Posted on 04/07/2020 6:50:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Part of service is sacrifice. If you are unwilling to make sacrifices, including utilitarian ones, then you are unfit to serve, and certainly unfit to lead. Simple as that.
U.S. Navy aircraft carriers live by the phrase “complacency kills.”
There are so many different ways to die aboard an aircraft carrier, it should be the setting for a Final Destination film. Rotors, props, engines, exhausts, wires, wheels, catapults, and Davy Jones’ locker all pose a constant threat to the sailor and Marine upon the world’s most dangerous 4.5 acres. Except none of these things kills without the assistance of ones’ own negligence and complacency.
While operation security is crucial, and will be the technicality the Navy uses to justify its removal of Capt. Brett Crozier, its subtle but true reason is found within the content of his letter rather than just his careless means of distributing it. Crozier’s words revealed a cultural sense of complacency incongruent with the standards of the U.S. Armed Forces, and is why I believe the Department of the Navy ultimately removed him from command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
In his letter requesting assistance for the TR, Crozier demonstrated an affinity for safety over a dedication to duty. He claims that not a single sailor should perish because of the virus, references not being at war or being “at peace” five separate times, and for an entire page compares his $5 billion, nuclear-powered warship of the world’s finest Navy to a luxury cruise liner.
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.
Now, Crozier has COVID-19, just as he would have had he not announced to our enemies that the Roosevelt has an outbreak. Except now, the only aircraft carrier capable of supporting the fleet with more ships than the other five fleets combined, the only aircraft carrier capable of supporting operations against China, Russia, or North Korea should something occur, is sidelined near Guam, with no comparable relief for 6,000 miles in any direction. The Theodore Roosevelt was truly the tip of the spear, which is now blunted, with American national security at greater risk because of it.
Anyone who thinks the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior leadership don’t care about the lives and welfare of our sailors and Marines is a fool. Of course they do, but they also care about accomplishing the mission, which will and should always come first.
The most troubling thing of all of this is found in the video of Crozier’s departure from the ship, cheered on by hundreds of its crewmen. These sailors cheer him because they believe he was looking out for their welfare, and find that to be noble.
However, it’s also ignorant of their purpose, which is to protect and defend the United States by maintaining a combat-ready aircraft carrier in the 7th Fleet. This mission is no longer being fulfilled, placing American lives and interests in jeopardy, and contributing a greater propensity to spread the virus as thousands of potential cases are now docked instead of maintaining social distance.
Each and every sailor on that ship initialed the line in his papers that said he is willing to endure injury and possibly death from the requirements of his service. This cheering indicates a lack of that willingness to sacrifice for mission accomplishment and musters the question that if these sailors aren’t willing to fulfill this duty in the face of an invisible enemy, what makes anyone think they will do so in the face of a combatant one?
A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier hasn’t been sunk by enemy combatants since World War II, which naturally invites a sense of invincibility. Except there are no exceptions in the aforementioned pledge, and they should be expected to uphold it if necessary, regardless whether its fulfillment comes at the hands of missile or molecule. Crozier should have assumed that everyone on the ship was already compromised, and the USS Theodore Roosevelt should have remained at sea, maintaining combat readiness, until relieved.
Would that be a tough decision? Absolutely. Would there be anomalies who died, which he would have to live with every day of his life? Yes. But the U.S. military doesn’t appoint men and women to positions of responsibility who are incapable of making difficult decisions during hard times.
Part of service is sacrifice. If you are unwilling to make sacrifices, including utilitarian ones, then you are unfit to serve, and certainly unfit to lead. Simple as that.
Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly was dead-on in his statement that while America is not at war, it is neither truly at peace either. Crozier’s failure to recognize this and skipper accordingly is of itself justifiable reason to remove him from command and take a deeper look at the necessary eradication of complacent “peacetime” attitudes amongst many in the Armed Services.
Excellent read
I agree he should have been relieved but Modly should have held his powder on that rant. There is always a political aspect to an officer of that stature and, right or wrong, it was bad optics. Trump admitted as much last night.
I was a Navy boot camp drill instructor when the Iranians took our people prisoner during jimmy Carter’s time in office. I had at the time a company of about 80 recruits. Soon as the news broke I had two recruits appear at my office asking to be sent home because they didn’t join the Navy to go to war...they joined for the benefits. I made sure their desires were met and escorted them to the battalion headquarters and advocated for their separation. They were discharged. Anymore it would seem we are enlisting benefit seekers rather than military members.
Modly and Crozier both need to go.
Crozier violated the most fundamental and long standing tenet of military leadership: your enemies must always believe you are at 100% capacity and ready to kill them.
He should have been physically removed from the ship immediately and retired out of the military.
linky broken, misdirects to: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
No thanks, I use Brave browser. But thanks for the cookie.
And the article is wrong about safety of personnel being sacrificed to the mission. Unless we are fighting a war, the mission is readiness to fight a war, and part of that is a fit and healthy crew. I am a little appalled by those so ready to sacrifice lives of our active duty forces when not in an actual or potential fight.
Where I and others here who "get it" regarding the real duties of a commanding officer afloat believe the problem is, is that Crozier was not proactive in using the formidable resources at his disposal to contain and control the spread of the virus among his crew. Complaining about na eeded a deep cleaning, did he use his personnel to perform a deep cleaning [he has somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000] Did his considerable medical staff consult with the experts at Bethesda Naval Hospital to learn the latest techniques and practices for dealing with the virus and develop a plan of action for Crozier's command? Did he figure out how to isolate those who were infected from the rest of the crew?
In short, before asking for help I see no evidence that Crozier sought to help himself. Indeed, he could have experimented with and developed procedures that could have formed lessons learned for the rest of the fleet. Instead he sounded abandon ship.
And out of fairness, one red herring in this is blaming Crozier for the liberty call in Vietnam. A CO does not organize his own port visits. Those are arranged by his operational superiors in conjunction with the state department including the local diplomatic delegation.
Thank you, Kaslin.
Still it’s a call you don’t forget. I remember seeing on the news the bullets were flying downtown and from my office I could see the 193rd Inf. Brigade roll out. Ten minutes later I got a call, we are sending a HUMV for you, when it arrives get in. It does sort of take your breath away.
Great comment, AndyJackson. Agree, it seems Crozier didn’t do enough to protect his sailors. However, it’s also not important not to uselessly sacrifice a aircraft’s biggest asset, its people.
This whole incident should not even be an open discussion, should not have ever made the news. But it did because a Captain lost his shit, showed no faith in his crews ability to handle the situation, and a message he never should have even considered writing, was blasted all over the media by stupidity or design. Concerned for his crews safety??!! This is the type of asshat that would have abandoned ship during the Forrestal fire. No excuses here people. He broke the golden rules of Command. What SecNav did may not be politically correct or the proper way to handle the Scenario, but believe you me, the entire upper Chain of Command, and probably 90% of the retired community is incensed by the actions of both Capt and Crew. This incident is far from over, and every one needs to be very concerned about the state of readiness and MINDSET of the Modern Navy.
But only by his immediate superior.
Yes, he should have. But the Acting Secretary should not have then trashed him to the degree and in the way he did.
Yes, he blew it and compromised national security in the process. Not as much putting the TR at risk for a first strike but rather showing how a bio-attack could be successful.
What remains to be seen is if his ham-fisted approach was an act of desperation and self-sacrifice in the face of command failures at the higher levels. I hope that’s what PDJT meant by wanting to look into it further. I’m sure we’re top-heavy with Øbama-selected brass.
>>the only aircraft carrier capable of supporting the fleet with more ships than the other five fleets combined, the only aircraft carrier capable of supporting operations against China, Russia, or North Korea should something occur, is sidelined near Guam, with no comparable relief for 6,000 miles in any direction. The Theodore Roosevelt was truly the tip of the spear, which is now blunted, with American national security at greater risk because of it.<<
This!
This idiot wasn’t merely insubordinate. To our enemies he paraded a weakness in our defenses, and exacerbated that weakness in the process. If his removal doesn’t please his former crew at least it will demonstrate the consequences of these actions should they contemplate the same actions.
There is only one real golden rule that I know of - Halsey's advice to Spruance - when in command, command. You draw on all of your resources, including your best people to deal as best you can with the situation at hand. Crozier didn't. He whined.
And out of fairness, one red herring in this is blaming Crozier for the liberty call in Vietnam. A CO does not organize his own port visits. Those are arranged by his operational superiors in conjunction with the state department including the local diplomatic delegation.
True that he doesn't arrange the port visits but he certainly has the authority to stop one if he feels it a danger to the mission. There is a lot about that visit the needs to be explained, e.g. did he try to alter the visit but was over-ridden by the Admiral (task force commander) on-board?
I was forward deployed in the early 70s (the Med), and found out how potentially dangerous it can be. Someone who had been on the ship tried to sabotage the ship (something about putting explosives in the reduction gears), right before he was reassigned back to the states. I assume they caught up with him. Long story short, the ship had to be towed back to port while the captain was throwing a fit over the ship’s intercom. At least we didn’t get blowed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.