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

 

[Dontgetthecheese]

You should listen to this speech. I thought we were already at peak crazy.

https://soundcloud.com/paul-szoldra/act ... -roosevelt

 

[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?

No, a captain whose actions result in death that is deemed avoidable are usually relieved too. That's exactly the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nature of the job that this article laments.

Just pointing out that literally the death of crew is sometimes required to carry out orders and it's deemed acceptable and even expected. That "a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew" is trivially false. It's a military ship, not Princess Cruise lines.

But in this case, he expected deaths to occur needlessly. You consider that acceptable? His crew seems to agree with him immensely from the cheers, clapping and chanting of his name. How is it that his crew seem to agree with his breaking the CoC?

A sick/some dying crew during peacetime endangers his mission and orders.

 

[bthylafh]

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 they do it but they complain. It is like an unwritten right of the junior enlisted to complain about everything big or small.

Even Sun Tzu wrote about bitching grunts and what happens when their officers stop them from doing it: the army gets demoralized and the enlisted lose respect for their superiors. Bitching is healthy; it's when they stop doing it because nobody will listen that you have to start worrying.

 

[IntellectualThug]

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.

Yup that's me, reduced to librul tears by your fake news slaying TrumpFacts™

 

[Faanchou]

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!

A carrier with a sick or otherwise incapacitated flight crew tends more towards a military target.

 

[Tamerlin]

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?

Right now, that enemy is donald trump and his posse of incompetent scum.

 

[fraktulz]

Having served, the issue really is HOW the communication was made not the fact that the communication was made... or at least based on this information. Chain of command is everything in the military, unlike the corporate world where skip level reporting is not only accepted but common place. What's not clear is if Crozier did, in fact, run this up his chain of command and was blown off (highly likely).

Obviously this CO has the respect of the crew. Fair winds and following seas Captain.

 

[fredsbend]

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 they do it but they complain. It is like an unwritten right of the junior enlisted to complain about everything big or small.

Even Sun Tzu wrote about bitching grunts and what happens when their officers stop them from doing it: the army gets demoralized and the enlisted lose respect for their superiors. Bitching is healthy; it's when they stop doing it because nobody will listen that you have to start worrying.

That's what I tell my wife when I start cursing about the traffic. She doesn't buy it.

 

[Imbrium]

Having served, the issue really is HOW the communication was made not the fact that the communication was made... or at least based on this information. Chain of command is everything in the military, unlike the corporate world where skip level reporting is not only accepted but common place. What's not clear is if Crozier did, in fact, run this up his chain of command and was blown off (highly likely).

Obviously this CO has the respect of the crew. Fair winds and following seas Captain.

Fortunately, it appears that we DID have a competent commander who understood that leadership is not defined by your airtime on Fox News or your crowd size or Twitter followers. What a refreshing and revolutionary idea!

 

[Maury Markowitz]

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

Too bad we don't expect more from the Commanding Officers of our countries anymore.

 

[KGFish]

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?

No, a captain whose actions result in death that is deemed avoidable are usually relieved too. That's exactly the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nature of the job that this article laments.

Just pointing out that literally the death of crew is sometimes required to carry out orders and it's deemed acceptable and even expected. That "a Captain's first responsibility is to their crew" is trivially false. It's a military ship, not Princess Cruise lines.

How well does the ship operate if about 50% of the crew is sick, about 10% sick enough to not operate anything, and 0.5% dead?

The captain putting the crew first IS putting the mission first.

 

[Statistical]

Now that I know the full story I consider the dismissal fair and correct. First, the captain for reasons unknown did not inform his direct superior ( bypassed chain of command). Second, took the decision to embark in Vietnam ( the article makes it clear that political repercussions require such decisions to be taken at highest political level). Third, the captain send the letter to 20+ people thus created conditions for the content to be leaked.

Literally none of that is correct.

 

[alpha 60]

This reminds me - I still need to complete my online training on the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act. I'mma get right on that as soon as I finish reading the comment section to this article.

As we discuss this, Jared Kushner is "clarifying" the language of the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act to define whistleblowing as treason.

 

[nimelennar]

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?

I'd say 'adversary' is a better word to use, and we have plenty of them.

Sure; 45 has, at some point or other, behaved adversarially towards pretty much every nation large enough for him to take notice of. How many of those countries could, and would, take military advantage of the "compromise of readiness" exposed here (i.e. that the US is temporarily down one aircraft carrier)? Why is keeping this a secret (which it already wasn't) worth sailors' lives?

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?

That's a long and complex answer. Speaking precisely, "terror" and Afghanistan. In terms of where we're militarily involved (in some cases, off and on, quasi randomly) in what anyone sane would call a war footing... Oh boy. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, the Indian ocean, and more (and more). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ntury_wars for detail.

This in no way excuses the Trump administration railroading Captain Brozier, mind you, nor does it really nullify your obvious point, which shouldn't so much be considered "who are we at war with" as "what enemy of ours are we in such a dire state with that it's worthwhile to sacrifice lives on board the Roosevelt to maintain an illusion of readiness."

Huh. I must have missed the declaration of war against Afghanistan. What did Pres. Ghani's government do?

 

[bthylafh]

Now that I know the full story I consider the dismissal fair and correct. First, the captain for reasons unknown did not inform his direct superior ( bypassed chain of command). Second, took the decision to embark in Vietnam ( the article makes it clear that political repercussions require such decisions to be taken at highest political level). Third, the captain send the letter to 20+ people thus created conditions for the content to be leaked.

Literally none of that is correct.

It feels truthy, though.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Command & Bonkers - Tremendous Sun

New game from EA

 

[tsetol]

Hmm, I do not know what to make of the fact that Crozier's superior was on the same ship and therefore exposed to the same situation.

 

[eduardopozo56]

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.

This will be forgotten (by the normal media/stream/people) in 1 week tops, when the next big "scandal" breaks...

 

[Imbrium]

Hmm, I do not know what to make of the fact that Crozier's superior was on the same ship and therefore exposed to the same situation.

Covering his bemedaled ass by not annoying the moron-in-chief?

 

[mhalpern]

[
How well does the ship operate if about 50% of the crew is sick, about 10% sick enough to not operate anything, and 0.5% dead?

The captain putting the crew first IS putting the mission first.

Or looked at another way, crew is the most expensive part of any weapons system, and the most critical part, more in time and experience than in money, but you can have the most technically advanced ship in the world, and it will mean nothing if your crew isn't well trained and lacks experience. Many battles have been decided where the comparative experience of the crews involved has been determined to be a major contributing factor in the outcome. WW2 Pacific Theater, one of the major differences between the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy was the general quality of the perspective damage control crews, and equipment (fire suppression on Japanese ships was generally more vulnerable). More American ships that were heavily damaged even if you don't count those that were at Pear Harbor, returned to combat ready status and did so faster than their Japanese counterparts, and of those that didn't, more crew members survived to serve on other ships.

 

[fraktulz]

As an aside... I was underway when our submarine had the flu sweep through it after just two weeks into our patrol. There wasn't a single person who didn't go down with it (including the medic and three mess specialists). It was a living hell, if you could stay vertical for any amount of time you were put to work cleaning and if you could stay conscious and sit down you were standing watch. Sadly this was during a heightened tension period after the fall of the Soviet Union so we had to finish out the patrol as usual... I mean... as usual as running out of toilet paper two months ahead of schedule.

This isn't uncommon, in the Navy especially, where cramped quarters are a microcosm of the outside world, luckily the vast majority of sailors are strong and young and in our case things did go back to regularly scheduled daily drills and food other than PB&Js after a month.

 

[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.

I'm not the one who initiated the "name calling" there buddy... I expressed a position that wasn't popular and was immediately met with name calling so responded in kind. Maybe if y'all didn't go full tantrum every time someone didn't agree with your popular opinion and start calling them names you wouldn't find yourself crying about being called names.

I don't recall "crying" about being called names. In fact, this is the first time you have addressed me directly. Going "full tantrum" does appear to be what you are doing, however. It is not a good look.

Edit: I am most certainly not your buddy

 

[chanman819]

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

"WHAT THE FUCK?"

My everyday sentiments.

Casually ignoring the well-being of your sailors for no good reason is the kind of shit that leads to mutinies.

 

[ZhanMing057]

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.

I guess you missed the detailed comment explaining that I agree with the captains decision but that military order requires his violation of CoC be met with extreme punishment in your desperate search to find only posts which support your claims. The statement about the military supporting Trump was in response to a direct question as to why and based upon the stated beliefs of literally hundreds of servicemen that I've personally spoken with... but I guess since it doesn't meet your desire to only hear about those who hate Trump, it's partisan and irrelevant. Sure.

So it is your opinion that 25-50 sailors should die (and hundreds more suffer for weeks) simply because of "protocol" during peacetime, and you support the president who implicitly backed this decision?

 

[cyberjudge]

So are they saying Admiral Stuart Baker did not know people were getting sick on ship. What a
load of BS.

 

[Statistical]

So are they saying Admiral Stuart Baker did not know people were getting sick on ship. What a
load of BS.

Nobody said that.

The problem with Crozier’s letter, according to Modly, is that he never informed his direct boss—Carrier Strike Group Commander Rear Admiral Stuart Baker, who was aboard the Roosevelt and “right down the passageway from him”—that he was going to send it.

 

[seanmgallagher]

Unrelated, I hadn't realized Sean was no longer working for Ars.

He still has an Ars email address and they gave him an "emeritus editor" title so maybe they didn't announce it since he's still somewhat around?

I've moved on, but I may file a story or two now and then. I don't have access to that Ars email address, tho.

 

[Imbrium]

I don't recall "crying" about being called names. In fact, this is the first time you have addressed me directly. Going "full tantrum" does appear to be what you are doing, however. It is not a good look.

Edit: I am most certainly not your buddy

My mistake... you were busy crying about "bemedaled ass by not annoying the moron-in-chief". With all the crying you lot do, it's tough to keep track of who's crying about what. Sorry about that buddy.

Ok, at the risk of going down a rabbit hole, let me explain:

The admiral was onboard the same ship as Capt. Crozier. He couldn't fail to see exactly the same situation that the captain was seeing, with hundreds of sailors falling ill, and the virus spreading through the cramped conditions on the ship. We both know there is no way the captain didn't discuss this with the admiral, as they were literally down the hall from one another. It is likely the captain asked for the permission to do something to alleviate the situation. We don't know if the admiral passed this up the chain of command or not. If he did, and it was ignored by those higher up, then this is on them. Of course, the admiral could then have taken the same action as Capt. Crozier, but he chose not to do so. The alternative is that the admiral didn't send it up the chain of command. In that case, it was likely due to the fact that he knew what would happen if he did so, and decided to sacrifice the men under his command in order to advance his career. In other words, sitting on his bemedaled ass so as not to annoy the moron-in-chief.

Also, I am still not your buddy, and that will not change. Please stop begging.

 

[gqn0000]

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?

100% agreed. It's so nice to be able to have a clear explanation that tries to give both sides of an issue like this.

 

[O/Siris]

I don't intend this as a defense of Sec Modly's actions, but this is nothing new or particular to this time when it comes to the US Navy. When the slow burn around sexual assault and harrassment came to a boil a few years, several servicemembers were tried and ejected for reporting outside the chain of command, even as said chain was (allegedly) working to resolve those issues.

The entire military command structure tends to close ranks against whistleblowers, rather than accepting the issues they reveal.

 

[daveishereagain]

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?

I'd say 'adversary' is a better word to use, and we have plenty of them.

Sure; 45 has, at some point or other, behaved adversarially towards pretty much every nation large enough for him to take notice of. How many of those countries could, and would, take military advantage of the "compromise of readiness" exposed here (i.e. that the US is temporarily down one aircraft carrier)? Why is keeping this a secret (which it already wasn't) worth sailors' lives?

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?

That's a long and complex answer. Speaking precisely, "terror" and Afghanistan. In terms of where we're militarily involved (in some cases, off and on, quasi randomly) in what anyone sane would call a war footing... Oh boy. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, the Indian ocean, and more (and more). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ntury_wars for detail.

This in no way excuses the Trump administration railroading Captain Brozier, mind you, nor does it really nullify your obvious point, which shouldn't so much be considered "who are we at war with" as "what enemy of ours are we in such a dire state with that it's worthwhile to sacrifice lives on board the Roosevelt to maintain an illusion of readiness."

Huh. I must have missed the declaration of war against Afghanistan. What did Pres. Ghani's government do?

Notwithstanding your accurate remarks about Trump, historically every nation/civilization that attains such (relative) power as we have will have plenty of adversaries. I agree with your second point.

 

[tripodal]

I tend to support the captain, as described in the article, it's apparent he knew exactly this would happen to him.

His superiors could argue that it was indeed stupid to "give up" his command "intentionally",
and also that it was correct for him to do so.

I hope that the other commanders share a similar temperament and thoughtfulness.

 

[cyberjudge]

So are they saying Admiral Stuart Baker did not know people were getting sick on ship. What a
load of BS.

Nobody said that.

The problem with Crozier’s letter, according to Modly, is that he never informed his direct boss—Carrier Strike Group Commander Rear Admiral Stuart Baker, who was aboard the Roosevelt and “right down the passageway from him”—that he was going to send it.

That being the case, what was Rear Admiral Stuart Baker doing about the sick on ship.

 

[tripodal]

So are they saying Admiral Stuart Baker did not know people were getting sick on ship. What a
load of BS.

Nobody said that.

The problem with Crozier’s letter, according to Modly, is that he never informed his direct boss—Carrier Strike Group Commander Rear Admiral Stuart Baker, who was aboard the Roosevelt and “right down the passageway from him”—that he was going to send it.

If he had informed, but ordered not to, this would instead be a court-martial; right? Or maybe whatever the 'non-movie' term would be in the navy.

Doing opposite of what your boss says is way worse than asking for forgiveness in a civilian job at least.

 

[Big Wang]

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.

Isn't this the same argument Chinese government uses to discourage "rumor mongering" ?