Aircraft carrier captain lost his command because of “Catch-22” COVID-19 dilemma

Navy Secretary: "We... expect more from the Commanding Officers of our aircraft carriers."

Read the whole story

 

[Baron von Robber]

He did the right thing, a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew, the responsibility of an Admiral is to the fleet, while as a carrier they are the centerpiece of the fleet, this is a ship operations and crew health issue.

No, his first responsibility is to his orders, which can literally include death for his crew.

Even needlessly? Just be a mindless bot to the death of your crew and mission?

 

[AlanShutko]

I might throw out that Seventh Fleet already had problems stemming from the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions. The commander at the time was relieved, so there may well be an uncomfortable spotlight there before Covid hit. If it's true that things were bungled, it could be that Seventh Fleet still is gun shy about any issues.

I'd put it in a different way. The Fitzgerald and McCain collisions show that Seventh Fleet's culture is to ignore any concerns from their captains. Crozier had to know his choices were to write the letter and be relieved of command, or watch his people die and be relieved of command later, while his superiors rejected any responsibility.

 

[Baron von Robber]

The moment I read about that 'plea', I knew the commander will be fired and possibly even jailed. He is running a capital ship. He has to know how to handle any emergency quietly and efficiently. Letting the whole world know that a whole carrier group is out of action, is beyond stupid and serious breach of security protocol - he endangered the country. (BTW, I'm an ex-army officer myself).

Exactly how did he endanger the county? What did he say that others didn't already know?

 

[ZhanMing057]

The carrier has 5,000 sailors on board in a situation where it's impossible for sailors to self isolate, with medical facilities unequipped to handle an outbreak. What would the mortality rate look like if (albeit healthy and young) people can't get to ventilators, and the medical staff onboard are overwhelmed and at risk themselves, and even those who finally recover are knocked out of action for weeks? If 1% of the sailors don't make it, that's 50 lives. Croizer himself got the virus, a conservative estimate would put the number of infected onboard at hundreds, if not thousand.

All of this in Guam, in peacetime, the carrier location being public knowledge. This isn't sending people off to die in a war. And don't tell me that the Navy doesn't have the resources to do something, they could have set up a field hospital in Guam, take the ship down to a skeleton crew, or just test everyone onboard and quarantine the sick one. If the captain needed to sound the alarm so that any action would be taken at all, the criminal isn't the captain, it's the guy who ignored him in the first place.

 

[Dontgetthecheese]

One of the sailors on the ship during the Modly speech.

"WHAT THE FUCK?"

My everyday sentiments.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

The moment I read about that 'plea', I knew the commander will be fired and possibly even jailed. He is running a capital ship. He has to know how to handle any emergency quietly and efficiently. Letting the whole world know that a whole carrier group is out of action, is beyond stupid and serious breach of security protocol - he endangered the country. (BTW, I'm an ex-army officer myself).

The world already knew a week prior without the captain's letter.

Try again.

 

[Jim Salter]

A competent commander in chief would have taken the right decision.

We have a sociopathic incompetent traitor as commander in chief and this has his putrid fingerprints all aver it. Listen to him rant about Crozier and it’s obvious. He has surrounded himself with cowards, toadies, and grifters. Esper on down are a disgrace. USMC disabled combat vet here by the way. 3 tours.

not that it's on you to speak on others' behalf, but can you think of any reason I encounter so many vets who still love the guy?

Just Google "Terminal Lance Angry Facebook Veteran" if you want an insider's look at that one.

Don't put the quotes around it when you Google.

https://terminallance.com/terminal-lanc ... k-veteran/

 

[fredsbend]

He’s a military officer. If he’s a military officer worth his salt, he knows that sometimes the rules generate these catch-22s and the only right thing he even can do is to act with honor. If mistakes are made so be it.

During D-day the US landing craft commanders carrying floating tanks discharged them into the sea at the stated distance from shore despite the waves being excessive. Many tanks sank.

On the Canadian beach the landing craft flotilla commanders decided to go right into the beach because, even if they did not survive for a second trip, it was critical to get those tanks in as soon as possible. By and large it worked, though my father said that being a beachmaster for three weeks while someone was found to weld up the hole in his boat wasn't much fun.

The Royal Navy has a long tradition that if you break the rules and it works, you get promoted. This case is different and more nuanced, but blind adherence to the chain of command can be a recipe for disaster and should not be encouraged.

It's encouraged for the lowers. In reality, it is a bit of a spectrum, but that's because once you're higher up, the higher ups start viewing you as a peer, not an underling.

 

[Imbrium]

He did the right thing, a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew, the responsibility of an Admiral is to the fleet, while as a carrier they are the centerpiece of the fleet, this is a ship operations and crew health issue.

No, his first responsibility is to his orders, which can literally include death for his crew.

I'm sure the American people wouldn't bat an eye at a few hundred dead sailors being carted off one of the most powerful warships in the world in peacetime, right?

But at least Cadet Bonespur could prove what a great wartime president he was by going to Arlington to give "best wishes" to the families, as he has done in the past.

This is the sickest timeline I could ever imagine.

 

[SixDegrees]

He did the right thing, a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew, the responsibility of an Admiral is to the fleet, while as a carrier they are the centerpiece of the fleet, this is a ship operations and crew health issue.

No, his first responsibility is to his orders, which can literally include death for his crew.

I'm sure the American people wouldn't bat an eye at a few hundred dead sailors being carted off one of the most powerful warships in the world in peacetime, right?

But at least Cadet Bonespur could prove what a great wartime president he was by going to Arlington to give "best wishes" to the families, as he has done in the past.

This is the sickest timeline I could ever imagine.

Just pull a Bush, and forbid photographs or videos of the offloading.

 

[daveishereagain]

The moment I read about that 'plea', I knew the commander will be fired and possibly even jailed. He is running a capital ship. He has to know how to handle any emergency quietly and efficiently. Letting the whole world know that a whole carrier group is out of action, is beyond stupid and serious breach of security protocol - he endangered the country. (BTW, I'm an ex-army officer myself).

'Endangered the country' is a bit of hyperbole. If our nation's existence depends on a single carrier group being out of action, I think our military doctrine needs adjusting.

 

[equine_physics]

As was pointed out, his boss was just down the aisle and most likely he went from casual conversation to more formal conversations, before trying to reach above his boss. My guess is his boss is a Trump licker and would never confirm Crozier talked with him. Honor is dead in today's Navy.

Your reaching and also assuming and insulting someone you have never met. His superior has made zero statements other than the captain didn't inform him of the email before sending it.

I guarantee you that is a true statement. If one plans to bypass the chain of command the worst possible thing to do would be to tell your superior because your superior would order you not to and which point when you do it you have committed a court marshallable offense (disobeying a direct order). The Navy may not like people who bypass the chain of command but they really don't like people who disobey a direct order from a superior.

Don't make assumptions about his superior. Wait for facts.

Yes. Yea I am, but based on information available, I would stand on my statement.

This should have been a no brainer. A smart decision by a caring captain concerned about his crew and the readiness of his ship. His superior did not feel the same so that already tells me he was looking at the situation politically, not realistically. I would agree that the Captain did not tell his boss he was going to send a letter, because he knew his boss would order him not to, and such an order would also indicate Baker was more concerned about his own skin then that of crewmen aboard a ship he was serving on.

Crozier did not make a decision in vacuum. To take a ship into port and to request that most of the personnel be removed would have required a number of conversations between superiors and lower ranking officers. If Baker begins to deny the captain *ever* talked with him would not call into question his ability to lead and be aware of what is going on, and would point to a complete breakdown of cohesion in the Navy, and that would not be a good thing.

The honorable thing would have been to help push the order through.
The honorable thing would have been to protect someone on your staff from higher ups till things get talked through.
The honorable thing could have to at least admit the captain had voiced concerns to him and he overrode for x reasons.



I look at actions, not just words and from Baker on up what I see are petty people taking actions to save their own ass and throwing a good commander under the keel to do so.

 

[SixDegrees]

The moment I read about that 'plea', I knew the commander will be fired and possibly even jailed. He is running a capital ship. He has to know how to handle any emergency quietly and efficiently. Letting the whole world know that a whole carrier group is out of action, is beyond stupid and serious breach of security protocol - he endangered the country. (BTW, I'm an ex-army officer myself).

'Endangered the country' is a bit of hyperbole. If our nation's existence depends on a single carrier group being out of action, I think our military doctrine needs adjusting.

There's also the nagging little detail that illness aboard the TR was already well known and well reported in the press, before this letter was ever penned. Also, trying to prevent a loss of readiness by taking quick, decisive action seems prudent, not punishable.

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

From the article:

Carriers are the very center of the Navy’s power-projection capabilities and the nuclear-powered fulcrum upon which the Navy’s warfighting doctrine is built.

They're not as hard-hitting or as far reaching as an Ohio class submarine...

Admittedly, a carrier like that is still pretty good military asset!

If you think a carrier is a bad place for Covid to hit, just think about a submarine. Even less space. The big thing is that they are self-isolated, but you need to make sure the next crew is completely clean before embarking.

 

[firsttimecaller]

It's different in the military. I served for some years and the last thing you want is to communicate to the enemy that your readiness is compromised. So yes, that means sacrifice and it sucks.

Which "enemy" is that? Who, exactly, is the United States currently at war with?

and it's not as if another country is waiting for this ONE slip up to attack.

economic benefits, trade are much more important in planning a war than the position of one air craft carrier within a certain time frame.

 

[Truscott]

It's different in the military. I served for some years and the last thing you want is to communicate to the enemy that your readiness is compromised. So yes, that means sacrifice and it sucks. When you sign up for service, you are agreeing to forgo many "rights" and obviously take on many more risks. When I served, I remember being told that we are also "guinea pigs" for pretty much anything, before going overseas you get dozens of injections (at least when I was serving) and if the government decides to test something new on you or your group, that's part of the deal.

He made a choice to shine a light on this in a way that was completely unacceptable. Sometimes you're ordered to do things you just know are pretty much suicide missions, but that's the deal. This isn't a campus, it's a warship that has many more implications that anyone here is aware of.

It's not fair, no one likes it, but it's what we signed up for and you should understand the full picture before commending or condemning anyone, which I know is not the standard here on Ars.

You mention "enemy", but the US is not at war.

I know your current President throws the word "enemy" around at anyone or anything he doesn't like, but there must be some stricter definition of "enemy".

 

[IntellectualThug]

A competent commander in chief would have taken the right decision.

We have a sociopathic incompetent traitor as commander in chief and this has his putrid fingerprints all aver it. Listen to him rant about Crozier and it’s obvious. He has surrounded himself with cowards, toadies, and grifters. Esper on down are a disgrace. USMC disabled combat vet here by the way. 3 tours.

not that it's on you to speak on others' behalf, but can you think of any reason I encounter so many vets who still love the guy?

Because vets and active duty servicemen live in the real world where Trump's doing real good and they don't form their opinions based on propagandist media reports and the hurt feelings of a historically soft general public.

Oh yeah that's definitely why Mad Dog Mattis resigned in less than a year of putting up with Trump's horseshit, because he's SUCH a good president for the military.

You Trumpkins are incredible mental gymnasts.

 

[daveishereagain]

The moment I read about that 'plea', I knew the commander will be fired and possibly even jailed. He is running a capital ship. He has to know how to handle any emergency quietly and efficiently. Letting the whole world know that a whole carrier group is out of action, is beyond stupid and serious breach of security protocol - he endangered the country. (BTW, I'm an ex-army officer myself).

'Endangered the country' is a bit of hyperbole. If our nation's existence depends on a single carrier group being out of action, I think our military doctrine needs adjusting.

There's also the nagging little detail that illness aboard the TR was already well known and well reported in the press, before this letter was ever penned. Also, trying to prevent a loss of readiness by taking quick, decisive action seems prudent, not punishable.

Understood. However prudent, though, he knew he was sacrificing his career by going over CofC.Everyone else behaved badly, especially Sec of Navy. There's lots of questions demanding answers and it's unlikely we'll get them.

 

[Statistical]

As was pointed out, his boss was just down the aisle and most likely he went from casual conversation to more formal conversations, before trying to reach above his boss. My guess is his boss is a Trump licker and would never confirm Crozier talked with him. Honor is dead in today's Navy.

Your reaching and also assuming and insulting someone you have never met. His superior has made zero statements other than the captain didn't inform him of the email before sending it.

I guarantee you that is a true statement. If one plans to bypass the chain of command the worst possible thing to do would be to tell your superior because your superior would order you not to and which point when you do it you have committed a court marshallable offense (disobeying a direct order). The Navy may not like people who bypass the chain of command but they really don't like people who disobey a direct order from a superior.

Don't make assumptions about his superior. Wait for facts.

Yes. Yea I am, but based on information available, I would stand on my statement.

This should have been a no brainer. A smart decision by a caring captain concerned about his crew and the readiness of his ship. His superior did not feel the same so that already tells me he was looking at the situation politically, not realistically. I would agree that the Captain did not tell his boss he was going to send a letter, because he knew his boss would order him not to, and such an order would also indicate Baker was more concerned about his own skin then that of crewmen aboard a ship he was serving on.

Crozier did not make a decision in vacuum. To take a ship into port and to request that most of the personnel be removed would have required a number of conversations between superiors and lower ranking officers. If Baker begins to deny the captain *ever* talked with him would not call into question his ability to lead and be aware of what is going on, and would point to a complete breakdown of cohesion in the Navy, and that would not be a good thing.

The honorable thing would have been to help push the order through.
The honorable thing would have been to protect someone on your staff from higher ups till things get talked through.
The honorable thing could have to at least admit the captain had voiced concerns to him and he overrode for x reasons.

I look at actions, not just words and from Baker on up what I see are petty people taking actions to save their own ass and throwing a good commander under the keel to do so.

However Baker DIDN'T make those claims ... YOU did. Paraphrased you are saying IF Baker did these bad things then he is a bad guy so he is a bad guy. Baker hasn't claimed the Captain never talked to him. Of course the Captain talked to him. They likely had many many meetings on the issue over the course of weeks not just between these two but involving lots of people given the the logistics involved. Do you think Baker has spent the past two weeks watching Netflix in his bunk?

The honorable thing would have been to help push the order through.

How do you know he did not. Maybe the breakdown happened above Baker. Maybe Baker was rebuffed by HIS superiors so rebuffed Crozier.

The honorable thing would have been to protect someone on your staff from higher ups till things get talked through.

There is nothing he can do to protect a junior officer from the Secretary of the Navy. This is political Trump wants him gone.

The honorable thing could have to at least admit the captain had voiced concerns to him and he overrode for x reasons.

He never made claims to the contrary.

So once again you are just assuming based on zero evidence or statements about anything and applying all kinds of motives and political allegiances. It is bullshit. You don't know anything.

Here is the some of the information we know about Admiral Baker:
1) He stated he was not informed of the email in question before it was sent.
<end of list>

Anything beyond that is just stuff you spun out of whole cloth to make a narrative that he is a Trumper so you can then say he is a Trump see this proof.

 

[SixDegrees]

<derpderpderp>

<sigh> Another junior high student stuck at home, quickly running out of clean socks, and headed to my bucket of invisible ink.

 

[daveishereagain]

Trolls stollin' in, strollin' in. Strolling' trolls, srollin',strollin'. Trollin',strollin' trolls' strollin'. Trolls strollin' in, strollin' in.

 

[bri2000]

A competent commander in chief would have taken the right decision.

We have a sociopathic incompetent traitor as commander in chief and this has his putrid fingerprints all aver it. Listen to him rant about Crozier and it’s obvious. He has surrounded himself with cowards, toadies, and grifters. Esper on down are a disgrace. USMC disabled combat vet here by the way. 3 tours.

Thank you for your service.

We'll get through this and will be better and stronger on the other side.

Citation needed. Or at least the clarification of some weasel words.

Who does "we" refer to? It's already self-evident that not everyone is going to make it through this and the only real question about death toll is order of magnitude.

What's "this"? The COVID-19 emergency or the historical inflection point that started in 2016 (or on 9/11 or whenever you prefer - as always with history picking start, and end, points is entirely arbitrary). The world in general, and the US in particular, has managed to arrange things so that all it will take is a single destabilising event to set off a societal level cascade failure not seen since the European collapse of 1914-45. The pandemic could be that event.

One of my favourite conceits recently has been arguing that the closest historical analogy to the current state of US is late Imperial Russia (out of touch extremely conservative ruling class who completely misunderstand the motivations of the people they rule over, continental scale (mostly) contiguous land empire large enough for different cultures to arise in different parts which then compete to be the dominant national identity, vast disparity in levels of wealth and development by class and geography, cultural and economic chasm between urban and rural populations, very high background levels of violence, rising political extremism...).

If that's correct then does COVID-19 fit into that analogy as the famine and subsequent cholera epidemic of 1891-92 that kicked off the Crisis of Authority, radicalising and hardening the generation who would lead the revolutionary violence; or is it equivalent to Russia choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914, pushing things past the point of no return? My guess is closer to the former, but predictions are hard. Especially about the future. History moves slowly until, suddenly, it doesn't.

Finally, what does it mean to be "better and stronger on the other side"? Europe "got through" the rise of fascism. Were we "better and stronger" at the end of it or did we just have 60 million or so dead, tens of millions more maimed and/or traumatised, and a continent burnt to the ground for the second time in 30 years the eastern half of which had been conquered by Stalin? There's certainly a strong argument that the people who lived through that time made better choices subsequently and were inspired to build the welfare state. I suppose an extreme 'ends justify the means' type could try to argue that all the death, suffering and destruction was worth it for that. I disagree. Especially as it has become clear that those better decisions were only being made for so long the people who lived through it were alive With them now all dead or too old to have any real influence the world is fast reverting to its pre-WW1 state of great power competition and the placing of ideology over people.

Sorry if that comes across as a little harsh, but platitudes and happy talk irritate me.

 

[Faanchou]

The spine count in the rethug party is basically zero at this point. Maybe they should rename themselves the Jellyfish party, (although actual jellyfish may object and take them to court over that).

Vertebrates In Name Only.
in VINO Falsitas.

 

[IntellectualThug]

A competent commander in chief would have taken the right decision.

We have a sociopathic incompetent traitor as commander in chief and this has his putrid fingerprints all aver it. Listen to him rant about Crozier and it’s obvious. He has surrounded himself with cowards, toadies, and grifters. Esper on down are a disgrace. USMC disabled combat vet here by the way. 3 tours.

not that it's on you to speak on others' behalf, but can you think of any reason I encounter so many vets who still love the guy?

Because vets and active duty servicemen live in the real world where Trump's doing real good and they don't form their opinions based on propagandist media reports and the hurt feelings of a historically soft general public.

Oh yeah that's definitely why Mad Dog Mattis resigned in less than a year of putting up with Trump's horseshit, because he's SUCH a good president for the military.

You Trumpkins are incredible mental gymnasts.

That's a great point... Mattis resigned because he disagreed with foreign policy and Trump telling the UN to fuck off. The men in the line though, the ones who've been disproportionately putting their asses on the line because of the comical disparity of investment by other members of the "alliance" know that the UN is a fucking joke and that the US has been doing the fighting and the dying that they wouldn't so, great job in highlighting just one of many reasons why soldiers love Trump.

Uh huh, sure. Foreign policy.

I'd just suggest cutting your losses and not visiting Ars. Literally every post you've made since registering is Trump apology; you'll find no truck with the average Arsian given our collective preference for factual statements.

 

[fredsbend]

Well, to be frank firing him was even worse than his letter.
Now everybody and their dog knows about it.
So if Cozier's letter resulted in unhelpful attention and doubt about leadership, his to fire him certainly did anything BUT reestablish order.

I am sure they did what they thought was the best for the interest of the military, but they did exactly the opposite.
M.

Not firing him could conceivably create a situation where many officers and even servicemen neglect the chain of command. That kind of rot can be slow, but must be cut out quickly and with great prejudice. That's military dogma, non-negotiable.

Yes because the only two possible outcomes are always fire someone regardless of circumstances or always take no action regardless of circumstances.

There's a slew of disciplinary actions that don't require being relieved of position, but I did say "firing", so I'll edit to "discipline".

 

[Mossy]

https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-c ... ing-2020-4

The US Navy commander of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier reportedly sent out a "signal flare" — a four-page emailed letter outlining the urgency of a coronavirus outbreak aboard his ship — to fellow naval aviators because he believed his immediate supervisor would not have allowed the letter to be sent.

Capt. Brett Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt may have been worried that Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate boss and the commander of the carrier strike group, would not have allowed him to send the warning letter to Navy leaders, according to the top Navy official who fired him as told to a Washington Post columnist.

Baker reportedly confirmed to Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly that Crozier's instincts were correct: "He was right. I wouldn't."

 

[Statistical]

A competent commander in chief would have taken the right decision.

We have a sociopathic incompetent traitor as commander in chief and this has his putrid fingerprints all aver it. Listen to him rant about Crozier and it’s obvious. He has surrounded himself with cowards, toadies, and grifters. Esper on down are a disgrace. USMC disabled combat vet here by the way. 3 tours.

not that it's on you to speak on others' behalf, but can you think of any reason I encounter so many vets who still love the guy?

Because vets and active duty servicemen live in the real world where Trump's doing real good and they don't form their opinions based on propagandist media reports and the hurt feelings of a historically soft general public.

Oh yeah that's definitely why Mad Dog Mattis resigned in less than a year of putting up with Trump's horseshit, because he's SUCH a good president for the military.

You Trumpkins are incredible mental gymnasts.

That's a great point... Mattis resigned because he disagreed with foreign policy and Trump telling the UN to fuck off. The men in the line though, the ones who've been disproportionately putting their asses on the line because of the comical disparity of investment by other members of the "alliance" know that the UN is a fucking joke and that the US has been doing the fighting and the dying that they wouldn't so, great job in highlighting just one of many reasons why soldiers love Trump.

How is it that Trumpers manage to be ignorant about everything. The UN has nothing to do with any "alliance". The debate was on spending by our allies in NATO. UN =/= NATO. Even if one believes our allies aren't pulling their weight the alliance in question has nothing to do with the UN.

 

[mhalpern]

He did the right thing, a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew, the responsibility of an Admiral is to the fleet, while as a carrier they are the centerpiece of the fleet, this is a ship operations and crew health issue.

No, his first responsibility is to his orders, which can literally include death for his crew.

A captains orders need to serve a purpose and in a peace time setting, those orders should not be such that they place service men and women in the path of involuntary death. It is stupid to think that a captain of a ship, in peace time, would be required to watch his crew members die, because of an immoral order. I think WWII taught us that "just following orders" is not a valid defense.

While a captain needs to follow orders he also needs to take into consideration if those orders achieve a desired goal. In war time, captain's were orders to fight again a greater fleet, but at the time they knew that even if they got destroyed, if they were able to damage or take out an enemy ship they served a greater cause and yes, crew and ship may come second.

However, there is no such requirement for sacrifice in a peacetime footing. You make it out that if a skipper was ordered to sail into North Korea and start shooting he should not question or consider the larger picture of the outcome? Orders are meant to keep order when there is chaos around, but they are not meant to create chaos in the hands of ill informed or narcissistic leaders.

Even in wartime, within the bounds of the orders and/or mission directive they have a responsibility to their crews, hence why even in heavy combat it is historically rare to lose a ship with all hands, at least once the age of Steam started

 

[Imbrium]

That's a great point... Mattis resigned because he disagreed with foreign policy and Trump telling the UN to fuck off. The men in the line though, the ones who've been disproportionately putting their asses on the line because of the comical disparity of investment by other members of the "alliance" know that the UN is a fucking joke and that the US has been doing the fighting and the dying that they wouldn't so, great job in highlighting just one of many reasons why soldiers love Trump.

Uh huh, sure. Foreign policy.

I'd just suggest cutting your losses and not visiting Ars. Literally every post you've made since registering is Trump apology; you'll find no truck with the average Arsian given our collective preference for factual statements.

Your preference is for popular opinion and lots of crying... neither of which I care for. I'm surrounded by hundreds of other servicemen and you're not the first delicate liberal to question support for Trump; you don't have to like the reality of the answer but that's the collective answer nonetheless.

And you fucks couldn't find a fact with both hands and a map unless CNN told you how to get there... and those clowns haven't reported a fact in years so you're hopelessly lost.

Apparently you are one of the sad folks who is completely unable to articulate their opinion without resorting to namecalling. It makes everything you say totally irrelevant, and therefore, easily dismissed.

 

[seanmgallagher]

Stories like this make me realize how much I've missed Sean's presence. Nice write-up that helps lay out what happened with a lot more clarity than some of the more mainstream stories I've seen. Does that mean you're still doing the occasional story for Ars on a freelance basis?

It appears so.

 

[Reaperman2]

It's different in the military. I served for some years and the last thing you want is to communicate to the enemy that your readiness is compromised. So yes, that means sacrifice and it sucks.

So it's better to actually BE unready to fight than to let your superiors (and their superiors) know that you're in danger of BECOMING unready to fight.

Let me guess: You didn't get very high in rank? Because that level of dumb is reserved for the grunts, not the officers.

 

[daveishereagain]

That's a great point... Mattis resigned because he disagreed with foreign policy and Trump telling the UN to fuck off. The men in the line though, the ones who've been disproportionately putting their asses on the line because of the comical disparity of investment by other members of the "alliance" know that the UN is a fucking joke and that the US has been doing the fighting and the dying that they wouldn't so, great job in highlighting just one of many reasons why soldiers love Trump.

Uh huh, sure. Foreign policy.

I'd just suggest cutting your losses and not visiting Ars. Literally every post you've made since registering is Trump apology; you'll find no truck with the average Arsian given our collective preference for factual statements.

Your preference is for popular opinion and lots of crying... neither of which I care for. I'm surrounded by hundreds of other servicemen and you're not the first delicate liberal to question support for Trump; you don't have to like the reality of the answer but that's the collective answer nonetheless.

And you fucks couldn't find a fact with both hands and a map unless CNN told you how to get there... and those clowns haven't reported a fact in years so you're hopelessly lost.

Heh. I haven't watched CNN in years, so I can say without harmful damage from watching, you're a Trump apologist, all you've done is make partisan points without reference to the subject at hand. Whether the ranks of the military supports Trump or not is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 

[Statistical]

It's different in the military. I served for some years and the last thing you want is to communicate to the enemy that your readiness is compromised. So yes, that means sacrifice and it sucks.

So it's better to actually BE unready to fight than to let your superiors (and their superiors) know that you're in danger of BECOMING unready to fight.

Let me guess: You didn't get very high in rank? Because that level of dumb is reserved for the grunts, not the officers.

Even grunts aren't that dumb. If I learned anything in the Army as an NCO it is that junior enlisted love to complain about everything. I mean by and large they accomplish the mission professionally but they complain. It is like an unwritten right of the junior enlisted to complain about everything big or small.

 

[bthylafh]

How is it that Trumpers manage to be ignorant about everything.

They've been successfully conditioned for decades to ignore any information outside of the reactionary propaganda bubble; to wit, "don't believe the lamestream media". The reactionary media outlets are hardly going to tell them the unvarnished truth because then they won't be reliably frightened and outraged into voting authoritarian.

 

[voline]

It's different in the military. I served for some years and the last thing you want is to communicate to the enemy that your readiness is compromised. So yes, that means sacrifice and it sucks. When you sign up for service, you are agreeing to forgo many "rights" and obviously take on many more risks. When I served, I remember being told that we are also "guinea pigs" for pretty much anything, before going overseas you get dozens of injections (at least when I was serving) and if the government decides to test something new on you or your group, that's part of the deal.

He made a choice to shine a light on this in a way that was completely unacceptable. Sometimes you're ordered to do things you just know are pretty much suicide missions, but that's the deal. This isn't a campus, it's a warship that has many more implications that anyone here is aware of.

It's not fair, no one likes it, but it's what we signed up for and you should understand the full picture before commending or condemning anyone, which I know is not the standard here on Ars.

Yes, the ever-present enemy. China has two aircraft carrier battle groups. Russia has one. The US Navy has eleven (11).

News that one carrier was temporarily out of action could have led to another Pearl Harbor, as the Chinese took advantage of their brief moment of slightly less massive disadvantage to commit suicide.

I'm sure there are no COVID-19 outbreaks in the Chinese or Russian militaries, so they are poised to strike.