Navy expected to relieve captain who raised alarm about COVID-19 outbreak on aircraft carrier

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Andrew Jackson, Apr 2, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yep that is right !

    Just shocked that a man who worked his way into captain of a carrier and who had shown prior good judgment for a long time could make such a mistake. The CIC doesnt have to prove his abilities and judgment before he can be the most powerful man on earth but yet the cap'n of a navy ship must do both
     
    Bluesguy and Sallyally like this.
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And it must be realized that the majority of those on the ship are young, healthy, and in above average physical condition.

    At this time, the believed mortality rate of COVID-19 is around 3.4%, or 34 per 1,000 infected. Meanwhile the US military now has over 1,200 infected individuals, with only a single death. The vast majority are over the age of 60 (which is mandatory retirement in the US military), with the majority of those who serve on the ship in the range of 0.3% mortality.

    Even if everybody aboard the ship got infected, and doubling the death rate as compared to the rest of the US military, that means only 8 among the crew would die.

    This is among the reasons why I say that the Captain simply panicked. He was not making decisions based upon facts and reason, but upon fear.
     
    Labouroflove likes this.
  3. Labouroflove

    Labouroflove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    6,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was thinking of the leadership lessons from Twelve O'Clock High. Captain Cozier's leadership style and the parallels to Col. Davenport's as it relates to command are interesting. This movie is a staple in U.S. Armed Forces War Colleges and a quick search of Twelve O'Clock High essays on leadership will detail the issues involved better than I can here.

    Here's one:

    http://www.strategosinc.com/downloads/twelve_oclock_high.pdf

    Tales from Twelve O'Clock High: Leadership Lessons for the 21st Century by Major Attila J. Bognar

    It was in looking for current reference to Twelve O'Clock High and Capt. Cozier that I found the post below. D12 from richochet lays out my thoughts on the issue perfectly.

    Cheers

    Here's the repost from another forum:

    https://ricochet.com/742545/for-captain-crozier-loyalty-is-a-two-way-street/#comment-4746661



    I have thought and read a lot about this case. There are two primary paradigms that I have found useful to consider when evaluating this story.

    First is the “by the book” paradigm: did CAPT Crozier behave in a manner that conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards of a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Navy, never mind the Commanding Officer of an aircraft carrier?

    To answer that question, we have to know more about the facts. The SECNAV’s statement is blurry on two points: who (if anyone) in the Chain of Command saw the letter before it was sent to the press? And, what measures did CAPT Crozier take to ensure that his assessment of the situation was clearly understood by his superiors?

    The implication in SECNAV’s statement is that the Commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, ADM Aquilino, read the letter the day it was sent (30 March) to about 20 or 30 people in a single email thread, but that no one else in the Chain of Command saw it until the day that it was published in the S.F. Chronicle, 31 March. Further, SECNAV’s statement explicitly says that his office (his Chief of Staff specifically) had been in contact with CAPT Crozier. In the days immediately prior to the publication of the letter, “[CAPT Crozier] told my Chief of Staff that he was receiving those resources, and was fully aware of the Navy’s response, only asking that the he wished the crew could be evacuated faster. My Chief of Staff ensured that the CO knew that he had an open line to me to use at any time. He even called the CO again a day later to follow up. At no time did the CO relay the various levels of alarm that I, along with the rest of the world, learned from his letter when it was published two days later.”

    This statement provides total vindication to the SECNAV’s decision, as CAPT Crozier failed to exercise the most basic responsibility of a commissioned officer in possession of important information: he didn’t ask “who needs to know this?” and then act accordingly. Sending a letter to the press is no substitute for walking down the passageway to your boss’ stateroom and making your case. To complain that the Navy is moving too slowly is common to every enlisted sailor and junior officer; it is certainly no excuse to brush off the SECNAV, CNO, and the Carrier Strike Group Commander and bitch to the press.

    The second paradigm to analyze this case is that of “judgment.” Did CAPT Crozier display the judgment expected of someone given his awesome responsibility? As far as I can tell, this is the simplified thought process of CAPT Crozier (which I’ll write from his perspective).
    1. COVID-19 is infecting the crew of my ship.
    2. The only way to prevent casualties is to evacuate the ship, save about 10% mandatory manning to disinfect the ship, maintain the nuclear power plant, and provide security.
    3. We are not at war, so this is acceptable.
    4. The Navy is moving too slowly and the only recourse I have left is to get the press involved.

    I would argue that CAPT Crozier’s assessment of the hazard facing his crew was grossly skewed toward panic, fear, and doom by the irresponsible press coverage of this entire pandemic. Also, he cited in his article letter that the cruise ship Diamond Princess was the “comparable situation” to which he measured the peril facing his crew. This betrays a shallowness of thought that is truly incomprehensible for a man in his position. Critical differences that perhaps he might have considered before panicking:

    – COVID-19 is devastating for the elderly, but presents overwhelmingly mild symptoms and only very rare death in people under the age of 50.
    – Of all the people on board the Diamond Princess, the “average age was 58, and 33 percent were 70 or older.” Even in that population, in that circumstance, the death rate was only 1%.
    Aboard an aircraft carrier, the average age is 24 and no more than a tiny handful of people would have been over 50 years old.
    – CAPT Crozier’s crew is overwhelmingly not only healthier and fitter than the average US population in their age group, but preexisting conditions like asthma, cancer, obesity, and diabetes (you know, the oft-cited co-morbidities that makes COVID-19 deadly) are aggressively screened for and (with the possible exception of obesity) are almost totally absent on his ship!

    Of any population of Americans, CAPT Crozier’s crew were among the least likely to suffer fatalities on account of COVID-19. This is, to me, the most damning indictment of his judgment: he was unable to break away from the panic induced by CNN/MSNBC/FOXNEWS/NYTimes/SFChronicle’s hysteria to think and act like a man in command of himself, much less in command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

    I haven’t even touched on the absurdity and folly of his “we are not at war” statement. I trust readers have enough sense to see the foolishness of that assertion.

    In sum, CAPT Crozier failed to exercise the judgment, professionalism, and leadership the Navy has a right to expect of him. Based on the information available now, I fully support the SECNAV’s decision to relieve him of command.

    • #20
    • April 5, 2020, at 11:31 AM PDT
    Ouch.
     
    Dispondent likes this.
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. I presume you know that military aggression is a crime under treaties to which we are signatory. Therefore all the military aggression committed in the name of "America's Global Defense Strategy" (thanks in large part to our illegitimate AUMF) amounts to illegal actions by the US. Are you proud or happy to say that our 'exceptional' country acts in violation of the law as a matter of routine?

    Secondly, mine is not an attack on Trump himself, but only his morally repugnant decision.

    No country acting routinely in an illegal manner can claim any moral high ground. I did my year in Vietnam and what I saw there was only military aggression and crimes against humanity and nature. We invaded them, they did not invade us. Fairly simple.

    Crozier did the right thing, he holds the moral high ground. The Navy and POTUS do not and likely never will hold the moral high ground in any way shape or form.
     
  5. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, call America's military action around the world whatever name you like. It's how we are, it's part of our foreign policy, and it's been that way for over 50 years at this point. America uses offense as a defense, we ALWAYS invade other people, nobody invades the United States. The last time we were ever invaded was what? Revolutionary War which doesn't even technically count or the Civil War which also doesn't even technically count. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor but that was as close as anyone has ever gotten to "invading" the US. Every other time we have engaged in hostilities it was America who went after them, not vice versa.

    As to whether I am proud or happy about that? Absolutely. I am grateful for our geographic position in the world which gives us natural defenses such as 2 oceans. I am proud that we have the military power to do things like park Carrier Strike Groups in the South China Sea and tell the Chinese what they will and will not do in their own backyard. I'm proud that we have the military power to steamrole the 6th largest military on the planet in a matter of days without losing a single Soldier to hostile fire as in Desert Storm. Our military and economic power is our chief bargaining tool around the world. I am fully aware that America is no Saint, I'm not one of those who sits here and makes ridiculous statements such as terrorists are "jealous of our freedom" or anything like that. America doesn't just sit over here and mind our own business and get threatened and attacked by others for no reason. We do A LOT around the world some good, some bad. Hell we have military personnel stationed in 70 countries around the world to this day, and not all of those nations exactly want us there but well they lost the war so they don't get an opinion.

    If I weren't American I likely wouldn't like us too much either. I wouldn't like driving by a bunch of Russian or Chinese military bases on American soil. But when it comes to the "big dog on the block" the world could do A LOT worse than the United States. We are by no means innocent little Saints but we ARE better for the world than Russia or China would be if they had our spot on top of the totem pole. I am perfectly fine with our place at the top of the mountain whether we are completely moral or not. You've been to Vietnam I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan, I too know what military aggression looks like and some other pretty messed up looking things. I still hold on to the belief that although we are not perfect, we are a HELL of a lot better than the alternative. Yes, the planet would rather have America as the top dog than Russia or China and I am stating that with 100% certainty whether the world wants to agree with that or not.
     
  6. Alchemist

    Alchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Unfortunately you're correct. Both right, wrong, and critical thinking skills are highly discouraged in the Military. Follow orders regardless of how ill advised or fatal they may be.
     
  7. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You and I tend to agree on American neocon driven foreign policy that is evil and lacking intelligence . BBut imo the cap'n broke the rules that he knew it was his duty to follow.
     
  8. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I discovered this early on when being dressed down by a Lt. long ago. I screwed up by saying. .I dont think so and so was right. Lol Suddenly this kid was in my face telling me I was not paid to think ! Lol . And he was right ! My job was to obey orders. And follow the rules that took hundreds of years to create.
     
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And from the WSJ again, perhaps it will drive some sense into those defending the Captain.

    A Failure of Discipline Under Capt. Crozier’s Command
    He should have spoken truth to power privately. His crew risked infection by gathering to cheer him.

    ...

    Yet I regret his decision. The video of the crew paying respects to Capt. Crozier as he leaves the Roosevelt demonstrates his popularity. But it leaves me with grave concern over the feelings-first zeitgeist on display, and it causes me concern that the crew’s actions will make the ship’s situation much worse.

    This event gives a worrisome peek into the fraying of America’s military command structure. That structure relies on aggregated wisdom and dispersed power. It replaces emotion with cold logic. It reins in impulse with carefully considered protocols and procedures. None of those virtues are evident in how the Roosevelt incident played out.

    No doubt Capt. Crozier was concerned about the Covid crisis and wanted to escalate the issue to protect his crew. That desire is to be commended. But the crew’s welfare is only part of a Navy captain’s responsibilities, which are global in scope. Capt. Crozier’s letter effectively recommended that the Navy take an operational, forward-deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carrier offline, an event that would be classified and carry significant strategic implications world-wide, hence would have to be escalated to the president. From that standpoint, the Roosevelt was not Capt. Crozier’s ship, it was America’s. But to shotgun that kind of recommendation in a letter via an unclassified email is a violation of the highest order.



    Capt. Crozier’s defenders have said he was speaking truth to power. But he could have done so directly. He could have generated serious action with a properly classified, immediate-precedence “Personal for” naval message to any of at least five operational commanders in his chain of command. He could have reached out directly to the Navy secretary. Instead, according to Mr. Modly, Capt. Crozier shotgunned, thereby losing control of, an email containing classified details reflecting the state of readiness of one of America’s most important ships. The upshot is that the Chinese received Capt. Crozier’s letter at the same time as the Pentagon.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-fail...ers-command-11586191567?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not a question of morality.
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like your honesty, born of military experience, but I noted you mentioned the rule of law not once. You seem unconcerned, OR would rather not talk about, one's oath of office or the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Do citizens have an obligation to expose government law breaking?

    Does a skipper on the Big Boat have an obligation morally to protect his men? Is it a brave man or a coward who sacrifices his men and his ship's ability to operate to the Neon God of national security?
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He is not acting as a citizen he is acting as a military officer in command of US military forces and his obligation is to carry out the orders given to him and to protect our vital national security your sophomoric "Neon God" moniker notwithstanding.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He knew that his moral duty was higher than any duty to an organization that works for empire, not the good of the country. He knew he was doing the right and good thing, and his crew showed on his departure from the ship that his decision was the right one.

    That he himself turns out to have the disease shows him to be right.

    All the military abandons right. UCMJ is merely a formality, but sometimes it does deliver justice. The military is about following orders, nothing more. Theirs is not to wonder why, theirs is but to do and die.

    You can thank Simon & Garfunkel for the Neon God, to which the people bowed and prayed, and that's what it looks like you're doing regarding National Security, or whatever you claim is the greater good than the health of the men under his command?

    Is that impossible for you to understand, that a man would act for a greater good?
     
    9royhobbs likes this.
  14. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes he does. As I've stated before I have the upmost respect for Captain Crozier, and based on the responses I've seen from his own crew and my own colleagues regarding this situation my opinion of him is pretty much universally shared throughout the force. However, like I also said, Big Navy and the DoD aren't "wrong" either.

    I'll give you a scenario, I mentioned this briefly in an earlier post but I have sat in war briefings where the Commander in the room literally said "Look at the man on your left, look at the man on your right, out of the 3 of you one of you will likely not survive". Then proceeded to hear multiple hours of intel briefs about what we were about to do and why 1 out of 3 of us probably isn't returning. You are a Vietnam vet so you may have been in situations similar to that but I can tell you from a personal experience that such a statement is BONE CHILLING. We walked out of that briefing room speechless. I know the folks to my left and right, they are my friends, I personally trained many of them from the day they arrived and well I don't exactly want to die either. What was the mission? I can't exactly tell you that for obvious reasons but it was another American Operation to where we would arguably not hold the moral high ground. The Operation was called off, but that was a somber week I can assure you. That was by no means the first time I have ever been confronted with my own mortality in the service, but it was the first time it was directly ever mentioned in such a blunt fashion by people in charge of me.

    At the end of the day I did have a choice. There's always a choice. I could have walked out of that room and said screw this, what they want us to do is immoral so I'll go AWOL. I could refuse to send my fellow co-workers who I trained up since they were kids. Could have broken one of their arms or something so they didn't have to go. Or I could grab my gear, study the Operation best I could, ensure my colleagues were as prepared as they could be, and go. I did the latter. Me personally I thought the Operation was ridiculous and we were NOT the best suited unit to pull this off. Hell we all thought that... We all discussed it among ourselves in the days following including many Commanders at the lower levels. But High Command says go, so we go. Yes, my Commander at the time who to this day is still one of my best friends gave the green light and said we will go. He understood full well that a bunch of us were going to die, likely including me, his best friend, but he didn't fight the order, he had no real ability to fight the order anyway all they would do is replace him with someone who would do it.

    If I would have walked outside that day and grabbed one of my buddies and broken their arm in order to keep them from going on that mission for "morality" purposes then I would have been court martialed and likely tossed in jail. And I SHOULD be. I wouldn't be able to argue that I didn't think the mission was moral, or I didn't think we were the best suited to do it. I would have intentionally crippled the mission in order to protect my friend from possible death. Brave of me? Possibly. "Right"? Subjective. "Right" in regards to US military protocol? Hell no.

    Point is, we are the military, we are not the civilian world. Although I am not a Commander I've been doing this a while and I'm of the rank and position to where what Commanders do is greatly influenced by me. Yes there IS what is called "acceptable loss criteria" in the military and yes as morbid as it sounds your boss WILL sacrifice your LIFE in order to accomplish a mission if necessary. That doesn't mean they don't care about you or your well being, it means we are the military and we have a job to do. A Colonel I worked for a couple of years ago ranks as the most well respected man I have ever met in my entire life, and those sentiments are shared by pretty much everyone in that Brigade. I have never seen a leader more respected by EVERYONE from the lowest Private to his X/O and everyone in between. As I told him directly in my farewell speech from that unit the only thing making this easier is the fact that I know my boys are under the command of a man who has a GENUINE love and care for each and every single person sitting in this room. And he does.

    Yet as we speak that same Commander is currently leading my men, his men, in a war that we have been fighting for 20 damn years. A war that I have personally said needs to end YESTERDAY and that sentiment is shared by most of us who have to keep going back to that God forsaken country time and time again. He knows that all of his men and women may not come home, but he agreed to lead them there anyway. He has a moral obligation to protect his men, but he also has a moral obligation to do his duty as a Commanding Officer in the United States Military. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

    The military has to operate this way which is why we operate this way. We don't have time for everyone up and down the chain of command to be making individual morality decisions at any given time. That is why the term "lawful order" is nowhere near as up for interpretation as many might think it is. When Command says "GO!" they can't have you sitting around wondering whether or not you "want to" or whether it's "worth it" or "morally correct in the grand scheme of things". They need you to GO.

    Also remember we were not drafted, this is not Vietnam or WWII. Not a single person in uniform today was drafted against their will. The majority of those currently serving also chose to sign up while America was fighting a global war on terrorism, a war that many can and will argue is pretty "immoral" in itself. Tens of thousands of service members signed up and currently work in fields completely unrelated to the war on terror and are tasked with maintaining American foreign policy and conventional military power. If American foreign policy is immoral then wouldn't that not make those who willingly agree to enforce it immoral as well? It couldn't exist without us, those nuclear submarines with their nuclear tipped ICBM's pointed at other nations Capitol cities couldn't operate without folks stationed on them.

    If American foreign policy is immoral then I am immoral because I am part of it. And if I'm immoral then honestly I'm alright with that.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In WWII it was "Kilroy was here" that GIs scribbled around Europe I guess, at least in the movies.

    In Vietnam it was "FTA", and I saw it myself many times. Never once wrote it, but I did see it quite often in the compound at the hospital area I lived in. We were a Surgical Hospital in US Army parlance.

    I do understand your point about the volunteer army of today compared with old draft era, my time. And really, that's the essence of it.

    We openly admit our immoral behavior as a country, indeed we are proud of it. We openly take down an old man like me to the ground, by the local police force, federal and in uniform. We beat him down because he's trying to deliver food to the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington DC, which the government has under siege in violation of the law.

    So we're proud we are both immoral and illegal. LOL, I'm not biblical but it does seem like somebody is going to be taken down a notch, somehow or other. Not in the name of country, but in the name of imperialism and greed, just like Smedley Butler talked about last century.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was referring to your use of it and no I do not think Simon and Garfunkel are very qualified to lead our military forces and be in charge of our national security. The greater good being that national security, it is for what they enlist. Is it impossible for you to understand that?
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Speak for yourself and why am I not surprised you would support a despot and his despotic government as his people suffer under his rule.
     
  18. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm proud because it could be a lot worse. It could of course be better but it could be worse as well. Morality is a subjective term at the end of the day. Am I a moral person? Well it'll depend on who you ask. To many of my fellow citizens I am not only moral but a hero, a rockstar who even to this day I get approached and thanked for my service when I'm simply stopping by the grocery store on my way home to buy beer. To many of the citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan and other nations around the world I'M the "terrorist". And based on the financial and technological backing that I have I am a hell of a lot more efficient at being one than the ISIS or Al-Qaeda folks are.

    In war there is never an actual clear cut line between right and wrong. Even in the more widely understood "good vs evil" wars such as WWII there were no definitive "good guys". We had nations deliberately incinerating civilians by the hundreds of thousands all in the name of fighting the good fight. I'm not talking about the Nazi Holocaust, I'm talking about the "good guys" firebombing and dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities. In war the best we can ever do to accurately describe anything is stating who is "wrong" and who is "more wrong", rarely is anybody "right".

    At the end of the day America is "my side". Whether we are always 100% morally right or wrong doesn't matter to me. I care more about America than any other nation, I want us to be number 1, I want us to be the most powerful both militarily and economically. The lives of Americans are more important to me than the lives of any other nations citizens.

    I care about my fellow troops, many of whom are kids I raised since they were Privates or young Officers. But I also care about American power on a global scale and I do understand the incredibly difficult choices that have to be made by High Command regarding striking that balance. Having to make risk vs reward decisions regarding the literal lives of human beings is hard, there is no real moral high ground in that. But they are decisions that have to be made.

    Do I respect Captain Crozier for what he did? Yes. Do I condemn him for what he did? Yes. Do I BLAME him for what he did? No. Do I condemn the Navy for what they did to him? Yes. Do I UNDERSTAND why the Navy did that? Yes.

    Basically would I personally do what Captain Crozier did in his position to protect my men? Maybe, I won't armchair quarterback a distinguished Naval Captain but I'm sure he likely felt he exhausted all other options at his disposal by that point. If I were Big Navy would I have fired me for doing what I did? Yeah probably. Same situation as when a few years ago I almost lost my career for losing my absolute mind on a Commander who received a one way verbal assault by me containing combinations of virtually every expletive known to man for about 5 whole minutes. I was abruptly summoned to stand on the red carpet that following Monday and received my punishment. Was the Commander wrong? He was to me at the time which is why I let him have it because he was deliberately hurting the career of one of my subordinates out of what I felt was a personal vendetta. Plus the subordinate was a good friend of mine and when it comes to my friends and fellow Soldiers they are more important to me than a young Captains resume. Was I wrong to basically throw caution to the wind to very unprofessionally challenge the authority of a Commander in such a hostile way? Yeah I was, even though I was "right" for WHY I did it you still can't do that. Was the Commander "wrong" for not tolerating that and smacking me back accordingly even though I was "right"? No he wasn't wrong.

    Would I have smacked me back (not literally) if I talked to me that way and I was in charge of me? Yes I would have. Even knowing that I myself would crush "me" if I talked to "me" like that would I still talk to me like that if I felt it justified? Yup, I did it, and I have zero regrets about doing it nor the outcome. Hell he was actually more lenient on me than I would have been on me if I were him. Only reason is because I think he KNEW I was right at the end of the day but still can't exactly allow me to do what I did without consequences. And I don't blame him at all because I wouldn't have let me get away with that scott free even if I was "right".

    Point is, neither me nor my Commander at that time were "right" or "wrong". We were both wrong and both right at the same time. From a pure outside the box perspective one can argue the morality of who was more right or wrong at that point but this is the military we don't operate on a "who is more morally correct right now" basis. We operate on pretty rigid rules. If you openly defy authority to protect your men then you may get praised by your men but that's still likely your ass.
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And to make it even more clear, imagine the Diamond Princess instead of porting on Yokohama, instead was ported at Santa Catalina Island? Exactly how much help do you think they would have gotten? And S. Catalina Island is much larger than the Guam Naval Base.

    He was being an idiot because the base and Navy were working as fast as they could, but there was absolutely no way they could have handled his demands in the time frame he was ordering. The day the ship landed the population of that base increased over 50%, but it in no way had facilities to house them all.

    I find it most telling in that of all the people trying to defend him, not a single one has answered the simple question of "What should/could the Navy/Guam have done better?" I find the lack of an answer fascinating, and that tells me that they really do not know or care about a solution. To most of them this is just another reason to scream and cry "Trump sucks!", and provide not a single thing to reasonable discourse.
     
    Bluesguy and Labouroflove like this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all. In fact, there is absolutely no regulation demanding that you blindly obey orders. And people have been court martialed for following orders that were not lawful.

    The military demands critical thinking skills. The operative word being "critical". Not simply being contrary, that is not critical thinking.
     
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After the Japanese attacked us in 1941 declaring war was the right thing to do, and Congress fulfilled its constitutional duty in doing so.

    After we were attacked at WTC by parties OTHER THAN 19 arabs with box cutters, no war was declared IAW constitutional standards, yet almost 19 years later we are still engaged in military aggression against countries and people who did us no wrong.

    So in response to your point, it is safe to say that it is entirely possible for right and wrong to come into play in the decision to send young men off to die in a foreign land.

    1LT Ehren Watada brought all that up in his court martial, and in the end the federal courts essentially agreed with him.

    Crozier did the right thing and everybody knows it. USN is pretending otherwise, but the headlines today say the civilian official who fired Crozier has resigned.

    Trump has an opportunity to make this right. Is he capable of that? Stay tuned.
     
  22. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A perfect case of shooting the messenger.
     
    Sallyally and Eleuthera like this.
  23. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,452
    Likes Received:
    32,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So? We Now Have a DEATH Aboard That Ship:

    Sailor aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt dies of coronavirus
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politics/theodore-roosevelt-sailor-coronavirus/index.html

    This is TRUMP'S Military.

    The Commander-in-Chief (Trump), Effectively KILLING His Own Subordinates (by initially downplaying the Virus).

    Is this Trump's Version of "Friendly Fire"?

    Trump = DISGRACE.

    My heart goes out to the victim's family.

    Thanks alot, Trump!

    [​IMG]
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  24. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So, young healthy men won’t be seriously affected by the virus?
    Who said that?
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unless it is an unlawful order you follow it and this was not about an unlawful order.
    FWIW I ask my Marine Major son and retire Marine Sargent son about it and both especially the Major basically said DUH he divulged classified/confidential information and violated the chain of command. Of course he was disciplined and relieved of command.
     
    Mushroom likes this.

Share This Page