Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly Resigns – Defense Secretary Esper Appoints Replacement…

Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly (pictured left) submitted his resignation Tuesday morning; and shortly thereafter Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he accepted the resignation, consulted with President Trump, and nominated Under Secretary of the Army James McPherson to be his replacement.

Secretary Modly resigned after making poorly-timed remarks to the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt about the judgement of captain Brett Crozier.  Modly labeled Crozier as “stupid.”  Bad form.

The poor judgement by Captain Brett Crozier did compromise his mission and publicly put our enemies on notice a nuclear powered asset was compromised. He deserved to be removed.  However, in response, Secretary Modly also compromised the structure of command authority with public statements exhibiting his own bad judgement.  Criticism of command leadership goes up, never down.  Doofus.  FUBAR.

Command authority is based on a very simple principle:  Never compromise your position; and never compromise the position of your leadership.  Criticism of decision-making amid leadership ranks can only go up the chain of command, never down.

Commander Brett Crozier and Navy Secretary Modly both violated this simple directive.

Nuts!

‘Forward, the Light Brigade!’
Was there a man dismay’d ?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Some one had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

This entry was posted in Coronavirus, Cultural Marxism, Infectious Disease, Military, Professional Idiots, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly Resigns – Defense Secretary Esper Appoints Replacement…

  1. anniesezso says:

    Is this ignorance, stupidity, hubris, or all three?

    Liked by 13 people

  2. Ozwitch says:

    Reading between the lines here, SECDEF is very pissed at Modly and Navy management. That this position escalated to the level of Presidential involvement should never have been allowed. Yes, Crozier violated OPSEC, but it is clearly the action of a desperate man who fell on his sword for the sake of his crew. The Pentagon pressure to continue the Vietnam “cultural exchange” visit was fatal to the ship. The CO couldn’t just decide not to port, although in retrospect I bet he wishes he had. Modly fanned the flames by his vindictive and insulting speech to the ship’s crew. The Navy needs to get back on mission and look after its people.
    As an ex-Naval Officer I understand OPSEC. Crozier does too. He knew probably that his career was over if he sent the letter, but he did anyway. This is not the actions of a traitor, but of a desperate Captain worried about his crew. Navy hierarchy were embarrassed by this as they should have been. Too many blunt non-military chiefs with their fingers in the operational pie, making decisions about port visits which have nothing to do with the ship’s overall mission but everything to do with touchy-feely cultural love-ins and promoting the wussification of the military.

    Liked by 19 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Crozier’s boss was on board his ship, yet Crozier apparently didn’t bother to discuss or notify him of his actions.

      Not only did Crozier violate OPSEC, he also worked around his chain of command.

      Liked by 29 people

      • Ozwitch says:

        You don’t know this for a fact that he didn’t discuss it with the Admiral. He may be the CO’s superior in rank but there are multiple chains of operational command that do not always involve one superior only. The Pentagon endangered a warship by enforcing the Vietnam visit. Crozier had two horns of a dilemma on which to fall, and he chose the one which helped his crew. I know most people are going to disagree with me, however the responsibility of a CO to his 5,000 crew was evidently more important than his career. The fault for exposing the warship and strike group lies with the Navy, and SECDEF knows this.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Warrior says:

          There is no evidence that crozier was ignored by the chain of command. Your speculation and defense of his misconduct is unsupported by what is known. In fact the Secretary had been in contact with him repeatedly over the days prior to the unsecured, inappropriate email.

          I get it that you are a Navy defender. No problem. But this officer was wrong on many levels and he is not the type of commander we need for a mission as critical as a carrier.

          Liked by 5 people

        • L4grasshopper says:

          I’m actually sympathetic to your arguments regarding making that port stop in Vietnam.

          But as a claimed ex-Naval Officer, your apparent inability to understand how utterly wrong it was for Crozier to not go thru his operational superior who was on board his ship — the Task Force commander that the Roosevelt was leading — boggles the mind!

          If he did discuss it with the Admiral, one of two things has to be true:

          A). The Admiral was in agreement with him, and gave his OK

          B). The Admiral was not in agreement.

          If A, then why hasn’t the Admiral come to Crozier’s Defense? In fact, why has not Crozier stated that his action was discussed with his superior?

          If B, then Crozier violated long established chain of command procedures, rules, and conventions.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Frank says:

            Dear grasshopper and others who may read
            the Crozier issue is also subject in the German prime newspapers. Appearently, most posters, approve the Captain’s decision ignoring the chain of command in order to save sailors health and accuse not just Modly’s rude Approach but rather the president himself.
            In my opinion, indeed, the men’s health in peacetimes is the most valuable, nevertheless nobody was on the edge of death, correct?
            I think one argument is crucial: Did the boss (higher rank) of the captain did ignore or not even answered the captain’s concerns? If yes, he was entitled to make his own decision, if he was in close contact (there are mobiles around 🙂 with the lsuperior level, not.
            Do you know this? Or are those just guesses?
            Sorry for the German accent… (I was captain in the German Panzer Forces)
            Frank

            Liked by 1 person

        • phillip jeffreys says:

          Riiiiiiiiiiight. And, of course, Crozier exercising NJP would not be open to all sorts of questions by the crew given the Captain’s violations of the chain-of-command. There are problems across the board with Senior Navy leadership.

          A good start would be defunding the Boat School…in fact all the academies.

          Liked by 1 person

        • law4lifeblog says:

          Ozwitch, you are dead wrong. His chain of command was aware of and WAS ADDRESSING the problem. For political reasons, he chose to grandstand by going outside the chain of command and copying outside people who later leaked his 5 page letter to the media…because the letter was clearly written FOR THE MEDIA. There is no universe in which that is appropriate conduct for. Navy captain commanding a massive nuclear vessel. He’s darn lucky his arrogant, undisciplined a$$ isn’t facing court martial. As for the Navy Secretary, his decision to remove Crozier was 100% right, and his raf8ng dressing down of the crew and remarks about the captain were 100% wrong. Good riddance.

          Liked by 3 people

          • spinoneone says:

            Right, and the Navy will be better off without both Crozier and Moldy [o.k., Modly]
            Let’s be absolutely clear on the fact that the port visit to Da Nang was planned in DC at the Departments of Defense and State to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. That planning probably started in October and was cast in stone by late December 2019 for the March 2020 visit. Crozier was certainly included in the planning; no one was thinking about [or aware of?] WuFlu at that time. I have no idea when anyone in the Navy, at State or Defense, began to be concerned about WuFlu. Whenever it was, they were too late.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Brian in CA4 says:

          I suspect that Crozier was overtaken by the virus hysteria, just like many others. Carriers aren’t like subs where they go out to sea and hide. Carriers are out there big and bold with their support ships and connected to all the news media they want to see. It’s very possible that Crozier thought that a good portion of his crew would be dead if the virus spread through most of the ship. Does anyone know how many actually have died from the Covid-19?

          Liked by 2 people

        • ann says:

          Oz,
          Never served, but what you’ve explained so lucidly seems plausible.

          Like

    • J says:

      Desperate? From my understanding, the guy worked 10 steps from his immediate superior and didnt go there first. And no matter how desperate, you dont include those in an email outside the chain of command endangering your crew and ship even further.

      This was political as much as anything. I think it as likely that he was exercising his TDS as he was falling on his sword. We all know that for 8 years, promotions were based on politics in our military.

      Liked by 22 people

      • Ozwitch says:

        The CO doesn’t answer to the Admiral for the running of the ship and its position as a war asset. He answers to Fleet and higher up that chain. One of his responsibilities is to deliver an efficient fighting asset, which includes a sharp, healthy and up to date crew who can deliver in a combat situation. He was prevented from doing this. I suspect he also cared for his crew, unlike the Pentagon echelons who care about their own careers.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Rhoda R says:

          Even so, he didn’t securely raise concerns within HIS chain of command but instead raised issues in a very public way. Poor judgement at the very least.

          Liked by 4 people

        • MVW says:

          Ozwitch,
          Your views are in line with what rings true to me, that the rot is between the ships CO and SecDef. Without a direct connection to SecDef, and given the press would reliably deliver bad news to POTUS, who no doubt knew of rot there from previous Navy idiocy, the CO did fall on his sword for his men, the Navy, and our country. In other words, the CO lobbed a nuclear grenade at the Obama Navy brass and let Trump sort it out.

          Unfortunately it is hard to remove such a sword once fallen upon.

          But that is just my own idiotic arm chair opinion and there is no way for me to know this.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Warrior says:

          Share with us how crozier didn’t jeopardize his ships mission readiness by publicly disclosing its illness and reduction of forces? I guess crozier doesn’t take OPSEC very seriously since he was willing to disclose his ships weakness to our adversaries in order to make his point.

          Liked by 3 people

        • phillip.jeffreys says:

          One can only imagine how the Captain might have responded in combat to an order that might put his crew at risk.

          Liked by 1 person

          • RJ says:

            You have asked a very serious and sincere question. I do not know the answer, but I certainly did notice when the Captain was leaving the ship those sailors and sailorettes on the hangar deck were not dressed in the uniform of the day…or perhaps today’s Navy is just a playground for men and women to go sailing…hoping that only general quarter drills occur.

            This is not the Navy I recall, not even close.

            Liked by 2 people

        • law4lifeblog says:

          Wrong again….Crozier was NOT prevented from doing his duty.

          Liked by 1 person

    • emet says:

      Both of these guys made a mess for POTUS, as he is fighting to get our nation thru this disaster, while being attacked on all sides. It was exasperating to watch.
      Anyway, some years ago I and my partner were assigned to meet and escort a high ranking Vietnamese military officer and his entourage. My partner quipped “Emet? A few years ago we would have got medals if we killed this guy, and now we are helping him with his bags”.

      Liked by 13 people

    • AloftWalt says:

      1) Loose lips sink ships at all levels of hierarchy.
      2) How is it that the sailors were allowed to record and leak the video from their personal phone? This leaker should also be severely disciplined (court martialed).

      IMHO The discipline and loyalty within all branches of the military has greatly diminished due to the military becoming one great big social experiment.

      Liked by 12 people

    • AloftWalt says:

      1) Loose lips sink ships at all levels of hierarchy.
      2) How is it that the sailors were allowed to record and leak the video from their personal phone? This leaker should also be severely disciplined (court martialed).

      IMHO The discipline and loyalty within all branches of the military has greatly diminished due to the military becoming one great big social experiment.

      Liked by 2 people

      • law4lifeblog says:

        That the sailors engaged in that demonstration of defiance by applauding their removed Captain, recording it and leaking it to the press shows me that Crozier’s lack of discipline and disrespect for the chain had already infected the ship.

        Like

      • law4lifeblog says:

        That the sailors engaged in that demonstration of defiance by applauding their removed Captain, recording it and leaking it to the press shows me that Crozier’s lack of discipline and disrespect for the chain had already infected the ship.

        Like

        • ann says:

          Law4life,
          Respectfully,
          I didn’t find anything wrong w the crew giving a warm goodbye to their captain.

          Is that not an indicator of team cohesion & morale?

          Perhaps he placed duty to HIS SHIP over what appears to be a political mission.
          He Chose to preserve the functionality of an aircraft carrier over unnecessary risk .

          Is an aircraft carrier similar to a mobile base?
          If so, it seems odd (to me ) for the Pentagon to chose such a powerful ship for what appears to be diplomatic operation.

          there were no more suitable vessels? Why didn’t the mission leader respond to the captain’s legitimate concern, and just switch to a less pretentious vessel?

          In my civilian eyes, the upper hierachy’s sluggish response is not the agile chain of command.one would hope for.
          Seems like the admirals, whatever, priorities were muddled & time ticked as pompously collided with prestige. Internal quarrelling led to “delay”

          Probably obvious to you I’ve never served in armed forces and my perspective is not informed by anything other than typical human behavior.

          To a military person, does my scenario seem unlikely?
          I truly would like to know

          Like

    • Perot Conservative says:

      Culture exchange? Or skirt chasing and / or bordellos?

      Liked by 4 people

    • Mac says:

      While the Navy department brass is, and always has been, a royal pain in the butt, Crozier is a Naval Academy ring knocker and should have known better. Perhaps one of the main reasons for Crozier’s intemperate actions is the fact that he was not a true blue water sailor. He came up through the officer ranks mainly as an aviator, not in the surface warfare service. Or, perhaps there were other reasons for his actions. To make matters worse, he totally ditched the established chain of command and went to the press, with his complaints. And, he did this based upon unsupported claims of the danger from the virus. If he had made his concerns known to his command and they did nothing to alleviate them, then he could have jumped the chain directly to the POTUS, if he had notified his current chain of command. It would have scuttled his career, but he could have justified it. As it is he has NO valid defense for his actions.

      Now, Moody was also intemperate. While his action in relieving Crozier was justified, under the circumstances, it should have ended there. The first thing that you learn in command is that when you are right, you never have to explain yourself. The second thing you learn is praise is always delivered publicly and criticism is always delivered privately. Both Crozier and Moody were failures, in this matter.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Pat G says:

        Moldy was also a ring knocker, a helicopter pilot like Crozier. Crozier transitioned to Fighters, a very difficult thing to do. Combat tours to Irag, Fighter Squadron XO, CO, XO of Abraham Lincoln when transitioning from San Diego to Yokada Japan homeport, read long hours, CO of Blue Ridge which sails with a three star, and finally to Teddy Roosevelt, and he gave all that up on the way to making stars when he could’ve been like his peers and done nothing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jim C. Kinoshita says:

          The CO knew he would be fired for taking care of his crew. To think he didn’t communicate his SITREP with the Chain of Command is beyond pale. Only the best and brightest of this country could ever come close to being the CO of a CVN.

          It’s quite obvious to me that the CoC was dallying when action was required. Crozier knew the only way to get the infected personnel off the ship was by the course he set. Easier to replace 150 sailors than 4,900. Chew on that, lose the whole crew, your ship does nothing!

          Once those 150 are replaced the ship is back to full warfighting capability. Waiting to train and transfer 4,900 would take the ship out of commission for who knows how long, years?

          An O-6 Navy CVN skipper knew the cards he had were both loosers, so he did the best he could for his crew at his own careers expense.

          And it’s Yokosuka, not Yokada? Spent 8 years in Japan, 4 in Hawaii, 6 in Florida and 6 more all over the globe courtesy of the U.S. Navy. I hold this CO in highest regards.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ann says:

            Jim,

            Respectful question from the peanut gallery

            It will be obvious I’ve never served, but sincerely want to understand ,

            I didn’t find anything wrong w the crew giving a warm goodbye to their captain.

            Is that not an indicator of team cohesion & morale?

            Perhaps he placed duty to HIS SHIP over what appears to be a political mission.
            He Chose to preserve the functionality of an aircraft carrier over unnecessary risk .

            Is an aircraft carrier similar to a mobile base?
            If so, it seems odd (to me ) for the Pentagon to chose such a powerful ship for what appears to be diplomatic operation.

            there were no more suitable vessels? Why didn’t the mission leader respond to the captain’s legitimate concern, and just switch to a less pretentious vessel?

            In my civilian eyes, the upper hierachy’s sluggish response is not the agile chain of command.one would hope for.
            Seems like the admirals, whatever, priorities were muddled & time ticked as pompously collided with prestige. Internal quarrelling led to “delay”

            my perspective is not informed by anything other than typical human behavior.

            To a military person, does my scenario seem unlikely?
            I

            Like

            • Jim C. Kinoshita says:

              Captain Crozier is a true leader, something that has steadily been drummed out of the Navy over the past 3 decades. Those shipmates knew he was sacrificing for them, he knew he was sacrificing his career for those sailors and his ship.
              Those bean-counter admirals that sit on staffs that do nothing but warm their chairs have obviously lost sight of what makes a USN ship operate: (sailors).
              Admirals and the Pentagon are full of Obama yes men, who got where they are (most that I can tell) by playing the game. They were full aware of the situation on that ship and couldn’t come up with a satisfactory (or any) plan, so they chose to ride it out, hoping that somehow this situation wouldn’t explode. That is a failure of leadership.

              As far as a CVN making port call in Vietnam, I couldn’t tell you what went on there, except that it was planned well in advance, far above the 0-6 commanding the T.R.

              The Capt. knew what had to be done to save his crew and he did it at his own expense. The arm-chair Admirals that sit behind their keyboards faulting Capt. Crozier for not sacrificing his crew obviously lack any moral courage themselves. I stand at attention and salute Captain Crozier.

              Ringknocker: US Service Academy Graduate. Annapolis, West Point, Colorado Springs.

              Liked by 1 person

              • ann says:

                Thank you Jim, for levelling with me.
                I’m glad to know we still have captains who embrace the responsibilities that ,come with leadership.
                What you outline I’ve long suspected,don’t have direct experience or the knowledge base to evaluate.

                Like

              • ann says:

                to borrow from John Jervis, Lord St Vincent:
                Captain Crozier’s honour is as bright and shining as his sword.

                Like

        • ann says:

          This civilian is Baffled by “Ring knocker” . Ha!

          Pat, downthread I posted a more comprehensive question. to Jim.
          Delighted if you could share your thoughts.

          Like

    • Pat G says:

      Did not violate OPSEC.
      cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130579 from CNO on March 26th. The press release mentions a previously scheduled port call in Guam. That means there is no OPSEC violation from CAPT Crozier.

      Liked by 1 person

      • phillip jeffreys says:

        Wrong. Protocol is not to make public statements about operational information even if published unless formally approved by the PAO as publiclly releasable.Distractor anyway – the Captain publicly released force readiness information (which is usually classified, certainly sensitive). If the POA approved that is another matter. Is there any evidence the Captain worked this through the ship’s PAO?

        Like

    • Dad's son says:

      I am trying to fix a roof, and so have not had the time to delve into the details.

      What has me upset is that President Trump had every right to expect that Modly would solve the problem.

      Instead, Modly goes and pours gasoline on the emotional fire of a young crew. Remember, Navy crews are STILL very young, and they have “Smart”phones which from the beginning I thought would be the “Panic Vector.”

      Modly’s stupid, naive words straight to the affected sailors kicked a bunch of cr** the president’s way, when the president was already so busy.

      I said on another comment that I am glad that the Captain’s overcommunication – breaking the chain of command – on behalf of these kids for whom he feels a fatherly obligation (read about Marc Mitscher and how he turned on the spotlights on his carriers so that his young kids could land after a desperate night-time, over-water mission against the Japanese fleet, instead of being forced to ditch in to the dark ocean and hope for rescue before the sharks got organized) exposed such a tone-deaf bureaucrat as Modly.

      Not exonerating the captain of the Teddy R, but I will take ten Mitschers for each Modly I am forced to endure.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ann says:

        I recall reading about Mitscher providing a beacon home, despite rules.
        I’ve never served, but read much ancient through contemporary military history , trying to understand t

        He understood that humans don’t perform well if leaders are disconnected, & remote . At least I wouldn’t

        The grass roots, The, doers”, fliers who repeatedly flew accepting the risks, expect command to undertake risks for them. It’s supposed to be reciprocal. 🇺🇸🦅🌺

        Like

    • ann says:

      Agree Oz. That’s my take as well. 🦅

      Like

  3. Marcus Aurelius says:

    Justice is as justice does, Mr. Modly.

    Like

  4. SD, excellent explanation. Capt. was insubordinate, compromised security and should be dismissed. SecNav was unprofessional and should resign.

    What I want to know is where were the 4 admirals in the chain of command. Do they need a talking to ( at a minimum)?

    Liked by 4 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Guy I would love to hear from is Crozier’s immediate superior, an Admiral who was on board the ship when Crozier went rogue.

      What did this Admiral know, and when?

      Liked by 12 people

    • GB Bari says:

      That would entail non-public internal discussions until any official action is taken with any of them. From all outward appearances, Secy. Esper has this. In his announcement, Esper indicated he gave Acting Secy. of Navy McPherson and CNO Adm Gilday guidance on “the way ahead.” That would at least indicate that Adm. Gilday is still employed.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Gerry says:

      I’ve spent 27 years in the Navy and an additional fifteen years in the Pentagon.. Never have I’ve seen such incompetent civilian and military leadership and management skills. Both of their butts need to be canned. Equal justice for equally poor judgement.

      Liked by 18 people

      • Gerry, I totally agree. I would like to know why Capt. Crozier’s immediate superior (and up the chain) did not take action. Maybe more heads should roll.

        Thank you for your service.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Jim C. Kinoshita says:

        So Gerry, in your judgement, possibly losing the entire ship due to infection of its crew is worth it? I guarantee that the CO informed the entire chain of command as to what was transpiring on the T.R. That info went to at least CINCPACFLT. What was the 4 star doing? Wasn’t he briefed on what the hell was happening on that ship? More than likely it went to the Pentagon and those desk jocks were too busy trying to cover their behinds to worry about the health and welfare of the crew.

        If you want to look for the failure in this, look to him, the 4-star CincPacFlt.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Koot Katmando says:

    LOL he knew he should not have sent the letter but did any way validates what Moldy said. He did it on purpose to leak it to the press. Moldy was correct when he said the captain was either stupid or naive or he did it on purpose. He never said he was stupid he was pointing out the letter was deliberately leaked outside the chain of command. The captain should never be given command again.

    Liked by 11 people

  6. jumpinjarhead says:

    My thoughts:

    If the reports are accurate, the captain should not have “leaked” his concerns to the media but rather followed the chain of command.

    His ship is a vital component to our national defense and to allow our enemies to know that its readiness was compromised was a very very serious breach of national security.

    If someone else leaked it they should be hunted down and prosecuted.

    SecNav was also wrong in bypassing 4 layers of command to fire the captain. Again, the chain of command must be followed. For SecNav to intervene as he did smacks of politics.

    SecNav also was stupid in his statement about the captain when he unnecessarily got personal and called him “stupid.” This undercuts respect for authority throughout the military to use such language about a career officer who obviously was a professional and NOT “stupid” to have been put in command of one of the most important ships in the fleet.

    Badly handled all around. In my view, yet another indication of how “sick” our military has become after all the destructive social engineering done to it and the purge of the best senior officers due their not kowtowing to these horrible policies by Barack Hussein Obama.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Bob, Esq. says:

      With all due respect, I think the captain got off light with being called “stupid.” I think part of the reason he broke chain of command and went to the media with his gripes goes to the intrusion of Leftist ideology into the military. The captain felt entitled to his own truth; that the feelings of the crew were were more important than their mission. Give me a f’n break. … Perfidy is the underlying tactic of progressives/sociopaths. They’ve clearly weakened our military.

      Liked by 11 people

      • jumpinjarhead says:

        I agree completely. There is a pernicious thread of “leftist” (genetically for progressivism, situational ethics etc.) thought and belief that runs through our military now. The causes include the fact the military draws its personnel from our increasingly progressivist leaning society who are also products of the brainwashing in our “educational” system, the purging of officers who had stronger moral compasses by Barack Hussein Obama and the “lesson” those more junior officers in that period took from the purge and the extremely corrosive effect the social restructuring of the military by Him that began a literal war on Christians and others with a belief in Judeo -Christian morality and that there are moral absolutes rather than the moral relativism pushed on the military by Him and His progressivist henchmen.

        Our military, while still superficially very capable, is rotting from within due to the continuing (even inexplicably under President Trump) war on morality whereby homosexuality and other perversions are effectively given preferential treatment (where anyone who dares express any moral concern is quickly removed from m the service) and women are now forced into ground combat units where it is clear to any honest professional officer that this will result in extra casualties and even mission failures in future conflicts.

        Liked by 10 people

        • Ozwitch says:

          The goal is to make the military less military and more touchy-feely HR compliant. A warship should remain firstly a fighting asset and lastly an ambassadorial and cultural exchange opportunity for those on shore to further their own careers.

          Liked by 6 people

          • jumpinjarhead says:

            I agree but I fear greatly that like the other cancers eating away at our military, “that ship has sailed.” (Sorry couldn’t resist)

            Liked by 1 person

        • jumpinjarhead says:

          Apologies again. In the 3rd line “genetically” should be “generically.” Grrr

          Liked by 1 person

      • jumpinjarhead says:

        In my haste to reply I neglected to specifically respond to your point in your first sentence. I did not go into detail on what actions beyond his being relieved should be taken because I do not know all the facts. Assuming he was actually responsible for the communication going outside proper channels, he should face appropriate disciplinary action in addition to the administrative action of his being relieved of command. Since I do not know more about the captain, I cannot say he is “stupid” but , again if he was responsible, that was a stupid act.

        What I can unreservedly object to, however, is the conduct of the acting SecNav—there is simply no place for such intemperate language coming from the secretary of a service if for no other reason than the horrible effect such misbehavior can have in good order and discipline throughout the Navy and Marine Corps. There is an etched-in -stone precept in the naval service that superiors have an extremely high bar to maintain in. Terms of setting the proper example for all their subordinates. Indeed, the already high bar raises even higher as one moves up the chain clog command.

        Finally, this standard is at its highest once it goes past the most senior uniforms officer into the civilian portion of the chain of command mind. This is so because the principle of our Republic that our military and naval forces are ultimately controlled by civilians like SecNav. If we expect this principle to continue to work as it must, those civilians in these roles have an ABSOLUTE duty to maintain and exhibit the highest standards of conduct and deportment.

        Liked by 8 people

        • Bob, Esq. says:

          Have you ever seen the movie “Mister Roberts?”
          I ask because Roberts was a childhood hero of mine that I lost when a friend’s father taught me a lesson in leadership using the movie.

          If you’ve seen the movie, and you’re interested, I can post it.

          Like

        • Bob, Esq. says:

          About twenty years ago, in my 30’s, while meeting up with a friend of mine for dinner and drinks, his father walked in and joined us. Though I’d known my friend since childhood, it was the first time I’d ever met his father—Russel James.

          During my conversation with Russel that night, I lost a childhood hero and gained something far greater; a clearer understanding and appreciation of the importance of chain of command; and when to question authority.

          I think he may have asked me if I had any life goals, and I half-sarcastically replied

          BOB: Toss the palm tree.

          RUSSEL JAMES: Palm tree? Mister Roberts?

          BOB: My all-time favorite movie. You’ve seen it?

          RUSSEL JAMES: Seen it? I teach that film in my leadership class. My final exam question simply this: Was Roberts right or wrong when he tossed the captain’s palm tree overboard.

          Bob: He was absolutely right.

          RUSSEL JAMES: Roberts was wrong.

          BOB: Wrong?!

          RUSSEL JAMES: Why did Roberts toss the palm tree?

          BOB: Because the captain wouldn’t give the crew liberty.

          RUSSEL JAMES: What was going on at the time? Why were they in the South Pacific?

          BOB: World War II

          RUSSEL JAMES: And what was that ship tasked with doing?

          BOB: Deliver cargo.

          RUSSEL JAMES: What happens when people don’t complete their tasks in a time of war? Can you win a war without supplies?

          BOB: No.

          RUSSEL JAMES: So it’s imperative that they accomplish their task; yes?

          BOB: Yes.

          RUSSEL JAMES: In a time of war or crisis, task completion is imperative above all else. The correct model of leadership is the teller “task-oriented” leader; the captain’s leaderships style.

          Roberts was a joiner, the Captain was a teller. The Captain was a “task-oriented” leader focused on accomplishing the task regardless of what the crew thinks of him. Roberts, the joiner, was more concerned with the morale of the crew than accomplishing the task.
          The best leadership style depends on the situation. On the “BUCKET”, since there was a good leader-member relationship between Roberts and the crew: and the task was structured, and the leadership power position was strong, a controlling, active (directive) leadership style would be the most effective. It would also mirror the Captain’s style. Permissive style being used in the middle of the Captain and the crew would never work.
          What was the captain’s job, or primary task, during the war? Deliver cargo or make sure the crew likes him by giving them liberty?

          Roberts threw the captain’s palm tree overboard because the captain wouldn’t give the crew liberty. Was that the crew’s task in a time of war; get liberty?

          BOB: No.

          RUSSEL JAMES: Roberts was wrong. Besides, what is a naval officer’s first and foremost duty?

          BOB: I have no idea.

          RUSSEL JAMES: To defend the constitution. The oath of loyalty.

          BOB: But…

          RUSSEL JAMES: Roberts was wrong.

          BOB: What about Ensign Pulver?

          RUSSEL JAMES: You think one letter can change a man? One letter? Funny coincidence, or maybe intentional. Do you know what the captain is reading when Pulver storms into his cabin at the end of the film?

          BOB: Duty roster?

          RUSSEL JAMES: (shakes his head) He’s reading a comic book. It’s comic relief. One letter does not change a man.

          BOB: If Roberts was wrong and Pulver wouldn’t have had the nerve, when is it right to toss the captain’s palm tree overboard?

          RUSSEL JAMES: When the situation requires it.

          Liked by 2 people

          • jumpinjarhead says:

            What a great story and that is consistent with my 33 year career in the Marines. In this current era, it seems the idea of mission accomplishment above ALL else in real operations is an imperative that very few Americans (can?) understand.

            When I was on several battle staffs planning offensive combat operations, there were manuals we used that had various formulas for estimating likely casualties. We used these mechanically and I frankly do not recall and Hollywood drama moment when any of us reflected on what the numbers we cranked into the formulas really represented.

            We took the estimates, planned around them by adjusting the size of reserve and replacement units to fill in for the losses, ordered more body bags, graves registration teams and transport to get them to the rear, adjusted the size of the aid stations and got on with the rest of the mission planning.

            It is not that we did not “care” about the casualties, in fact, especially in the Marines, there is a “love” by leaders for each of their troops, but the grim reality is that we are in the profession of arms and at its extremes when we are actually doing what we constantly train to do, the focus must be on the accomplishment of whatever missions are assigned.

            While at times there may be the opportunity to give “feedback” by subordinate commanders to the “boss,” once the command decision is made, the entire organization moves and functions as one toward that end. Depending on the particular circumstances, subordinate commanders may be given what are known as “mission orders” whereby the boss issues his “commander’s intent” as to the mission to be accomplished and the subordinate commanders are allowed to develop their own plans (schemes of maneuver, fire support etc.) in coordination with each other BUT the goal of all such plans is to accomplish the mission by the time stated by the commander. There are no “Plan Bs” made in advance in the event one or more subordinate commanders runs into unexpected difficulty. The expectation is that all commanders WILL carry out the commander’s intent unless and until he changes it.

            Liked by 4 people

            • Bob, Esq. says:

              I may have never served a day in the military, but I am absolutely certain that this ship is making water fast and will founder unless the military that you described above realizes our current situation gives them full authority to toss the deep state’s palm tree. And by toss their palm tree, I mean prosecute them for treason.

              Liked by 1 person

              • jumpinjarhead says:

                You are right as to the foundering, but alas, I am weary waiting for an actual accounting in a federal district criminal court for the myriad treasonous swamp dwellers and Deep State coup participants in uniform or otherwise so forgive me if I don’t hold my breath. If I am wrong I will gladly admit my error but I just don’t see it happening. The swamp is very wide and deep and fiercely protects its denizens.

                Liked by 2 people

                • Bob, Esq. says:

                  What if treason by the FBI/DOJ were proven with absolute certitude? Might the military realize that Posse comitatus does not apply? That the burden falls upon them to prosecute?

                  Like

                • jumpinjarhead says:

                  No—I see no legal way the military could ever be used that way. The military courts cannot be used for civilians domestically, especially if the civilian courts are open and functioning. Posse comitatus is somewhat over-rated anyway in that all it takes to.be avoided is a Presidential finding and order.

                  Like

                • Bob, Esq. says:

                  “No—I see no legal way the military could ever be used that way.”

                  I would hope so. Otherwise I would have wasted the past two years coming up with it myself.

                  Here’s the question Colonel, assuming I ‘complete my task’ in the very near future, got any advice as to which JAG or branch of service is least corrupted by everything we’ve discussed? I’m shopping for a JAG with the loyalty, honor & discipline of a Tomb Guard with sufficient self-awareness and wisdom to know when it’s time to toss the palm tree; so to speak.

                  Like

                • jumpinjarhead says:

                  Geez, I couldn’t say as to current patriot JAGs on active duty now. The new model military has drifted further and further away from me.

                  Liked by 1 person

          • Dad's son says:

            This entire conversation is so important, and so in keeping with the best lights of CTH, that I am going to save it. I’m going to go back up on the roof now and fix it, and then I am going to watch “Mr. Roberts.” and then I am going to think about, and revisit your discussion.

            Excellent…..
            Keep it up. CTH, at its best, is simply indispensible.

            Liked by 2 people

        • jumpinjarhead says:

          Last sentence of 2d paragraph should be “of” rather than “clog!”

          Like

    • jumpinjarhead says:

      I also meant to give my 2 cents on the Vietnam visit. As a veteran of that unhappy conflict and both having seen our wounded and captured personnel murdered on the battlefield and being privy to them-classified files documenting the systemic torture, murder and failure to repatriate our POWs, I am adamantly opposes to ANY “normalized” relations with that COMMUNIST nation, including the various tours of American vets and others for “closure” where these COMMUNISTS eagerly get our dollars.

      Until there is a full and transparent accounting for all (including those held after the main repatriation) POWs and trials of any surviving NVA who committed these war crimes, we should still consider that country a rogue nation with sanctions applied rather then the current push by the US CoC et. al to increase trade while conveniently ignoring both this terrible history of war crimes and the fact it is a COMMUNIST nation as we have done to our increasing detriment with COMMUNIST China.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Ozwitch says:

        So you should have a little sympathy for Capt Crozier who was put under a great deal of pressure by Pentagon hierarchy to conduct ‘cultural exchange’ protocol during the Vietnam port visit when clearly it endangered the crew. I’d be willing to bet right now he wishes he had stood off, but at the time he probably felt he had no choice.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jumpinjarhead says:

          That, as we say, is what the CO gets paid the big bucks for. I don’t know enough facts about the situation or the captain personally to feel anything at this point other than what I said that the entire thing was grossly mishandled. As an aside, at least when I was in before what I call the “new model” military, mission accomplishment was paramount. Casualties, while clearly important and to be minimized when possible, came second and were actually only relevant in terms of whether the anticipated percentage of casualties put mission accomplishment in jeopardy.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Ozwitch says:

            You’re dead right in that it was badly mishandled, and heads higher up the Navy chain should roll.

            Liked by 3 people

            • jumpinjarhead says:

              Indeed. Notwithstanding the God-like adoration many Treepers have for POTUS, there really are limits to what he can do.

              Given the incessant tribal drumbeat of attacks and criticism for all he does and is and the trench warfare between him and dims and anti-Trumper members of Congress, he cannot address all the ills in our government and “culture.”

              It certainly seems he has paidf scant attention to many of the systemic problems in DoD, largely from the former anti-military administration, apparently relying on the “professionals” in uniform to handle them. Unfortunately a lot of the senior officers are sycophants of Barack Hussein Obama and are actually or effectively manners of the Deep State.

              Liked by 4 people

              • jumpinjarhead says:

                2d to last line—“manners” should be “members.” I really do know how to spell and what words go where in my sentences but I am just not very good at handling this predictive text feature. It is a considerable annoyance!

                Liked by 2 people

        • Rhoda R says:

          The captain had a choice to raise his concerns through his chain of command. Instead he went to the press signaling to the entire world that a major US ship was compromised. He got less than he deserved.

          Liked by 3 people

  7. The American Patriot says:

    He didn’t resign, he got a YOUR FIRED!

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Koot Katmando says:

    I would also bet a hundred dollar bill that this captain will be running for office soon as D in Ca lala land. I suspect that was part of the motive – never let a good crisis go to waste.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. Bob, Esq. says:

    “Modly labeled Crozier as “stupid.” Bad form.”

    Why is it bad form? Why shouldn’t that capatain be publicly humiliated? Considering preservation of chain of command is the only thing standing between mankind and nuclear holocaust, I’m pretty sure publicly insulting the captain for such wanton reckless behavior was warranted.

    Or, perhaps someone here might like to argue that the acting Sec Nav should have first consulted with some touchy feely Leftist bureaucrat first.

    Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Crozier was cheered by his crew when he left the ship. The Navy Secretary Modly (representing the Chain of Command) should not have added subjective opinion when addressing the crew about Crozier’s departure. That was unprofessional at the minimum.

      Modly’s error in judgement could have easily but unnecessarily created increasing friction between Roosevelt crew members and Navy Command. Not a good situation into which to send a new Captain trying to restore order.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Bob, Esq. says:

        “Modly’s error in judgement could have easily but unnecessarily created increasing friction between Roosevelt crew members and Navy Command. Not a good situation into which to send a new Captain trying to restore order.”

        I understand the pragamatism, but the captain’s job is not to make the crew happy. The captain’s job is to make sure the ship fulfills its mission. The captain announced to the world that the United States has one less air craft carrier in its fleet at the moment.

        Don’t you think the crew’s failure to realize the epic failure of the captain is another problem entirely?

        Liked by 5 people

        • GB Bari says:

          Don’t you think the crew’s failure to realize the epic failure of the captain is another problem entirely?

          Yes absolutely. But THAT problem is not going to be resolved any time soon. That problem is cultural, brought about by the touchy-feely SJW groupthink of the Left for the past 30-plus years.

          Liked by 7 people

      • lumoc1 says:

        “Crozier was cheered by his crew when he left the ship.”
        I wonder if the the carrier was badly damaged and sinking would many of his crew cheer Captain Crozier or how many would they wish too late that they had a different Captain more like Navy Secretary Modly ?

        Like

      • CountryClassVulgarian says:

        What I would like to know is how did Moldy’s comments to the crew get into the hands of the very fake news hysterical drive by media? I am assuming he did not make the comments in public.

        Like

  10. Gadsden says:

    You nailed it spot on. The CO acted disgracefully. Unfortunately, the Secretary decided he had to justify his decision to the crew and made a number of unnecessary and inflammatory comments to them. Show empathy to their plight, get the sick treated and tell the non sick to get the eff back to work. You don’t go and explain your command decisions to the crew! This whole situation is effed. Unfortunately, this seems to be par for the course for the Navy. Fat Leonard scandal, multiple fatal ship collisions, Patrol Boat seized by Iran etc. God help us if we end up in a real war.

    Liked by 9 people

    • GB Bari says:

      This is the result of having enlisted snowflake millennials being commanded by leftwing-educated career officers who were promoted under the CONmunist in Chief Ozero.

      Who couldn’t see this coming? Turns out that a lot of us did back when we saw Ozero executing wholesale firings of established flag officers and re-lacing them with others who better “fit the mold” that Ozero and his anti-American cabal all desired.

      Yes we are talking about the margins here, but what other current military leaders will make similar errors in judgement when real pressure is put on them such as may well occur given the increasing tensions with China?

      Liked by 4 people

    • hawkins6 says:

      Gadsen:
      The full impact of the Obama Admins “Fat Leonard Scandal” never sunk in fully at the time for me so I looked it up on Google to refresh my memory.

      The article linked below lists all the officers and others that plead guilty and the penalties imposed on them. This was a brutal career destroying scandal for many,

      This quote from the Navy Times provides a great warning:
      “Ultimately, it shouldn’t be surprising that bribery often begins with small favors rather than thick envelopes of cash. Human beings are social creatures; favors strengthen people’s social bonds and make them more likely to reciprocate in turn…” (Marcus Hedahl, United States Naval Academy)

      That seems to be how it all started and then as each accepted a small gift, it became the common thing for many to do.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/seducing-the-seventh-fleet/

      Liked by 2 people

      • hawkins6 says:

        Correction: “Gadsden”

        Like

      • Gadsden says:

        What was so shocking to me was the breadth of the scandal. Everyone from CPO’s, CWO’s to multiple Flag Officers were deeply involved and all knew full well what they were doing. That’s not an anomaly – that’s a systemic problem. One warship collides with a commercial vessel – that’s an anomaly. Two in one year? In the same theater? That’s a systemic problem. The Navy has been a mess for 40ish years. Literally gangs in boats. Hookers and madams. All sorts of deviancy. Need to clean house and regain some esprit de corps.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Merkin Muffley says:

    So the guy who totally screwed up and put lives in danger will probably skate on this while the guy who wanted to set a good example but hurt some feelings will get canned. Tell me, how do you think this navy will do in serious combat?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Elric VIII says:

    My question is: Why was a retired naval officer serving as Under Secretary of the Army? At least it appears that he is headed back to the branch of service that should be more familiar to him.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. T2020 says:

    In other words, Modly should have kept his mouth shut and said nothing about his opinion to anyone, correct?

    Like

  14. lansdalechip says:

    All’s well or will be. (End sarcasm)
    According to another website, the new SECNAV is a career Navy lawyer. Can’t believe there are no retired, uncorrupted (Obama) officers of the line who couldn’t do this job in a heartbeat. As a former naval officer, I strongly believe those without prior sea experience should EVER be considered for this office.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Zabadak says:

    These are the people Obama didn’t get rid of…the ones he wanted. More fallout from his 8 destructive years.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. A2 says:

    👇

    “ James Edwin McPherson[2] (born January 20, 1953)[2][1] is a retired United States Navy officer and government official. He has served as the acting United States Under Secretary of the Army since July 23, 2019, and was sworn into the position full-time on March 25, 2020 following confirmation by the Senate.[3][4] He concurrently served as the General Counsel of the Army from 2018 to 2020. He was designated as Acting Secretary of the Navy on April 7, 2020, following the resignation of Thomas Modly”

    McPherson enlisted in the Army and served three years as a military policeman. In 1979 he was commissioned as an ensign in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the Naval Reserve. He interned in the Naval Legal Service Office (NLSO) in San Diego and then attended Naval Justice School, in Newport, R.I., completing his training in 1982. He served as a judge advocate and trial counsel at several Navy commands and ships before and after completing his graduate training in 1991. In June 1994, he reported to the staff of Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet as the Force Judge Advocate. In December 1995, he joined the staff of the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as the Assistant for Legal and Legislative Matters. In October 1997, he became Special Counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations. In September 2000, he assumed command of Trial Service Office East, Norfolk, Va. In October 2002, he was promoted to Rear Admiral and assigned as the Deputy Judge Advocate General for the Navy and Commander, Naval Legal Service Command. On November 10, 2004, McPherson became the 39th Judge Advocate General of the Navy, a position he held until 2006.[7]
    McPherson has served as the executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General. He also served as the general counsel of the Department of Defense Counterintelligence Field Activity.
    On October 13, 2017, President Donald Trump announced the nomination of McPherson to become the General Counsel of the United States Department of the Army.[8] On December 20, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote.[9] He was sworn in on January 2, 2018.
    On December 5, 2019, Trump nominated him to be Under Secretary of the Army, a position that he had been holding since July 23, 2019, in an acting capacity, while concurrently serving as General Counsel of the Army.[10] On March 26, 2020 he was sworn in as undersecretary of the Army after being confirmed by the Senate.[3] On April 7 Defense Secretary Mark Esper designated McPherson as acting Secretary of the Navy, replacing Thomas Modly who resigned the same day“

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McPherson

    Liked by 1 person

  17. czarowniczy says:

    He as well as the Captain need to go. The Captain has every right to express his opinions through the chain but no right to ‘leak’ the letter. We live under a different set of rules in the military and, as the commander of a nuclear-armed ship should have been more discrete.

    The Secretary should have been more professional in his choice of words, discretion is part of his job. He’s a bureaucrat and there’s a seething, roiling pool of potential replacements ready to grab his job if he screws up, if he didn’t realize that then he should have.

    Yes, one ‘OH SH*T!’ moment does cancel out a dozen ‘attaboys’.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. TradeBait says:

    Sad situation. Both deserve what has happened due to their actions. Period.

    Just like in sports when somebody goes down due to an injury – next man/woman up!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. bullnuke says:

    The Captain screwed up, he will get a desk job. SECNAV lost it with his remarks. He is out of a job.
    Because of the internet culture, this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Search for news about commanding officers relieved of command. There are more than you might think.

    Like

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      It was blown out of proportion because the very fake news hysterical drive by media – who do not care one wit for the military or for the health, safety and well-being of ANYONE therein – wanted to embarrass the President.

      Like

  20. Rose says:

    For those that state: You follow orders in the military blah blah blah read the book-Shake hands with the devil and get back to me. When streamers, or career officers follow orders, at the expense of those they serve with they are not leaders they are career parasites. I’m glad he resigned as he should of, the guy who blew the whistle put the safety of his men ahead of his career path and that’s something we don’t see enough of.

    Like

    • RJ says:

      Rose, there are two ships that will scare the bejesus out of a person when spotted at sea: A submarine and an aircraft carrier. They are the most deadly of ships, the most powerful.

      May I suggest you pay close attention to this issue with the relieved Captain and certainly focus on how that letter he supposedly wrote got to the press.

      If you are not sure of a carrier’s importance, perhaps you might wish to look what happened to the Japanese when they lost a few in one battle during World War II. Also, if there was in fact an Admiral on board the Roosevelt, you should work to find out what his position (if the Navy allows that to get out to the public) was on this issue of crew illness and crew readiness.

      The chain of command is there for a very important and critical reason, way beyond the crew cheering the departing Captain, way beyond.

      Liked by 6 people

  21. Rami says:

    Complaints go up

    Like

  22. RJ says:

    Wait a minute: Did you see the video of the Captain leaving the carrier? Did you notice the sailors and sailorettes on the hangar deck? Did you see the clothing they were wearing…on board ship?

    That’s not the Navy I remember!

    Is it any wonder why such a problem comes to the fore and heads roll? What about the Admiral that was supposed to be on board…anyone had a serious talk with him, especially since I would think in the chain of command the Captain would address his serious concerns with the Admiral and then go from there….up his chain of command if not through the Admiral.

    Anyone recall the Navy ships involved in collisions some few years back? Anyone remember the former so called commander in chief who liked to “lead from behind” and had a “special” perspective towards our military? That would be the great leader, the guy who never spoke with a “forked tongue” Obama.

    You reap what you sow!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rose says:

      Read the book: Shake hands with the devil, a career officer sat in his vehicle and did nothing why innocents were slaughtered right before him because he followed orders allegedly. Read that book and you’ll realize how some will place their career goals above humanity and get richly rewarded for said cowardice.

      Like

      • CountryClassVulgarian says:

        You should post your comments a few more times. Twice isn’t enough. The rest of us are sadly lacking in our care for humanity….

        Like

        • RJ says:

          I think I understand your point of view and that of Rose.

          However, we are talking about our military and it’s primary mission…to keep our country safe and alive from those who would seek to destroy or control us.

          Pretend you both have a deadly cancer: You look at the doctor delivering the bad news and ask what? “Let’s be humane in attacking this cancer?”

          I think you might ask: “How do we kill this cancer?” “Can we kill this cancer before it kills me?”

          The “tip of the spear” is where death comes to meet those who fight. That tip is only as good as the shaft that supports it. The chain of command is critical for success, history will not suggest otherwise.

          Like

          • CountryClassVulgarian says:

            Guess you don’t get sarcasm…

            Like

            • RJ says:

              Perhaps not, but sometimes I can spot a smartass who’s feelings get hurt.

              Like

              • CountryClassVulgarian says:

                You do not have the power to hurt my feelings. I made a sarcastic comment. You did not get the sarcasm and assumed I was agreeing with the poster. I indicated I was being sarcastic and you launch an insult. Yet MY feelings are hurt? Well bless your heart.

                Like

    • Merkin Muffley says:

      Rose is our liberal troll for the day.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Doc Hellfish says:

    I disagree. Having spent 10 years in the active Army, the principle you cite is responsible for some of the most horrible people attaining rank and command. I point out that today’s military officer cannot be considered a profession because professionals self police. I can assure you, they do not.

    Like

  24. Kaco says:

    Criticism is only up? You mean a lieutenant can’t criticize a sergeant?

    Was the “stupid” comment a public or private statement?

    Just wondering.

    Like

  25. Niagara Frontier says:

    That’s not the Navy I remember either. That demonstration certainly took some organization and planning.

    Like

  26. 🍺Gunny66 says:

    The decision making process in the military goes up and down. It does not skip a link in that up and down process…
    That is why it is called the “Chain of Command.”

    If you have an issue with something…you bring he issue “UP” the Chain of Command”…..Someone in that Chain “Will”…provide you an answer..and the reason why…..

    The next person in his Chain of Command was just feet away from the Captain…and he “did not discuss it with him”

    “Desperation”…..”Letters outside the Chain of Command”…leaks….political opinions….”All Stay within the Chain of Command…..

    Many need to realize…..If this is done in your civilian company, especially a large company… you are fired….Game over…

    Two other items:

    First: The Captain of a Ship….of any size….has the first and last say on all matters….The Captain of a Ship must be obeyed…..This is the Law of the Sea.

    This was the Captain of a United States Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier. It has the ability to destroy countries…..You think if He had an issue he would “Not be Heard” and no one would pay attention?……Pffft….

    Second:
    The Vietnam War has been over for about 50 years….To the Sailors on the ship going to Vietnam would be an “absolute pleasure”……like going to the Philippines once was.

    It is cheap….the people are very friendly…..tourists from all over the world go there.

    Vietnam has slowly yet gradually implemented capitalist policies which have increased foreign investment, improved the country’s poor infrastructure, and led to higher economic growth.
    Vietnam seems very far from a paradise and not a place to dwell permanently. but
    Instead it offers great tourism for a rather low amount of money. The real draw for Vietnam is the cost of living. A dollar can still get you a beer or a cheap plate of food.
    A great place for a Sailors liberty.

    Not going to Vietnam was a “Not” a difficult decision for the Captain……
    It was political and he was trying to distract from his political views by blaming the Vietnamese people for a war that has been over for fifty years…

    Should we not visit Japan?…..Should we not visit Germany?

    The Navy Secretary was an idiot for saying anything.

    The Captain on the other hand needs to go to somewhere in Antarctic, not sending “virtue signaling’ letters……… and making ‘Beta” type excuses for his actions

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Roni says:

    Maybe if USSTR command did their jobs, Acting Secretary Modly wouldn’t have had to fly to Guam to read the riot act to the crew. I hope they’ll be disbanded and reassigned. Total lack of discipline.
    Crozier is smiling. Next move, retirement, a book deal, and new hired defense advisor to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC.
    Disappointed PDJT approved his resignation. Modly was loyal and from the text of his address onboard, he and his family were the target of vicious retaliation.
    And, as an aside, disappointed PDJT still allows Fauci, Birx to promote the flawed Covid19 model.
    Modly’s resignation, the wildly inaccurate covid-19 projections, massive unemployment, staggering debt, lose of civil liberties……not a good week for the President and his base.

    Like

  28. robert van brunt says:

    Ya never chew out some junior in front of personal junior to the Chewie. Retired CPO

    Liked by 1 person

    • JoeT says:

      Yes and when your superior is the Admiral commanding the air wing who is embarked onboard your don’t send out an email cc’d to twenty people to give cover to the people you know are going to leak it to the press.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. SSI01 says:

    What’s with the Army running the Navy, anyway?

    Like

  30. Perot Conservative says:

    Captain with TDS?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. CNN_sucks says:

    Just like what PDJT, he does not need to do that. Azar does not want the heat from the media? Coward.

    Like

  32. Phil aka Felipe says:

    This is from the People’s Liberation Army War College, 2 years before the Muslim Jihadis brought down the World Trade Center:

    “Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means.” – From Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Plan To Destroy America, in the chapter entitled “New Methodology of War Games”, page 122

    How long have the Marxist/Maoist (Chicom’s) and the Islamic Movements been working hand in hand?

    Almost 19 years after 9/11 we still haven’t identified our enemies. Instead, our leaders tell us we need to be “Countering Violent Extremism”, White Nationalism, and Climate Change.

    Our enemies are laughing at us. They realize they don’t need to do anything. We are destroying ourselves with our stupidity, ignorance, and apathy. They have evil ideologies; and they have the plans, strategy, means, financing and networks to implement those evil ideologies, but we don’t believe them. They are achieving them all around us, unimpeded. In fact, we come to their defense when anyone should try to warn us about them.

    They are winning the narrative whereby patriots are on defense. Patriots have become insurgents in our own country.

    Like

  33. Two down.
    The Captain is lucky if he can retire with rank.
    This should be a wake-up call to flag officers of the Obama era.
    Shape up or ship out.
    This isn’t a game.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. randyinrocklin says:

    With all this brouhaha over these two clowns, I have not heard any status report on LTC Vindman for leaking classified material to the press. He should be court-marshaled and perp walked to jail.

    Liked by 1 person

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      You mean you haven’t heard? We are sending the much honored and respected LTC Alexander Vindman to war college. We reward traitors, insurgents and coup plotters very well. On the other hand, patriots like General Michael J. Flynn? We bankrupt his behind.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lumoc1 says:

      This is the first comment that mentions LTC Vindman in this thread although the consequences he encountered for his behavior are sadly predictive of the appearance of future Captains Croziers. 😦

      Like

  35. regitiger says:

    so..several thoughts here (since “chiming” in with limited direct knowledge is par for the course tonight..I get my shot in.

    a. we don’t actual know that crozier went outside of his command authority. we only know that the memos were leaked to several media groups. There are “some” reports (unverified) that the addressess included his peers and some people within the command that these letters were mailed to. we do NOT know if this was the action of crozier directly that made that happen.

    b. not using a secure comm method for such sensitive material is not only excercising poor judgement, but is contemptible to the operational security and the readiness of this weapons full and desired state.

    c. this crozier may (imho) be TOO CLOSE AND PERSONAL to his crew. This is a symptom of a lack of legitimate expression of military authority. A CAPT CAN NEVER, EVER allow crew and troops to undermine his authority. Personal issues, including imminent threats of grace proportions are the essence of the reasons why good order and discipline at all times must be enforced and maintained. In this way, the highest level of readiness and alertness and dedication to the mission accomplished the goal of certain morale. Based on some reports, this Capt was more inclined to defend the risks of his crew which was not a grave and immediate danger. A legitimate military officer with afloat command authority operating the sharpest bleeding edge of warfare in the fleet, operating in one of the most complex and dangerous theaters of operation must be capable of dealing with crew discomfort..and yes, even death. There are options in dealing with these issues and they are planned and there are exercises frequent enough to know how to de-mobilize ill people and get relief. It would appear this capt was not satisfied with the pace of that effort. The tone of the letter indicates as much. This is a sign of a weak leadership style. where was his XO in this matter…that’s generally whom takes the personnel and health issues and deals with them. Ultimately the skipper has the ultimate responsibility in how to first: maintain mission readiness under ANY situation..and two: offload or delegate the responsibility to his XO to get relief to the crew, that might also include de-mobilizing some of them and performing de-com and the ship. His decisions here and the tone of the letter indicate to me that he panicked. Of course his crew is going to respond in kind. This is NOT how you win over the trust and respect of your crew…it’s a temporary reward trying to be the nice guy..this isn’t how one derives true military leadership power…when you need to depend on your decisions, you MUST have the steady hand and actually have the crew resent you in some respects..it is ONLY in that necessary set of limits you set, that your crew understand the importance of mission is far more important and critical to the purpose and the reasons why this ship was designed and how it operates! At all times…even during a pandemic WARS have been won and battles lost of lessor “distressing” moments. A solid military leader would consider this and understand the implications. That is not to suggest he allow his crew to suffer needlessly…or to die for some deranged misplaces priority imagined…but he can perform BOTH…and that is what is missing here. In fact, the is precisely the character type desired and selected for this unique position…a skipper AND A Crew that can operate at its finest when facing its worst! period end of story.

    d. I am not going to address the other “details”….the actions of this capt created all following actions. I could frankly care less about civilian authority…that’s a political issue and does not involve this ship, or this capt…

    e. Now, I am going to step away but state something that I know many will see as “whataboutism”…but I think it’s very important to bring it back up.

    col vindman vs crozier…what officer affected more damage? truly? one is fired for lack of leadership and basically alerting the enemy about a serious lapse in readiness in a significant feature of the US war fighting capability…the other, was involved in a coup attempt that created division among citizens, doubts that were not proportional to facts, and alerted our enemies that the entire adminsitration was under diress..that the commander in chief was distracted from his responsibilties…

    which is really the higher crime?

    and WTF is vindmann still wearing a GD uniform?

    Yes, I am having problems tonight.

    Like

  36. US says:

    The Captain was a coward in charge of an 18 billion ship. He should be demoted and kicked out. We need damn the torpedoes captains. Two Destroyers colliding with merchant ships in the straights of Malacca due to lack of navigational skills? Come on, man. The USNavy has become weak, the Chinese do not quake in their boots. The entire brass should be replaced since the Ukrainian Jewish refugee twins Lieutenant Colonels are still at the Pentagon.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Hans says:

    No I don’t think the Captain was dumb or stupid… He was between a rock and a hard place… he made a choice….

    Just imagine if he knew the risk of taking the ship to port in Vietnam. He advised his superiors of the risk and they told him to go anyway… when the men got sick his superiors said he should not have placed his men at risk….

    Just remember Navy seal Eddy Gallagher …. lots of pettiness at the top of the navy..

    When President Trump said he would review the situation.. he more or less got the other side of the story… this sounds very similar….

    Like

  38. Patchman2076 says:

    Once again the “Peter principal” has been applied from past administrations!

    Like

  39. railer says:

    If the captain of that vessel wanted to become a whistle blower, he should have published the report he sent to his superiors, after he’d determined that they were ignoring it to the detriment of his crew. Even that action is questionable, but at least would have indicated that he’d done all he could beforehand. Now he’s just another mouthy resistance dilettante.

    Like

  40. The Gaffer says:

    Seems we’ve experimented too much with what should be a combat force.

    https://nexttobagend.blogspot.com/2020/04/yet-another-look-at-todays-navy.html

    Like

  41. bruzedorange says:

    Linked below is an assessment of the situation (more carefully reasoned than much of the supposition that has been posted here based on only partial info) which provides a clue to why our Commander in Chief announced that he was going to look into the matter.

    The link title says it all…
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-fixate-on-secretary-modly-we-need-to-hear-from-rear-admiral-stu-baker-on-captain-crozier

    I fear that we’ve all been contaminated by years of watching “23-hour speculation networks” (1 hour of news / 23 hours of conjecture and accusation). It used to be a hallmark of American apolitical thinking to identify the pertinent QUESTIONS that need to be answered before a fair opinion can be rendered.

    Everyone here knows we would ask better questions than the news media does. So let’s not sink to their level. Let’s keep asking our, smarter questions instead of jumping to conclusions like the manipulative media wants us to. Keep reminding ourselves, Job One of the “journalists” who are feeding us (and filtering) the news is to keep us coming back for more news about a story–NOT to keep us truly or fully informed.

    Like

    • regitiger says:

      I’m of like mind on this issue of becoming reactive/reflexive to “news”..

      the media is unreliable…it’s become a tool for shareholders to spend political capitol to distort a narrative and to build brand loyalty. it’s identity politics at it’s most damning..

      and of course, the hard hitting, actual independent objective investigative reporting of facts does not exist at all with main stream media outlets.

      in the current state of “media”…one desiring to flush out the details that matter, the facts that are rational, and form the opinions are necessary, requires a large uptake of information from a variety of different sources.

      and of course some level of independent wisdom of judgement.

      think if it this way to prove the point.

      one of the most profitable ad and marketing industries that sponsor main stream cable news, is big pharma…you can’t go 3 minutes on ANY news broadcast without some drug product flashing across the screen using major motion picture level theatrics to produce it.

      and meanwhile the entire state of the media is willfully ignoring on purpose the reality that a simple cheap and effective and widely used drug is available to combat this pandemic.

      think about that.

      even the CDC and the WHO has a conflict of interest with big pharma on this subject.

      the implications are clear: the media is not some independent set of orgs that provide clear objective sensible information…in fact, that isn’t even the model of operation the information is manufactured to present. The entire model is money driven….politically and “scientifically”

      the best hope for the ordinary citizen is to find good reasoned and reliable independent sources and ignore the bloviating disinformation from the main stream media.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bruzedorange says:

        “…requires a large uptake of information from a variety of different sources.”

        You nailed it. That’s the challenge of self-governance in the 2000’s. For me, it’s a big enough challenge right now while I’m home with nothing but time. When I get back to work… !

        The best we can do is share with each other news sources (people) with proven integrity. Journalists who have heretofore been accurate, have resisted the opportunities to hide critical information for another news cycle, and refused to grab eyes with a cheap, misleading headline.

        I wish there was a search engine results filter for PROBITY.

        Like

  42. rjones99 says:

    Personally, I had no issue with the Navsec’s response and I agreed with every word he said. That said, the President disagreed and in this time where he’s under attack from every direction, that’s enough for me.

    I will say that, in my view, Navsec left with far more grace and honor than the good Capt.

    I personally hope the President doesn’t unfire the idiot Capt. I hate justifying anything with “greater good” arguments, ie, Pres Trump needs the military votes. Any military man or women with any sense knows that Capt needed to be fired. The ones who don’t know that aren’t voting for Trump anyway.

    Like

  43. Dad's son says:

    Just wanted to chip in my $0.02 …. I have not delved into the details, because, like most of us, I am busy taking care of a lot of unexpected things, due to the virus mess. But my old man was high-ranking military, and he briefly told me some bits and pieces of the political things that went on once he reached the rarified air.

    My knee-jerk reaction is that if I am forced to choose one of these two officers to keep, I reluctantly keep the Captain. He likely has done a fair number of things right, if he had as much support of his crew as is reported. However, his violation of the chain-of-command is so very serious, and so I hope that it is sorted out correctly, but with an even hand.

    This SecNav Modly, however….. it’s an ill wind that blows no good. The fact that he could be so completely brain-dead and clueless about leading men, that he could hear the reports of strong crew support for the Captain but then call him “stupid” and “naive” in front of that crew?

    Just a parting question: Would Gen. Eisenhower have stepped in front of Gen. Patton’s troops and ripped Patton in person after the soldier-slapping incident?

    Of course not, because Ike, for all his political tendencies, was not “stupid” nor “naive.”

    This idiot Modly revealed himself to be an out-of-touch bureaucrat.

    I, for one, am happy that he stepped on his you-know-what and is gone. The Navy is stronger for it

    Like

  44. GTOGUY says:

    In reading and watching this story roll out I am stunned that none of the “news” agencies reporting on it are mentioning that Capt. Crozier allowed his ship to port in Vietnam and his crew to depart the ship when there was an ongoing pandemic. On March 2nd, it was well known that people were dying in large numbers from COVID-19. Had he received orders that the port was a requirement by his superiors, that would have been the time to write the letter if no other actions worked, not after he got 155 members of his crew sick with the virus.

    Just my .02

    Like

    • Jim Raclawski says:

      plug in the China flight ban by PDJT in Jan … lock down of GROUND ZERO city of the WUHAN LUNG ROT ..the boilover of the “LUNG ROT” in Europe .. then ask yourself…. how is it none of the brilliant highly skilled critical thinkers in the JCS – NAVY dept-CDC/NIH wouldn’t consider it a “Medical Hazard” to allow liberty call in March…. in a country bordering the home of the WUHAN LUNG ROT? gosh – then a bunch of sailors (&the skipper) come down with the WUHAN LUNG ROT after said liberty….weak analytics of GROUND threat intelligence…. not so good at being “situationally aware”…
      Semper Fi….

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s