flechero wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:04 pm
I have read enough conflicting info that I will withhold judgement.... if he really was ignored after properly trying to go up the chain of command then there needs to be severe consequences for those who ignored the Captain along with the health and well being of our service members.
I agree - very severe consequences if they ignored Captain's pleas. But I'm having a hard time with him going outside of Chain of Command. That should include the ability to go over his Commander's head - even if he has to call the Secretary of the Navy directly at the Pentagon - which is possible today, unlike 30 or 40 years ago. But not through insecure email channel that he knows will get leaked.
I mostly agree... but we (I) don't know who was on the chain of command communications, or who may have blocked his attempts to go higher up. ?? The fact that there is so much conflicting reporting, might suggest a number of things.
And acting SecNav blasted the Captain in address to the crew by saying he was "too naïve or too stupid" to be a commanding officer, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News. So how in the world does he thinks this helps the situation? ugh.
The Acting Navy Secretary who decided to pour gasoline on the fire has resigned - after his boss, Defense Secretary Esper, forced him to apologize to the crew and personally to the Captain.
But the article below was just posted and asks the questions that need to be asked especially of Rear Admiral Baker who is in command of the task force:
First, we need to know what was actually happening on the Theodore Roosevelt in the days that lead up to Crozier's email and dismissal. And that brings me back to Baker.
So far, however, we don't know what Baker was or was not doing about Crozier's concerns in the days that preceded the latter's email. And that matters very greatly because learning more will help us get to the bottom of whether Crozier's chain of command failed him or he failed it.
rtschl wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:48 pm
The Acting Navy Secretary who decided to pour gasoline on the fire has resigned - after his boss, Defense Secretary Esper, forced him to apologize to the crew and personally to the Captain.
But the article below was just posted and asks the questions that need to be asked especially of Rear Admiral Baker who is in command of the task force:
First, we need to know what was actually happening on the Theodore Roosevelt in the days that lead up to Crozier's email and dismissal. And that brings me back to Baker.
So far, however, we don't know what Baker was or was not doing about Crozier's concerns in the days that preceded the latter's email. And that matters very greatly because learning more will help us get to the bottom of whether Crozier's chain of command failed him or he failed it.
I haven't been able to confirm it, but generally the carrier is the admiral's flagship, so Adm Baker would have been on the Roosevelt. Regardless, there are still ways to go up the chain without leaking information to the media about readiness concerns.
I think the Captain was darned if he did and darned if he didn't. IF he had done nothing, and allowed the virus to continue to spread among the sailors and airmen on that ship, then at some point, that ship would likely have become combat ineffective. Do you think Big Navy would just shrug that off? Nope, his command, his responsibility. And someone talked about "spending lives" as being part of in command. Sure, if you have any reasonable idea of completing your objectives, sure. But just waiting around until half or more of the sailors were sick, and some may have died? I don't see that as being a proper outcome in the least, nor shepherding resources to complete mission objectives. That's WWI, frontal trench assault thinking, Tommies cut down like wheat at the Somme. Now, I wasn't an officer, just an E-7 in the USAF, in aircraft maintenance. So, what I do know is that you can have to coolest toys in the world, but if you don't have the people that can play with those toys, those toys are just useless. Now, did the Captain violate DoD directives and Naval regulations? Well, it sure would seem so, and that is what got him canned. However, I have to believe that a man in his position, with the experience he has, already had a good idea what would happen. My wild guess is that he did what he felt he had to do, and I'll leave it at that.
My wife is in the AF leadership role currently and her sentiment is that what he did is grounds for dismissal and some Leavenworth time. I fully agree.
parabelum wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:00 am
My wife is in the AF leadership role currently and her sentiment is that what he did is grounds for dismissal and some Leavenworth time. I fully agree.
The last few years have emboldened the officer corps to go outside the chain of command to leak information to the media. It has to stop. If it takes canning every Obama "transform the military" era approved flag and senior officer so be it.
Almost 30 years active duty in the AF and then 17 years teaching battle staff processes and decision making under stress for the Army. The Commander is the Commander and must make the decision that is right for the mission and the assigned personnel. The Captain of the Truman had multiple SECURE communications systems that could be used to transmit information all the way to the National Command Authority. If he believed that the safety of his crew was in jeopardy he had the responsibility to notify the chain of command. If his immediate superior did not take action then he should (and apparently did) go the next level. However divulging the fact that a major weapon system was or was on the verge of becoming combat ineffective MUST go over a secure system only to KEY personnel immediately in the chain of command. One of the things I always stressed to students regarding military operations was "Who else needs to know." However, the emphasis is on NEEDS to know. The general public and more importantly our potential enemies have NO NEED TO KNOW that one of our few carriers and perhaps an entire Carrier Battle Group has a significantly reduced combat capability.
All that said, the Acting SECNAV acted totally inappropriately in flying out and speaking to the crew the way he did. Glad the SECDEF called him on it, he apologized and then resigned. Unfortunately, now the entire situation has become so politicized that a real, unbiased investigation into the Captain's actions is almost impossible.
AF-Odin
Texas LTC, SSC & FRC Instructor
NRA Pistol, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection in the Home Instructor & RSO
NRA & TSRA Life Member
K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:07 am
I think the Captain was darned if he did and darned if he didn't. ...
I think two things can be true here:
He went outside the chain of command - that cannot be overlooked
He acted in the best interest of his crew and possibly his ship knowing it would end his career
So I still think the Captain should have been relieved of his command and the brass in the chain of command probably should be too. The Fleet Commander and the Task Force Commander should have pushed back before they docked in Vietnam. The brass should have provided support to the Captain (and the rest of the task force who I assume also took shore leave in Vietnam) once they became aware of the infections. What were these admirals doing during all of this?
parabelum wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:00 am
My wife is in the AF leadership role currently and her sentiment is that what he did is grounds for dismissal and some Leavenworth time. I fully agree.
parabelum wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:00 am
My wife is in the AF leadership role currently and her sentiment is that what he did is grounds for dismissal and some Leavenworth time. I fully agree.
Chief of Naval Operations is recommending to Defense Secretary Esper that Captain Crozier be re-instated as the commanding officer of the Roosevelt:
Adm. Mike Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, went into the meeting with Esper on Friday recommending that Crozier should be reinstated to the command he lost a few weeks ago, a U.S. official told ABC News.
The last few years have emboldened the officer corps to go outside the chain of command to leak information to the media. It has to stop. If it takes canning every Obama "transform the military" era approved flag and senior officer so be it.
