There is a difference between ‘fault’ and ‘responsibility’. What ‘responsibility’ did the General who ordered him to take his ship out on a mission while the ship was still UNDER REPAIR ?
If I may, “Generals” don’t order ships out to sea...
But I would suppose you have little or no experience in military matters.
1. The ship’s Commanding Officer is responsible for all readiness for deployment, which includes equipment, supplies, crew training, the inspecting everything before things go wrong.
2. If the ship or its complement aren’t ready, he/she is responsible for reporting these problems while getting them rectified.
3. All ship’s Captains are fully aware of these responsibilities before they even take command.
You didn’t read the investigation did you? The three key watchstanders - all female were feuding with each other and apparently wouldn’t work with each other. There were no sailors posted to watch for traffic and the CIC was littered with trash and smelled of piss. The Officer of the Deck panicked and had the ship turn the wrong way, directly into the path of the Chrystal.
Now, even to your civilian non military perspective, does it sound like the Captain was doing his job?
Think you mean Admiral instead General.
However you make a very valid point. The fleet commander that deployed a ship still under repair assumed the risk to complete the mission, they need to be held accountable as it appears they did nothing (e.g., add experienced crew) to mitigate that risk.