institution ( which does self learn and self evaluate) towards being better able to respond to health crisis aboard a vital naval ship.
Imo
I agree that Modly’s actions were awful and he should have resigned.
I don’t know that he damaged the credibility of civilian leadership, however. He was a Naval officer for seven years before going into the private sector. But I don’t think that this will become an argument of civilian vs military leadership of the military. I can’t imagine that being used as fodder for that debate (as seen in the Gen. Mattis confirmation hearings).
I think Modly really only damaged his own credibility.
At least when i served the principle of civilian oversight was rock solid accepted and a foundation. I'm sure it's the same.
Imo, going foward:
The four, three and any stars will double down on keeping things by the book and in the shop. While respecting that the institutions serve the Republic.
Two, like you. I think Modly will be considered to have flopped and failed - and considered an exception to the general competence of civilian leadership
Quote:
Means Modly isnt way off as a person and off to be in this job.
He, way more than Crozier damaged the credibility of civilian leadership and progress of the institution ( which does self learn and self evaluate) towards being better able to respond to health crisis aboard a vital naval ship.
Imo
I agree that Modly’s actions were awful and he should have resigned.
I don’t know that he damaged the credibility of civilian leadership, however. He was a Naval officer for seven years before going into the private sector. But I don’t think that this will become an argument of civilian vs military leadership of the military. I can’t imagine that being used as fodder for that debate (as seen in the Gen. Mattis confirmation hearings).
I think Modly really only damaged his own credibility.
Good point KDavies. Just as Captain Crozier was fully qualified to be assigned as Captain having passed through rigorous training, successful prior assignments and commands previously. Modly likewise must have had a successful naval and private career that passed severe scrutiny. But even the most scrupulous of interviews and evaluations sometimes fail to uncover personal faults of candidates. There have been failures before and there will be failures again. Men and machinery fail at inopportune times no matter how rigorous the testing or stellar the past history.
Agreed 100%. And as Section states, I don’t doubt that Capt. Crozier had a strong career and served his country well and admirably as an officer. He graduated the Naval Academy in 1992, so has been serving since 1988. 32 years. You don’t get to command an aircraft carrier without being highly accomplished and among the best of the best. While he did make a huge mistake, and one that Modly was completely justified in removing Crozier from command, Modly’s comments were wholly unbecoming. As someone alluded to above, things could have, and should have, been handled a lot more professionally by Modly.
Now that you bring that up, I have heard some criticism that Modly “didn’t know what it was like commanding a ship,” so maybe you can consider that as criticism of the civilian leadership of the military. I guess I was thinking more in the confirmation process where I see the debate most.
I see Modly just acting in a rogue manner (not in the fact that he removed Crozier, but in his actions surrounding it). Having served 7 years as an officer he should have known better. I don’t see it a valid argument to point to Modly as fodder for the argument civilians should not be in charge of the military.
Removing Crozier (who seems to have gotten stuck behind only his proposed solution when his job was to notify and notify clearly and await orders.) was actually step one in the solution sequence.
What he did afterwards was throw a personal fit and insert himself way down the chain of command with the goal that he higher ups knew "he" took care of it ( it being a public display ).
Weirdly, sections comment about serving the mission( Captain Evans on the Johnston) reminded me that when Nelson finally cornered the French and Spanish at Trafalgar, more than 50% of his sailors and marines had dysentery, scurvy, pneumonia and brutal digestive and skin infections.
"England expects every many to do his duty" was the response that captures the naval code ( and the competitive difference)of both nations naval history
And you would be wrong. A "wartime leader" or anybody who has ever served knows it is mission first and people second. That is how it must be. If people were first the mission would not be done.
Quote:
Were happy the captain chose saving lives and health over proper navy protocol, the captain acted like a wartime leader......putting his crew first. A hero.
And you would be wrong. A "wartime leader" or anybody who has ever served knows it is mission first and people second. That is how it must be. If people were first the mission would not be done.
In theory, the crew honestly shouldn't have much to worry about. These are supposed to be young people without any health issues. In reality, though they are letting weight standards slip by the wayside, especially for re enlisters. I wonder if this changes how the military has been trending in letting weight standards slide. Probably not though because they are having trouble keeping people in. Unfortunately because of the consequences to the economy that will probably change and the military will be able to be choosier and treat their people like trash again, similar to 2008-13. I talked to some cook a couple months ago that got a massive re-enlistment bonus, dude was about as dumb as a door handle. Those days are probably over for the tiembeing.
Well they are out in SE Asia so its to make sure China doesn't pull any fucking shenanigans like they've constantly been the last 10 years. If anything all this instability is the perfect time to pull shit they've had their eye on.
I will only agree that the after action by SecNav was bizarre. The actual relieving was not unwarranted.
You are beating a dead horse because your horse is dead.
Anyone above him in that chain of command has the right to relieve him. They do not need an investigation before relieving him. They will likely do an investigation and review board to find what led to his decision. But they are not waiting around to find out why a Captain effectively took his ship out of service. It takes weeks maybe months to convene a board. The Navy and the Pentagon cannot pull an active carrier out of service with no notice except for catastrophic events, actual physical debilitating damage. There are only twelve for the whole world(IIRC). The ones not on patrol are either undergoing refit, repair and/or training. Outages are worked up years in advance.
I only ask two questions:
1.) were you in the military and if so what rank?
2.) did you ever command a ship?
Well they are out in SE Asia so its to make sure China doesn't pull any fucking shenanigans like they've constantly been the last 10 years. If anything all this instability is the perfect time to pull shit they've had their eye on.
What kind of shenanigans would you expect a carrier to prevent? And wouldn’t the other pacific carriers, particularly the Reagan which homeports in Japan, adequately perform anti-shenanigan duty?
There are a ton of accounts of what happened. Quite frankly, you have been the one on here doing the most speculating (alluded to some conspiracy theory which you don’t want to say because it would get too political). A lot of the “unknowns” you cite are completely immaterial. All indications are that he went through the initial proper channels first. That doesn’t absolve him of subsequent actions. Would it make him look worse if he had not initially gone through those channels? Sure. Then the Navy would have been REALLY justified instead of justified in removing him.
As for who leaked the email to the press, again that is immaterial. Would it have been worse had he leaked it himself? Sure. But he sent the email to people who had no business being sent that email, one of who leaked it.
Having initially went through the chain of command, his duty was to follow his chain of command’s instructions. Not send the email to a bunch of people to vent, to put pressure on his chain of command, or whatever else his intent was.
As for Modly, that is a separate issue. It is possible, and it looks like, Modly was completely justified in removing the CO from command, while Modly was completely unprofessional in how he subsequently handled the situation.
Most people who were saying the CO was wrong here are also saying that Moldy was wrong as well. You seem to be locking yourself into a false dichotomy of Moldy vs. the CO, when all indications are they were both wrong, and they have both lost their positions
Quote:
Well they are out in SE Asia so its to make sure China doesn't pull any fucking shenanigans like they've constantly been the last 10 years. If anything all this instability is the perfect time to pull shit they've had their eye on.
What kind of shenanigans would you expect a carrier to prevent? And wouldn’t the other pacific carriers, particularly the Reagan which homeports in Japan, adequately perform anti-shenanigan duty?
Well while I was out there we stopped in Kota Kinabalu to stop China from just taking over the waters over there, creating man made islands ,and claiming territory rich in Rare Earth minerals. It's all about presence. Carriers are crazy high maintenance, there is a reason we have 11, most aren't operationally ready. Generally speaking we have one carrier in SE Asia that is operationally ready. That was the Roosevelt.
Quote:
Were happy the captain chose saving lives and health over proper navy protocol, the captain acted like a wartime leader......putting his crew first. A hero.
And you would be wrong. A "wartime leader" or anybody who has ever served knows it is mission first and people second. That is how it must be. If people were first the mission would not be done.
While we can argue until the cows come home regarding Crozier and his mistake and firing, this is such hunky dory nonsense.
It's never mission first, people second. That's the worst interpretation of what it's to be a leader in wartime or not. It's mission first, people always. The moment you put people second to the mission, you value your greatest charge and responsibilities. It's not a ranking system between the two. It's an application of prudence and judgement on when mission is no longer worth the risk to your people.
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.
By blaming the media, you just made it political. See how easy it is and you were the one who started the thread thinking it shouldn't be political. It's a slippery slope. You should probably delete before you get yourself banned.
I don't think I have ever seen a military leader become hated so quickly by both civilians and military alike.
That said the JOPA facebook page has had some great memes stemming from this PR fiasco.
I have a couple of follow-up questions. One, even though Modly technically has the authority to relieve /Cozier of his duty, would it have been more common for him to either do so through the CO or an investigation? Is it common for a man of Cozier's service history to resign as opposed to accept re-assignment, especially after losing your command? I guess, in other words, would his future Navy career have been jeopardized had he remained on active duty?
Thanks Ron. He was probably well on his way to his own flag, too. But he has to look at himself every morning in the mirror. He'll have some regrets but he can live with it.