Navy pulls captain of TR

[Gretch]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

I would disagree. What he did was not heroic. What he did was essentially broadcast in the open, the open, that there is a significant decrease in the readiness of his warship. That in itself is poor judgement.

POOR Judgement?????????!!!!!!!!!!

The worst judgement possible for a military commander!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Bleeding heart leaders, eventually get those under their command very dead...........

Command is NOT a job for the queezy or weak at heart............. or those that lack the guts and balls to actually phuqing LEAD.

Armchair critics not withstanding..............

and OBTW, all your whining and *****ing is nt going to change one damn thing.......... your freekin "hero" pooched his career........ and rightly so.

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by Snapper33

https://news.yahoo.com/protective-bubbles-how-two-army-generals-stopped-the-spread-of-coronavirus-among-their-soldiers-090047822.html?

“[General] Cloudier is one of two generals that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville have highlighted repeatedly in recent press conferences as examples of military leaders who have excelled in keeping their forces largely safe from the coronavirus. The other is Gen. Robert “Abe” Abrams, who commands all U.S. forces in South Korea.

Their success is a bright spot for a Pentagon now facing a torrent of criticism over the firing of a captain of a U.S. aircraft carrier stricken by the coronavirus.

Snapper,

And I would offer you to do a pole based on MOS or NEC. I would venture to guess that Infantry and Artillery would immediately side with the Captain. Surface Warfare Officers (of which I am not), submarine officers, I would bet would see it differently.

Men and women of course make the whole of the services work. But attrition of crew is different that attrition of a ship. It is not that he had a **** sandwich handed to him; he did, it is how he asked for help that was cause for relief.

[Gretch]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

Snapper,

And I would offer you to do a pole based on MOS or NEC. I would venture to guess that Infantry and Artillery would immediately side with the Captain. Surface Warfare Officers (of which I am not), submarine officers, I would bet would see it differently.

Men and women of course make the whole of the services work. But attrition of crew is different that attrition of a ship. It is not that he had a **** sandwich handed to him; he did, it is how he asked for help that was cause for relief.

Better to find out he caves under pressure, now than when it REALLY phuqing matters..........

[Chocaholic]

Yet you still ignore the inconvenient fact that the carrier was not under attack, was not under any threat and was static in US controlled waters off the shore of our base in Guam. He mentioned that in his statement and it was a valid consideration in his decision.

And you seem sure a congressman would eagerly do what he requested? You still won’t answer my questions about politics, bureaucracy and plain old BS being integral to many decisions at all levels, especially congressional.

We can agree to disagree but your unwillingness to consider all the facts is disappointing.

[strupgolf]

It wasn't the brightest idea a few weeks ago for the ship to dock in Veitnam and let some sailers off. He should have known it was a hot spot.

[greglepore]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

It wasn't the brightest idea a few weeks ago for the ship to dock in Veitnam and let some sailers off. He should have known it was a hot spot.

He didn't make that call, the group commander did.

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

And I would offer you to do a pole based on MOS or NEC. I would venture to guess that Infantry and Artillery would immediately side with the Captain. Surface Warfare Officers (of which I am not), submarine officers, I would bet would see it differently.

Danimal, I will not take the time for that poll of course. However, with my career that spans four-decades, of which the last 18 are Joint, I absolutely agree with your hypothesis on the outcome. As I stated earlier, there are cultural differences in the military. I’m a warfighter, I see things differently than many others who have not made life-death decisions.

[greglepore]

WSJ reported the Capt. leaked the letter himself to his hometown newspaper. That changes things in my mind IF accurate.

[RSBob]

Hate to interrupt the pissing match, but the Captain just tested positive for COVID-19.

As you were.

[RNajarian]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

Yet you still ignore the inconvenient fact that the carrier was not under attack, was not under any threat and was static in US controlled waters off the shore of our base in Guam. He mentioned that in his statement and it was a valid consideration in his decision.

And you seem sure a congressman would eagerly do what he requested? You still won’t answer my questions about politics, bureaucracy and plain old BS being integral to many decisions at all levels, especially congressional.

We can agree to disagree but your unwillingness to consider all the facts is disappointing.

I assume this question is directed towards me.

Please understand the following points;

The decision to remove a commander from his duty assignment is WAY above thie pay grade of this Deputy Commander..

I am sure, as suggested in other posts in this thread, there is more to the story. Perhaps things may become clearer in the weeks to come.

As Tcar stated, the military must assume we are going to be attacked at any time, at any place, in hostile waters or friendly, complacency is inviting disaster.

I am surprised you think the Captain’s representative in Congress wouldn’t take his call. No doubt the Captain is one of the congressman’s most important constituents. Yes the Captain’s representative WOULD take the call and he would eagerly do anything to help the crew of the Theodore Roosevelt. In fact, I can guarantee that if the Captain contacted ANY member of the House Armed Services Committee they would bend over backwards to help him.

I am not exactly sure what facts you want ME to consider. I went to great length to point out protocol for sending critical information to superiors. To be blunt, the Captain violated the rules, he put his vessel at risk by exposing vulnerabilities. Not to mention what the families went through when the news broke of the outbreak on the ship.

We can disagree about the Captain’s dismissal, but Not about his actions. He was wrong to send the email through an unsecure system and CC ing 20-30 other people.

That fact ALONE would be enough to get other military members arrested, tried, and suffer a reduction of rank. If you insist I can provide examples.



EDIT: Oh what the heck. . . Here are some examples

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hero-marine-nailed-for-secret-email-what-did-he-do-that-hillary-didnt

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/27/pentagon-chief-used-personal-email-account-for-nearly-a-year.html

https://www.army.mil/article/103528/soldiers_must_consider_opsec_when_using_social_med ia

From the Army times article.

“(Soldiers) are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could face corrective or disciplinary action if they violate the rules of conduct at any time, he said.

Those violations would include a Soldier releasing sensitive information, insulting his or her chain of command, posting discriminatory statements, or sharing or linking to inappropriate material.”


Here is one of the questions from our CyberAwareness course . . ,

“It is getting late on Friday. You are reviewing your employees annual self evaluation. Your comments are due on Monday. You can email your employees information to yourself so you can work on it this weekend and go home now. Which method would be the BEST way to send this information?”

ANSWER: Use the government email system so you can encrypt the information and open the email on your government issued laptop.

[Chocaholic]

Actually the questions were to Gretch and Danimal, but you’d have to go back several posts to see their genesis. They were summarily ignored.

Thank you for your comments but I’m not convinced that a respected Captain, in safe, unthreatened waters (this is not the 1940’s) with a ship full of sailors and a deadly and highly contagious virus in free circulation...would have done what he did if his CO was honestly trying to help. And to suggest a Congressman would go directly against naval high command politics seems naive under the circumstances.

I know what the rules say...but this Captain considered all the options, the circumstances and the response (or lack thereof) from channel and moved to save his men. Yes, he broke the sacred rules of the Navy in so doing but put the life of 4000 men ahead of the repercussions.

My thoughts.

[Gretch]

Originally Posted by RSBob

Hate to interrupt the pissing match, but the Captain just tested positive for COVID-19.

As you were.

And that matters how????????

[3rd_gear_Ted]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

Snapper,

And I would offer you to do a pole based on MOS or NEC. I would venture to guess that Infantry and Artillery would immediately side with the Captain. Surface Warfare Officers (of which I am not), submarine officers, I would bet would see it differently.

Men and women of course make the whole of the services work. But attrition of crew is different that attrition of a ship. It is not that he had a **** sandwich handed to him; he did, it is how he asked for help that was cause for relief.

How do you think the 4 admirals in the direct chain of command below the sec. of the Navy felt ???
They were in charge of that captain, nobody else.
Its about chain of command in the military, don't try to parse on behalf Orangehead.
The chain of command was broken from the top to punish the captain.

That aircraft carrier should be parked @ Guam, evacuate the sailors home, and guard it with the USMC, then tell the world there is a NO fly zone there until further notice. real simple leadership stuff, instead of petty political retribution from a five time deferment rich punk

[svandamme]

I don't think nuclear carriers are that easy to evacuate and park, as you call it.
Simple leadership, I doubt is that simple.
it's like common sense, it's not that common either.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Tell me you're not implying that you have knowledge that the source of the leak was the Captain or his staff???

No, but there were articles back on the 1st from several sites that report on military stuff that the Navy was looking to make an example on whoever leaked the letter.

[Hard-Deck]

Originally Posted by 3rd_gear_Ted

How do you think the 4 admirals in the direct chain of command below the sec. of the Navy felt ???
They were in charge of that captain...

...political retribution...

Along these lines ^^^^

I cannot lay out the answer, but you all are getting closer.

CAPT Crozier is an American hero.

[Scott Douglas]

This is reading like the Prez wanted him fired and the military guys didn't want to do it so he got his 'acting' guy to do it.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Scott Douglas

This is reading like the Prez wanted him fired and the military guys didn't want to do it so he got his 'acting' guy to do it.

Yep...and everything Snapper said.

[Seahawk]

This isn't good:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-secretary-blasts-fired-aircraft-carrier-captain

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly made an unhinged speech to the crew members of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, in which he lashed out at former Capt. Brett E. Crozier and told sailors to stop complaining and do their jobs.

Modly fired Crozier on April 2, two days after the San Francisco Chronicle published a leaked copy of a memo written by Crozier, in which he warned his superiors that sailors aboard the aircraft carrier would die of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) unless about 90% of the crew were moved into individual quarantine. Crozier has since tested positive for the coronavirus.

“If he didn't think, in my opinion, that this information wasn't going to get out into the public, in this day and information age that we live in, then he was either A, too naive, or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this,” Modly told the Theodore Roosevelt’s crew on April 5. “The alternative is that he did this on purpose. And that's a serious violation of the UCMJ which you are all familiar with.”

[Hard-Deck]

And....

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/lawmakers-modly-resign

Lawmakers call for removal of Navy Secretary over USS Roosevelt debacle