Carrier captain relieved of command over COVID

[Hawkmoon]

Hmmm ...

“I didn’t want to get into a decision where the president would feel that he had to intervene because the Navy couldn’t be decisive,” Modly told me in a telephone call from Hawaii at about 1 a.m. Sunday, Washington time. He continued: “If I were president, and I saw a commanding officer of a ship exercising such poor judgment, I would be asking why the leadership of the Navy wasn’t taking action itself."

What if the President were to ask why a commanding officer of a nuclear aircraft carrier had to go outside the chain of command to get his crew cared for?

Modly explained that his predecessor, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, “lost his job because the Navy Department got crossways with the president” in the Gallagher case. “I didn’t want that to happen again.” The acting secretary reiterated the point later in the conversation: “I put myself in the president’s shoes. I considered how the president felt like he needed to get involved in Navy decisions [in the Gallagher case and the Spencer firing]. I didn’t want that to happen again.”

In other words, your decision was based entirely on optics rather than facts. Excellent. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[dogmush]

And SECNAV has resigned.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/modly-resign-crozier-esper-trump/index.html

[Jamisjockey]

And SECNAV has resigned.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/modly-resign-crozier-esper-trump/index.html

Came here to post the same thing.
His address to the crew getting leaked did him in.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'd love to know who's decision it was to hit that port of call, though. 

The very same superior officers in his chain of command, all the way up to SecNav and the State Dept., that ignored his early attempts to get his crew the help they needed.

[RoadKingLarry]

Came here to post the same thing.
His address to the crew getting leaked did him in.

If He thought that sort of thing wouldn't get leaked he was too stupid or to naive to be SecNav.

[zxcvbob]

If he thought that sort of thing wouldn't get leaked he was too stupid or to naive to be SecNav.

Notice in his rant to the crew, he doesn't say the captain leaked the info, or that he jumped the chain of command.   That means the captain was allegedly stupid or naive to think that his superiors were capable of keeping it secure.

Captain Crozier may or may not have exercised poor judgement; that remains to be seen (you know there will be in investigation.)  Sec. Modly's poor judgement and stupidity was on public display, so good riddance to him.

[Hawkmoon]

If He thought that sort of thing wouldn't get leaked he was too stupid or to naive to be SecNav.

What goes around, comes around.

[Hawkmoon]

And SECNAV has resigned.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/modly-resign-crozier-esper-trump/index.html

From the article:

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a letter that he accepted Modly's resignation Tuesday morning, confirming CNN's earlier reporting that Modly had resigned.
"He resigned of his own accord, putting the Navy and Sailors above self so that the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt and the Navy, as an institution, can move forward," Esper wrote. "His care for the Sailors was genuine. Secretary Modly served the nation for many years, both in and out of uniform. I have the deepest respect for anyone who serves our country, and who places the greater good above all else. Secretary Modly did that today, and i wish him all the best."

IMHO those things should be said about Captain Brett Crozier before they should be said about Modly. Modly screwed the pooch. Good riddance.

[Perd Hapley]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/07/yes-capt-crozier-should-have-been-relieved-of-his-command/

[MechAg94]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/07/yes-capt-crozier-should-have-been-relieved-of-his-command/

This letter came just weeks after authorizing a port call to a major city in Vietnam (China’s neighbor), one month after Chinese air incursions near our ally of Taiwan, and two months after nearly going to war with Iran. These words and actions demonstrate poor judgment and a mindset of complacency, which has no place commanding one of only ten American aircraft carriers, especially the only one forward-deployed in the 7th Fleet.

That author seems to blame Crozier for the Vietnam port call.  With his boss on the same ship, would he have control over that decision?

He also seems to take the attitude that the sailors signed on to serve for good or bad and should have sucked it up and kept going regardless of virus spreading on the ship.  Did you get that impression as well? 

[Perd Hapley]

He also seems to take the attitude that the sailors signed on to serve for good or bad and should have sucked it up and kept going regardless of virus spreading on the ship.  Did you get that impression as well?  

I think the point is that the mission comes first, even over personal safety.

I thought the same thing in Bosnia, when the official and oft-repeated policy was that the safety of the troops was the #1 priority. Even as a young, dumb PFC, I could tell that made no sense. If my safety was your first priority, why'd you fly me across the ocean and drive me clear across Croatia, into the middle of a civil war?

[zxcvbob]

Is losing a command position career-ending now?  Or just a setback?  (it should be the latter, but maybe that's just during actual wartime) 

I don't really have a problem with him losing his command; I have a big problem with SECNAV ridiculing him in front of suboridnates.

[BobR]

Is losing a command position career-ending now?  Or just a setback?  (it should be the latter, but maybe that's just during actual wartime) 

I don't really have a problem with him losing his command; I have a big problem with SECNAV ridiculing him in front of suboridnates.

Probably a career ender but the Trump got involved so who knows what will happen. God knows the Navy doesn't need another Admiral to further bloat the ranks of Flag Officers.

Acting SecNav was an ass.

bob

[Hawkmoon]

He also seems to take the attitude that the sailors signed on to serve for good or bad and should have sucked it up and kept going regardless of virus spreading on the ship. Did you get that impression as well?

Yes, very much so. Hell, even the British navy did their best to protect the crew against scurvy back at the time of the American Revolution.

I also noted that the author of the article served as a Marine aircraft mechanic and now manages a beverage distributing company. In other words, hardly someone with the qualifications to be the author of an article on this topic for The Federalist. I am really REALLY disappointed that The Federalist ran this clap-trap.

[MechAg94]

I agree that the mission comes first, but that assumes 1) they have a mission, and 2) that higher authority is working to be certain they have what they need to be combat capable and not ignoring problems.  And the Captain of the vessel should be high enough up the chain that he is informed of what is going on.  Could the Captain have been a bit over-concerned about the issue than was warranted?  Maybe.  We don't know all the details.  Just because this virus doesn't affect younger people all that heavily, that does not mean it won't impact their ability to do their jobs.

I don't have an issue with the Captain getting relieved based on what has been said, but I don't think anyone knows enough to condemn him over it.  If there was more going on we can't see, it might mean others higher up should also be relieved.  

[zxcvbob]

I agree that the mission comes first, but that assumes 1) they have a mission, and 2) that higher authority is working to be certain they have what they need to be combat capable and not ignoring problems.  And the Captain of the vessel should be high enough up the chain that he is informed of what is going on.  Could the Captain have been a bit over-concerned about the issue than was warranted?  Maybe.  We don't know all the details.  Just because this virus doesn't affect younger people all that heavily, that does not mean it won't impact their ability to do their jobs.

I don't have an issue with the Captain getting relieved based on what has been said, but I don't think anyone knows enough to condemn him over it.  If there was more going on we can't see, it might mean others higher up should also be relieved.  

It could be *that's* what all the hoopla is really about; a smoke screen so the admirals can hide.

[Hawkmoon]

It could be *that's* what all the hoopla is really about; a smoke screen so the admirals can hide.

This.

Think about it. An aircraft carrier travels as part of a task group. The captain drives the boat; the admiral controls the task group. Captain Crozier didn't unilaterally authorize a pit stop in Vietnam; that had to be the admiral, and fleet command.

[BobR]

This.

Think about it. An aircraft carrier travels as part of a task group. The captain drives the boat; the admiral controls the task group. Captain Crozier didn't unilaterally authorize a pit stop in Vietnam; that had to be the admiral, and fleet command.

A carrier is the lead ship in a Carrier Battle Group, the Task Group Commander is usually ensconced in an office at some base somewhere sending out his orders to the battle group.

Port visits go a lot higher than that because you have to get the State Department involved also. You don't just drive a boat around and then decide to pull into somewhere like you would a Sonic.

bob

[Perd Hapley]

I agree that the mission comes first, but that assumes 1) they have a mission, and 2) that higher authority is working to be certain they have what they need to be combat capable and not ignoring problems.  And the Captain of the vessel should be high enough up the chain that he is informed of what is going on.  Could the Captain have been a bit over-concerned about the issue than was warranted?  Maybe.  We don't know all the details.  Just because this virus doesn't affect younger people all that heavily, that does not mean it won't impact their ability to do their jobs.

I don't have an issue with the Captain getting relieved based on what has been said, but I don't think anyone knows enough to condemn him over it.  If there was more going on we can't see, it might mean others higher up should also be relieved.  

I'm pretty sure aircraft carriers have missions. They're out there to accomplish certain things.

Do you think the writer was saying that the captain or crew should not care about getting the virus? Why do you read it that way? I took him to mean that the captain let the threat of the virus sideline his carrier.

[K Frame]

"You don't just drive a boat around and then decide to pull into somewhere like you would a Sonic."

Maybe the captain just had a REALLY strong hankering for a cafe da...

[Hawkmoon]

Do you think the writer was saying that the captain or crew should not care about getting the virus? Why do you read it that way? I took him to mean that the captain let the threat of the virus sideline his carrier.

Yes, I think that's exactly what the author was saying. He was saying that the sailors signed up knowing they could be killed, so don't let a little thing like a virus bother you. Suck it up, Buttercup, and take one for the team.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, I think that's exactly what the author was saying. He was saying that the sailors signed up knowing they could be killed, so don't let a little thing like a virus bother you. Suck it up, Buttercup, and take one for the team.

The following isn't a gotcha. I ask out of ignorance. The questions aren't just for Hawkmoon, but for anyone who can shed some light about what happened, and what should have been done.

I want to know, practically, where you (anyone who wants to answer) and the writer of the Federalist piece disagree about what should have been done. Can you tell me, specifically, which decisions were made that you disagree with, and what you think should have been done differently. Not just about relieving various people of command (or not), but what should the crew have done, or been told/allowed to do? What help should Crozier and his ship have gotten?

[BobR]

I haven't read the article mentioned above so I can't speak to that but I can speak a little bit on how I feel.

In any position of military leadership there are priorities and they are not hard to figure out: mission, men, self.

His mission and the mission of the Roosevelt is deterrence. China has designs on more than a few islands in the TR area of operations and one of the reasons the TR is there to help keep China from attempting to intimidate their Asian neighbors and walk away with resources that they don't own.

On Mar 31, the TR had 100 men who had tested positive for the Chinese Flu. No deaths, no serious cases. He has confided to some of his friends, he had tested positive for the flu. Before that date and after that date, I'm sure submitted a Personnel Status up and down his chain of command every day. His immediate boss was right there aboard the TR. He had his opinions, but he couldn't accept that HIS opinions were either irrelevant or not beyond his ability to handle.

His mission was to DETER bad acts by our enemies. What he did by trying to undermine the chain and disclosing his email assessment of his ships status to 20+ recipients who did not have a need-to-know was to notify and encourage bad acts by our enemies. He sent 20+ emails with the reasonable expectation the contents of the email would be leaked. He violated OPSEC. He provided China with a window of time to exploit a vulnerability.

Yes, he may have been concerned about the health of his men, but nowhere does it say you can override the commander of your battle group if the seas get rough or if your complement of men isn't 100% the picture of health.

He is an embarrassment to the Navy and all military leaders.

IMO an immediate retirement should be forcefully encouraged. I am sure he will be back in another career before his cover hits the deck.

bob


Now I will read the article and see if it changes my mind.

eta: I read it. I seem to agree.

[WLJ]

Update

416 sailors aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt have now tested positive for Covid-19, according to Navy officials.

97% of the crew of nearly 5,000 has been tested.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-sailor-coronavirus-theodore-roosevelt-icu

[MechAg94]

I haven't read the article mentioned above so I can't speak to that but I can speak a little bit on how I feel.

In any position of military leadership there are priorities and they are not hard to figure out: mission, men, self.

His mission and the mission of the Roosevelt is deterrence. China has designs on more than a few islands in the TR area of operations and one of the reasons the TR is there to help keep China from attempting to intimidate their Asian neighbors and walk away with resources that they don't own.

On Mar 31, the TR had 100 men who had tested positive for the Chinese Flu. No deaths, no serious cases. He has confided to some of his friends, he had tested positive for the flu. Before that date and after that date, I'm sure submitted a Personnel Status up and down his chain of command every day. His immediate boss was right there aboard the TR. He had his opinions, but he couldn't accept that HIS opinions were either irrelevant or not beyond his ability to handle.

His mission was to DETER bad acts by our enemies. What he did by trying to undermine the chain and disclosing his email assessment of his ships status to 20+ recipients who did not have a need-to-know was to notify and encourage bad acts by our enemies. He sent 20+ emails with the reasonable expectation the contents of the email would be leaked. He violated OPSEC. He provided China with a window of time to exploit a vulnerability.

Yes, he may have been concerned about the health of his men, but nowhere does it say you can override the commander of your battle group if the seas get rough or if your complement of men isn't 100% the picture of health.

He is an embarrassment to the Navy and all military leaders.

IMO an immediate retirement should be forcefully encouraged. I am sure he will be back in another career before his cover hits the deck.

bob


Now I will read the article and see if it changes my mind.

eta: I read it. I seem to agree.

The way you put it, I can follow and see your point.  The way the author wrote it, I disagreed.  He started off by blaming the Captain for the port visit in Vietnam which immediately damaged his credibility to me then he went into his "you signed up for this so if you die you die" explanation.  

Either way, I think it likely there is more to it that the public won't know about.  I don't mean to say the former Captain will end up exonerated.  More than likely they will all end up looking poorly.