So after all the DC and media-manufactured panic, a mere 10% of the young sailors working in close quarters aboard the TR tested positive for Coronavirus. We know that for healthy, young people, up to 80% of those will be asymptomatic. That means a mere 89 sailors might show some symptoms. the CDC has already told us that the death rate for healthy, young people under 34 years old is extremely small.
The TR was NEVER at risk. No one was suppressing Crozier’s opinion, and coronavirus was an issue facing the whole Navy, not just Crozier’s ship. Crozier had a wide range of options available to him - from mass testing, to providing everyone HCQ, to wearing masks, to increasing cleaning of the ship, to bring aboard more medical personal, etc…
Yet, he, or someone, decided to neutralize a forward-deployed Aircraft carrier, America’s most expensive weapons system, to play a little deep-state politics.
A good friend asked me my thoughts about this situation, and here is what I had to say about it in blue text below. And I also keep in mind that, since I have thought a good deal about this early on, things may have changed that I am unaware of. I make the assumption he didn't write that letter for public consumption or contribute to it being public, and that someone in the chain of command DID make it public, as I describe below. I did not think his letter was panicky, but I think his concern was indeed stoked by what he was seeing in the media.
I know this is long, but as you can probably guess, this is a meaningful thing to me. So I apologize in advance for the length.
First, I agree with the Navy's decision to relieve him of command, even if I don't like it.
I think the issue is that US Navy Captain Brett Crozier sent this communication out to a relatively large distribution of people, where someone with an agenda leaked it to the San Francisco Chronicle, and the rest is history.
As a US Navy Captain commanding that ship, that was a gross mistake, if mistake it was. (And as I describe below, I believe it was a mistake, not malignant/political intent on his part) I have never been the captain of a ship or charged with leading a large number of sailors, but the concept of Chain of Command in the military is scaleable from E1 up to and incuding O-10 (as General MacArthur found out when he was relieved of command in Korea.)
Even with multiple chains of commands (which do occur for a variety of reasons, but I believe should be avoided when possible) it is probably foolish to spam all of them at the same time, even if you feel like you have something to shout about (he apparently did)
A solid chain of command is a foundational rule in the military, and for good reason IMO. I believe it is a good practice in civilian life
I think we can all agree, though, that the design of the chain of command is not always what it should be and can sometimes be downright bureaucratic and inefficient. History has shown us that there are situations (often in open warfare) which result in poorly thought out chains of command, some that are simply bureaucratically undesirable, and some where the actual differing chains may be in full conflict (both conceptually and with personality conflicts in that chain) which is often untenable for the commander (who may have to choose a path to navigate) for a large number of reasons...and not always the right reasons for a mission.
Any officer who rises as far up the ranks as this officer did should have plenty of experience at spotting chains of command that will put him in an unstable and uncertain position, and addressing it where possible. I admit it is not always possible to address it, and like most people, I suspect they accept it and hope it will never come to a head that will place them in an untenable position.
But I am a believer in the chain of command concept. I grew up with it in a Navy family and watched my Dad navigate it, I had my own military experience with it, and in the civilian world, I still adhere fastidiously to the concept, and it has served me well. I think it is good practice and common sense.
If I have an issue, I have to take it to my boss.
If my boss is not inclined to take action, I take it to my boss’s boss.
If still no action, I have the institutional option to become a whistleblower and take the issue to an institutional entity set up for that purpose, which most large institutions have.
After that, I can take it public, if I am willing to go to the mat for something.
The Captain should have followed that route. Instead, he did the equivalent of me sending an email to 10 people above my boss which he should not have done, IMO. He darn well should have known better, being in his position. It is utterly impossible for him NOT to have known it.
To that end…it was a mistake. Especially in a politically charged atmosphere.
What he did was professional suicide. Sadly the US Navy has a reputation for protecting the Naval Service above all, to their detriment. When the Captain sent his letter, he took off his protective armor and exposed his bare back for the insertion of a blade.
All that said: I fully appreciate that he had the concern for the welfare of his crew in mind. Realistically, the Navy as an entity often does not share that focus no matter how much lip service they may pay it here and there. That is just how it is, in my opinion.
A lot of people are harsh on the Captain, but I think he had a genuine concern for the sailors in his command. But what he did is uniformly viewed as a mistake, and in that rarefied atmosphere as the Captain of one of the largest warships in the world at the point of a nuclear-tipped spear, they expect men like him to be more astute and an error like this makes people nervous.
As an aside, I was an enlisted man on a carrier back in the Seventies, and there was an issue that caused the Commanding Officer of the carrier to assemble a large group of several hundred crew (of which I was one) and he went over the edge. I have to tell, you, it frightened me. Here we are, on one of the most powerful warships in the world, armed with nuclear weapons, and this ship’s Captain went berserk to the point of losing control, red faced, spittle flying out of his lips, more profanity than substance, the whole nine yards.
I recognized just how serious the issue was and severe action was appropriate, but in my mind, when I saw this demonstration, I was deeply concerned and more worried about having him in command. I expect a man in his position to be in control of his faculties, and it looked to me that if he was, it was just barely. I don’t care how serious that situation was, I don’t want to see my Commanding Officer act like that in front of his crew.
Not saying this Captain in question was like that. But some people read that missive of his and were quite troubled by the tone. Not because the letter itself was panicked. It was that it jumped outside the chain and aired dirty laundry in a political storm. That was his crime. And because of that, his judgment (rightly so) came into question.
I read the letter from the Captain (it took me a while to find the text of it because it was behind the SF Chronicle firewall) at this link from the US Naval Institute website where you can read it without having to access the scummy SF Chronicle:
Read it here: Letter from the Captain of the USS Theodore Roosevelt regarding coronavirus infections on the ship.
I didn’t see anything wrong with the letter itself. It was his job to write that letter. It is important to recognize that he specifically will fight his ship if that is the way leadership wanted to go. I admit, I took issue with the "we are not at war" statement. It is my opinion that in many respects, if we did go to a shooting war, it would likely not be announced, and a ship like his would likely be an early target, so...to a degree, they have to conduct themselves in a way to cover that.
The issue is with how he sent the letter. At best the Captain was naive or careless. At worst he was complicit, but I don’t think that is the case. He would know that was professional suicide.
I know there are a lot of people saying he shouldn’t have been relieved of command, and that he was popular with his crew. But the Captains of US Navy ships have a greater responsibility to their country and their mission, especially Captains of a ship like that. I think the whole thing is unfortunate and hateful. I agree with the decision to relieve the Captain of command, and I blame this fiasco WHOLLY on the political opportunist, someone in that chain of command who wanted to hurt President Trump and the administration so much that they were willing to sacrifice that apparently good Captain on their altar of politics.
That stinks, and it makes me downright angry. Really angry. In a different situation, it would have been kept internal to the chain of command, and someone up the chain would have elevated that urgency of the situation and helped that Captain out. But instead, someone unknown, some pathetic coward, some Perfumed Prince who was a political hack decided this apparently good and decent man was expendable. And make no mistake: They KNEW what the leak of this letter would do to that good Captain.
I am sickened by the destruction of this man’s career, his career being treated as a political football by people unfit to shine his shoes. I do not blame the Navy for relieving him of his command. What he did was a cardinal sin, and he damn well should have known that spamming a letter out the way he did was going to end badly.
The Wikipedia hacking is usually funny for me (such as doing a Google search for “the owner of the New York Jets” and getting a return of Tom Brady’s Wikipedia entry) and prior to his uncalled for public comments to the crew of the ship, I didn't have an particular opinion about this Assistant Secretary of the Navy who got fired today, and rightfully so in light of his comments. But here we have the same putrid people saying “Hahahahaha-another Trump related scalp on our belts, and we got Wikipedia to call him a clown!”
And a good man who made a mistake was destroyed.
I hate and despise this. I hate it.