USS Theodore Roosevelt

[GreyGhost]

Directed at no one in particular:

 

Opinions are like @$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink! 

 

-Gregg

[11bee]

One last point - for those who wrap themselves in the OPSEC banner, this isn’t 1980.  There are these things called email and social media nowadays.    Do you really think that no one outside of Navy brass knew what was happening on the TR until the skipper sent that letter?    I just talked to a friend who’s assigned to an east coast Super Hornet squadron.   He said this was all over social media long before that letter went out and long before the press started to pick up this story.  Everyone on his base knew what was happening on the boat, how many sailors were sick and that the TR was effectively out of commission.  
 

No OPSEC issues here.  

[habu2]

To the general public it still looks like one big clusterfudge. 

[Waco]

Probably because it IS a cluster.  And I don't care who you are, flying 8,000 miles to make condescending comments to the members of a unit whose boss you just fired is a bad look.  To tell them they need to stop complaining (he did, while simultaneously complaining himself about how HE was being treated in the court of public opinion) is an even worse look.  To throw down with F-bombs as the SecNav when you're addressing the crew?  Bad look.  To not realize that your speech was likely to be leaked to the public?  "He was either too naive or too stupid to be serving as [Secretary of the Navy]"

 

Here's the thing, if that Captain thought he truly needed to get the crew off the ship, because he'd seen how badly this was spreading throughout the world, and how in the US it was incapacitating younger folks at a higher rate than had previously been seen, and he was concerned it was going to rapidly spread through the confined spaces like wildfire....then maybe he thought this was the only option left.  If you actually read his original letter (and some of the follow-on communiques that have also leaked), you know know he expressed his desire that the planned courses-of-action happen FASTER, because he felt like he was running out of time.  So he made a judgement call, likely aware that it could cost him his job as soon as he hit, "send."

 

Does SecNav (or other leadership) have the right to express loss of confidence in his ability to command?  Absolutely.  In fact, if they'd left it at that, and not bothered with this follow up cluster, it probably would've blown over quickly, and faded into obscurity.  It DOES say something that none of the uniformed leadership in his chain-of-command wanted him relieved of command, though.

 

Here's the thing:  who was right (or wrong, depending on your point of view):  the Captain for sending his e-mail?  Or the SecNav, for having him relieved for loss of confidence?

 

The correct answer is, "why not both?"  In the end, the Captain got what he thought was essential for his crew:  they were pulled into port, got medical help, and got the crew being treated/screened/isolated for a potentially dangerous, highly infectious, largely unknown contagion.  The fact he lost his Command may not matter to him as much as his own satisfaction that he accomplished this goal.

 

The question many should take from this is, "What would you do?"  For those who have the privilege of command, it's not a rhetorical question. 

 

For everyone else, it's just Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking.  If it entertains you through quarantine to argue about it, so be it.  Either way, the world will move on.  I suspect the biggest casualty in all of this will be US Navy recruiting and retention, because why on earth would you choose to work in this kind of command environment?

[habu2]

Well stated Waco. 

[ElectroSoldier]

13 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 

No my disdain is for someone as closed minded as yourself and nothing anyone with a differing ideology as yours says is wrong on not just this but many other topics.

 

I discounted the ONE source you posted not just because of where it came from but 75% because it is an OPINION piece. Missed the point again.

 

My sources are the same as everyone elses. For someone such as yourself that touts being in the "know" so much but is upset about any level of OPSEC violation you sure do teeter on the edge of violating it as well. If the sources you have aren't allowed to publicly speak about it then you probably should not either. And yeah, it's public knowledge that there was a lot of people in the chain of communication when the Captain sent his letter. Nothing new there. 

 

You still haven't answered one of my questions:  

Why do you keep defending a civilian versus a guy that really was trying to do what he thought was best for his ship?

 

 

Yes he does, as did I when I was in the Army. That does make the civilian the most knowledgeable of the ship and it's crew.

 

 

I wouldnt know the actualities of events as they happened, it is only what I have read in the media about it.

 

Wasnt what the captain doing only his opinion?

[ElectroSoldier]

On 4/7/2020 at 4:11 AM, habu2 said:

 

From what I have read he did not break the story directly to mass media, he wrote a four page letter to "Senior US Military Officials".  It was leaked to the media by someone who received the letter.

 

A copy of the letter is embedded in the article at this link:

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Captain-of-aircraft-carrier-with-15167883.php#

 

The letter starts with what I assume is an acronym, "BLUF:"  Anyone know what that means?

.

 

To somebody like me who doesnt keep his finger on the pulse of US Navy news matters it doesnt really matter if the captain broke the story directly or if it broke because the ships cat hit the send button by mistake, the fact is it was penned by him and it did break into the media.

 

I was glad when it did because it was an eye opener as to some of the symptoms people are actually feeling when they have it, the top 3 as given on the NHS web site are not always present and when you have your own set of symptoms it seems that you are infectious to others. Which means any sickness right now should send you into isolation.

 

[jpk]

On 4/6/2020 at 2:26 PM, 11bee said:

That’s BS.   Many more have it (or will have it shortly).   As of yesterday, they hadn’t even been able to test half the crew.   
 

SecNav is a clown who is obviously being pressured from above to hang this guy.  

Ha-rumph!

[jpk]

As soon as the crap hit the fan of the captain's departure and then the SoN's asinine speech to the crew, public opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of the captain. When the negative blowback hit the WH, I knew it was a matter of a few days before SoN was given the door. One thing the WH wants to always do is try to keep the stink off him. Modly was not qualified to be SoN, acting or not. So we have a 30 year command grade captain, aviator, who's splendid career is now over, fired by a business man that went to USNA on the taxpayer's dime and got out as soon as his obligation was over. As far as I am concerned, he isn't worthy enough to polish Crozier's shoes. 

[11bee]

8 hours ago, Waco said:

Probably because it IS a cluster.  And I don't care who you are, flying 8,000 miles to make condescending comments to the members of a unit whose boss you just fired is a bad look.  To tell them they need to stop complaining (he did, while simultaneously complaining himself about how HE was being treated in the court of public opinion) is an even worse look.  To throw down with F-bombs as the SecNav when you're addressing the crew?  Bad look.  To not realize that your speech was likely to be leaked to the public?  "He was either too naive or too stupid to be serving as [Secretary of the Navy]"

 

Here's the thing, if that Captain thought he truly needed to get the crew off the ship, because he'd seen how badly this was spreading throughout the world, and how in the US it was incapacitating younger folks at a higher rate than had previously been seen, and he was concerned it was going to rapidly spread through the confined spaces like wildfire....then maybe he thought this was the only option left.  If you actually read his original letter (and some of the follow-on communiques that have also leaked), you know know he expressed his desire that the planned courses-of-action happen FASTER, because he felt like he was running out of time.  So he made a judgement call, likely aware that it could cost him his job as soon as he hit, "send."

 

Does SecNav (or other leadership) have the right to express loss of confidence in his ability to command?  Absolutely.  In fact, if they'd left it at that, and not bothered with this follow up cluster, it probably would've blown over quickly, and faded into obscurity.  It DOES say something that none of the uniformed leadership in his chain-of-command wanted him relieved of command, though.

 

Here's the thing:  who was right (or wrong, depending on your point of view):  the Captain for sending his e-mail?  Or the SecNav, for having him relieved for loss of confidence?

 

The correct answer is, "why not both?"  In the end, the Captain got what he thought was essential for his crew:  they were pulled into port, got medical help, and got the crew being treated/screened/isolated for a potentially dangerous, highly infectious, largely unknown contagion.  The fact he lost his Command may not matter to him as much as his own satisfaction that he accomplished this goal.

 

The question many should take from this is, "What would you do?"  For those who have the privilege of command, it's not a rhetorical question. 

 

For everyone else, it's just Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking.  If it entertains you through quarantine to argue about it, so be it.  Either way, the world will move on.  I suspect the biggest casualty in all of this will be US Navy recruiting and retention, because why on earth would you choose to work in this kind of command environment?

 

Well put..  This would be a good scenario to use in the service academies for soon to be leaders.   I think the Captain probably knew that once he hit send, it was the end of his career.   It speaks volumes about his integrity that he chose this route.  I have to believe that he first made multiple attempts to get help through proper channels and felt his requests were falling on deaf ears.   

[Mstor]

10 hours ago, Waco said:

Probably because it IS a cluster.  And I don't care who you are, flying 8,000 miles to make condescending comments to the members of a unit whose boss you just fired is a bad look.  To tell them they need to stop complaining (he did, while simultaneously complaining himself about how HE was being treated in the court of public opinion) is an even worse look.  To throw down with F-bombs as the SecNav when you're addressing the crew?  Bad look.  To not realize that your speech was likely to be leaked to the public?  "He was either too naive or too stupid to be serving as [Secretary of the Navy]"

 

Here's the thing, if that Captain thought he truly needed to get the crew off the ship, because he'd seen how badly this was spreading throughout the world, and how in the US it was incapacitating younger folks at a higher rate than had previously been seen, and he was concerned it was going to rapidly spread through the confined spaces like wildfire....then maybe he thought this was the only option left.  If you actually read his original letter (and some of the follow-on communiques that have also leaked), you know know he expressed his desire that the planned courses-of-action happen FASTER, because he felt like he was running out of time.  So he made a judgement call, likely aware that it could cost him his job as soon as he hit, "send."

 

Does SecNav (or other leadership) have the right to express loss of confidence in his ability to command?  Absolutely.  In fact, if they'd left it at that, and not bothered with this follow up cluster, it probably would've blown over quickly, and faded into obscurity.  It DOES say something that none of the uniformed leadership in his chain-of-command wanted him relieved of command, though.

 

Here's the thing:  who was right (or wrong, depending on your point of view):  the Captain for sending his e-mail?  Or the SecNav, for having him relieved for loss of confidence?

 

The correct answer is, "why not both?"  In the end, the Captain got what he thought was essential for his crew:  they were pulled into port, got medical help, and got the crew being treated/screened/isolated for a potentially dangerous, highly infectious, largely unknown contagion.  The fact he lost his Command may not matter to him as much as his own satisfaction that he accomplished this goal.

 

The question many should take from this is, "What would you do?"  For those who have the privilege of command, it's not a rhetorical question. 

 

For everyone else, it's just Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking.  If it entertains you through quarantine to argue about it, so be it.  Either way, the world will move on.  I suspect the biggest casualty in all of this will be US Navy recruiting and retention, because why on earth would you choose to work in this kind of command environment?

 

I think you have summed it up nicely.

[The Underdog]

 

Navy Captain fired over coronavirus memo is a calm, honorable leader. He's also my friend

Brett Odom - Opinion contributor

 

The acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, last week relieved my Naval Academy classmate and personal friend Brett Crozier from his position as commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt. On Monday, the secretary was recorded telling the crew of that ship that Capt. Crozier was either "too naive or too stupid" to be in command. During his speech on the ship’s public address system, he repeated the false narrative that Crozier himself may have leaked the letter he wrote pleading for help amid a wave of coronavirus cases on his vessel.

 

It is not for me to address the actions that Capt. Crozier took, or the decisions he made in attempting to halt the rapid and unprecedented spread of COVID-19 among the crew on the densely packed warship. The Navy will have an investigation, the facts will be established, and eventually the public will know the details behind this incident.

 

However, I will say that in the course of knowing Brett over 32 years, I have never known a more calm, centered, positive leader. We first met as plebes with freshly shorn heads in the sweltering summer of 1988. We spent the next four years together in the same company of 35 midshipmen. We were roommates in flight school, and we have stayed in touch over the decades.

 

As a carrier aviator with more than 500 arrested landings and multiple deployments over the course of 11 years of active service, I am intimately familiar with the intense environment aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier. I have zero doubt that Brett did exactly what was necessary to communicate the facts of a difficult situation to the chain of command, and that he did it by the book. Having observed his character closely under intense pressure, over the course of decades, I do not believe for a moment that he “panicked” or let himself be ruled by emotions.

 

The actions and behavior of the acting secretary during this situation only served to undermine his own credibility. He in fact displayed the very emotional response that he cited as a cause to relieve Capt. Crozier. Sadly, the public display revealed a man not suited to hold the office that he does, however temporarily, occupy. And it was indeed temporary. By Tuesday, Modly was out.

 

In his April 4 press conference announcing the decision on Crozier, Acting Secretary Modly noted that the leaked letter was published in Crozier’s "hometown newspaper" (The San Francisco Chronicle, over 50 miles from Crozier's native Santa Rosa). The insinuation was clear and dishonorable, a blatant attempt to assassinate a man’s character without facts to support it. He later apologized and admitted that he does not know who leaked the letter — that we may never know.

 

The acting secretary repeated the same insinuation to the ship's crew, boldly stating over the loudspeaker that “there is never a situation in which you should consider the media a part of your chain of command" and suggesting Crozier was the source of the leak. Perhaps the acting secretary believed that in Guam, on the ship, he would avoid the sort of questions and scrutiny that led to him to backtrack on that same assertion in his press conference. If so, one need only look to his own words to arrive at a judgment: “If he didn’t think…that this information was going to get out into the public…then he was either too naïve or too stupid…”

 

The acting secretary has no idea who leaked the letter. If he did have facts, we would know this. Throughout this situation he has displayed a telltale pattern: He makes a strong categorical statement that portrays Crozier in the most negative light, only to walk it back to more general terrain under questioning. For example, after accusing Capt. Crozier of going outside his chain of command in his Pentagon press conference Thursday, he was then forced to admit that yes, the memo had been sent to the CO’s chain of command. This led to the absurdity of an incredulous reporter asking, “Is he being relieved because he cc’d too many people?”

 

Finally, the acting secretary was well aware that Capt. Crozier is unable to speak out on his own behalf. As a uniformed service member, he is of course prohibited from speaking to the press about this incident — much less responding publicly to a superior in his chain of command. Moreover, I know that Brett would never consider that course of action; it is simply not in his character. He is an honorable man who has put the Navy and its core values at the center of his life for over three decades, at great personal sacrifice to him and his family. I know that he is at peace with the actions he took and will wait for the investigatory process to run its course.

 

Given that constraint, the acting secretary's public comments were all the more shocking and disgraceful. It is one thing to speak to the public about the facts and decisions leading to a dismissal. It is another entirely to make statements to the crew and the public that defame the character of a good man who has no opportunity to defend himself.

 

The mission of the United States Naval Academy, which Acting Secretary Modly, Captain Crozier, and I all attended, is “To develop Midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government."

 

Brett Crozier exemplifies these ideals. However the Navy ultimately adjudicates his decisions and actions in the face of an unprecedented situation, I am certain that he will be found to have acted honorably, and with the best intentions for his ship, his crew, and his Navy foremost in his heart. Sadly, I do not believe that history will judge Acting Secretary Modly’s behavior in anything like that same light.

 

Brett Odom is a 1992 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a graduate of Harvard Business School and the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN). He served on active duty as a Naval Aviator flying the F/A-18 Hornet for 11 years, with multiple deployments at sea including combat operations in Operation Southern Watch and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

 

Captain Crozier probably found himself in a no-win situation. He had a full-blown contagion

epidemic consuming the crew on his ship, and completely understanding they had no where

to hide or go. So he sought help from his chain of command, and time was of the essence.

So he did what needed to be done, as the CO of the USS Roosevelt because his sailors were

in harms way. There was no playbook, no rules or regulations on how to handle the spread

of the virus - because on an aircraft carrier, everyone lives and works so closely together.

 

I'm not an expert on how the Navy works, but needless to say they probably don't just give

anyone the keys to a ship like the USS Roosevelt. I have to believe that Captain Crozier was

on a short list of individuals, who were absolutely qualified to command the boat. His Navy

career and resume spoke about a man who was well known and respected, being selected

as the ship's new Skipper. And his country, his sailors, the mission were more important to

him than himself. Regardless of what he now chooses to do in life, he probably knows he'd

do it the same way all-over again!

 

The Underdog

[niart17]

10 hours ago, Waco said:

US Navy recruiting and retention, because why on earth would you choose to work in this kind of command environment?

Because Top Gun is going to come out...and I feel the need.....the need for speed! Goodness gracious great balls of fire!

 

Bill

[11bee]

40 minutes ago, niart17 said:

Because Top Gun is going to come out...and I feel the need.....the need for speed! Goodness gracious great balls of fire!

 

Bill

Hope that works for the Navy.   The friend I mentioned above in that East Coast SH squadron was as gung-ho as you could get.  He was going to stay in for 20, take all the schools he could get, etc.   He's been in 4 years now and is counting the minutes till he can get out.  He deployed on a CVN for a grand total of a month.  Since then, the boats have been broken, in dry dock etc.   Most of the jets in his squadron are typically grounded due to MX issues or lack of parts.  Half the time, his entire shop is doing nothing more than surfing the net, watching videos on their phones or just doing busy work.   They still do some training dets but many of those end up cancelled due to funding issues.  The only guaranteed time he gets on the road is when one of the jets break while going cross country and he gets to fly out to wherever it is and fix it so it can limp back to VA.  Most of the people in his squadron feel the same.  

 

Wasn't our military supposed to be great again?  

[habu2]

48 minutes ago, niart17 said:

Because Top Gun is going to come out...and I feel the need.....the need for speed! Goodness gracious great balls of fire!

 

Better slow down, TG2 release has been delayed til December(?) due to COVID

[SWOBRO]

For what it's worth, I am a graduate of the US Naval Academy.  I served in a DDG, CVN65, a CG, and am a plankowner of a Nimitz class CVN.

 

Personally, I have some real issues with this mess.  To begin with, it appears to me that "Big Navy" entirely missed the boat regarding the COVID-19 issue on CVN 71.  The fundamental issue appears to be that the CO raised the issue with his chain of command and was getting back unacceptable answers.  Yes, the chain of command knew there were sailors who tested positive for the coronavirus.  The standard answer was fly those testing positive ashore.  Considering that the virus is communicable prior to the host showing symptoms, that really is not an effective measure.  The CO also stated in his letter that the ship would fight sick, if necessary.  Well, right now, there is no requirement to do that.  He also referenced the experiences of cruise ships with the coronavirus.  This is, in my opinion, the crux of the issue.  The only thing a Nimitz class carrier has over a cruise ship, with regards to the coronavirus, is a much larger cleaning crew.  Every other physical factor for spread of a communicable disease is worse. The CO appears to believe that the TR was on a path to become combat ineffective due to the spread of the disease.  The Navy apparently disagreed.  Unfortunately, the Navy seems to have forgotten the recent history of the USS Fort McHenry.  In 2019, that LSD was quarantined , at sea, for almost 4 months due to a viral parotitis outbreak.  The ship had a total complement of 703.  The TR has a total complement roughly 6 times that number.  Also, in World War II, a U.S. Navy submarine was rendered combat ineffective, while on war patrol, due to crew illness.  The CO's concern was legitimate.  The Navy was not treating the outbreak effectively.  A piecemeal approach would make the ship combat ineffective for a longer time that a bold, concentrated approach.  The CO was right. Realistically, no one argues that the CO should have tried to keep the letter internal to the Navy.  No one argues that the CO could be relieved of command for the action.  But the US Navy, in my opinion, is overly concerned about bad press.  The Navy began to follow most of the CO's recommendations.  That was logical because his recommendations were practical, realistic, and necessary.  Navy senior leadership decided to relieve the CO, which is what the Navy does to ship commanding officers who are considered to have brought discredit to the service.  But, being insensitive to public relations, the Navy relieved him quickly, rather than after investigating the issue. Finally, the Acting SECNAV never should have been talking to the crew of the TR.  Let the uniformed senior folks talk to the crew.  That way, the Navy can speak the proper language to the troops about a very sensitive issue.  All in all, this episode is another self-inflicted black eye for the Navy. But, if the CO had kept quiet and the disease had rendered the TR combat ineffective for two or three months, the navy would not have been able to hide that fact from the Chinese.  That would be a black eye for the nation.

[jpk]

Crozier was screwed no matter which way he went. If his requests for help went unheeded and this never hit the press until later and if that one sailor that was found unresponsive had died, the "Door Knockers" would have blamed him in the press for negligence and relieved him of his command anyway. He would have been the scapegoat to make sure the stains didn't get on the white tunic and gold scrambled egg guys higher up.

[The Underdog]

On 4/9/2020 at 12:03 PM, SWOBRO said:

For what it's worth, I am a graduate of the US Naval Academy.  I served in a DDG, CVN65, a CG, and am a plankowner of a Nimitz class CVN.

 

Personally, I have some real issues with this mess.  To begin with, it appears to me that "Big Navy" entirely missed the boat regarding the COVID-19 issue on CVN 71.  The fundamental issue appears to be that the CO raised the issue with his chain of command and was getting back unacceptable answers.  Yes, the chain of command knew there were sailors who tested positive for the coronavirus.  The standard answer was fly those testing positive ashore.  Considering that the virus is communicable prior to the host showing symptoms, that really is not an effective measure.  The CO also stated in his letter that the ship would fight sick, if necessary.  Well, right now, there is no requirement to do that.  He also referenced the experiences of cruise ships with the coronavirus.  This is, in my opinion, the crux of the issue.  The only thing a Nimitz class carrier has over a cruise ship, with regards to the coronavirus, is a much larger cleaning crew.  Every other physical factor for spread of a communicable disease is worse. The CO appears to believe that the TR was on a path to become combat ineffective due to the spread of the disease.  The Navy apparently disagreed.  Unfortunately, the Navy seems to have forgotten the recent history of the USS Fort McHenry.  In 2019, that LSD was quarantined , at sea, for almost 4 months due to a viral parotitis outbreak.  The ship had a total complement of 703.  The TR has a total complement roughly 6 times that number.  Also, in World War II, a U.S. Navy submarine was rendered combat ineffective, while on war patrol, due to crew illness.  The CO's concern was legitimate.  The Navy was not treating the outbreak effectively.  A piecemeal approach would make the ship combat ineffective for a longer time that a bold, concentrated approach.  The CO was right. Realistically, no one argues that the CO should have tried to keep the letter internal to the Navy.  No one argues that the CO could be relieved of command for the action.  But the US Navy, in my opinion, is overly concerned about bad press.  The Navy began to follow most of the CO's recommendations.  That was logical because his recommendations were practical, realistic, and necessary.  Navy senior leadership decided to relieve the CO, which is what the Navy does to ship commanding officers who are considered to have brought discredit to the service.  But, being insensitive to public relations, the Navy relieved him quickly, rather than after investigating the issue. Finally, the Acting SECNAV never should have been talking to the crew of the TR.  Let the uniformed senior folks talk to the crew.  That way, the Navy can speak the proper language to the troops about a very sensitive issue.  All in all, this episode is another self-inflicted black eye for the Navy. But, if the CO had kept quiet and the disease had rendered the TR combat ineffective for two or three months, the navy would not have been able to hide that fact from the Chinese.  That would be a black eye for the nation.

 

For someone who's "been there, done that" has to stand for something. Thank you for

your service in the US Navy and for our country. Your opinions and narrative speaks

of common sense, about a situation needing a more expeditious response from the

Navy and the CO's chain of command. While the CO could've done things differently,

only he completely understood the gravity and seriousness of the situation. And, how

it was his responsibility in taking care of his crew and ship properly. I believe Captain

Crozier did what needed to be done, putting the welfare of his sailors first.

[Viasistina]

On April 6, 2020 at 2:49 PM, GW8345 said:

And your sources are?

 

If many more will get it why is it that over half of the crew is still onboard.

 

Also, if the Skipper was so concerned about his crew why did he allow a four day port visit to Vietnam to take place a month ago, in the middle of the virus outbreak in Asia?

 

  Again, your sources are .................. or are you just armchair speculating?

That was a diplomatic port call arranged at the highest levels , not some random call the captain decided.  Those calls  are arranged months in advance.  Diplomatic visits and tours, dinners, plus provisions. Get your head screwed on right on this one. BTW , the cases are up to over 500 sailors.

[GW8345]

10 hours ago, Viasistina said:

That was a diplomatic port call arranged at the highest levels , not some random call the captain decided.  Those calls  are arranged months in advance.  Diplomatic visits and tours, dinners, plus provisions. Get your head screwed on right on this one. BTW , the cases are up to over 500 sailors.

I'm well aware that liberty ports are arranged months in advanced, been to many of them, however, they can be cancelled in a matter of hours, seen it happen numerous times.

 

And my head is screwed on perfectly on this one, I just don't subscribe to the snowflake way of thinking.

Edited April 13, 2020 by GW8345

[Ken Cartwright]

A friend of mine is a retired Navy officer, and based on the information he's seen, the problem lies directly with the Captain.  My friend's understanding is that the choice to visit Vietnam was left up to the Captain, and it was recommended that he shouldn't do it, but because of the rarity of the opportunity, he decided to go ahead.  Once the crew was exposed, the Navy leadership began making plans to get the ship to Guam well before Crozier wrote that letter, so steps were already underway to deal with the situation.  My friend's opinion is that Crozier wrote that letter, knowing it would get out, to cover for his own bad decision-making.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Ken Cartwright

[GW8345]

I think everyone is missing one point;

 

The Navy was aware of the situation on the ship, was helping the ship and was taking steps to mitigate the virus on the ship.

 

The CO has just spoken to the SecNav within the past few days before he sent the letter, he even had the number to the SecNav directly, why didn't he call the SecNav to complain about the level of effort the Navy was doing before he sent the letter out?

 

Basically, the CO acted like a little immature spoiled brat because he didn't think the Navy leadership was doing what HE wanted them to do. He's a Captain of a Carrier, not a BGC, not a Fleet Commander, not the CNO, he went outside the CoC and caused a chit storm, that right there means he's unfit for command.

 

Imagine one of your workers doing that do you when you're the boss, see how you like it.

Edited April 13, 2020 by GW8345

[jpk]

12 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I think everyone is missing one point;

 

The Navy was aware of the situation on the ship, was helping the ship and was taking steps to mitigate the virus on the ship.

 

The CO has just spoken to the SecNav within the past few days before he sent the letter, he even had the number to the SecNav directly, why didn't he call the SecNav to complain about the level of effort the Navy was doing before he sent the letter out?

 

Basically, the CO acted like a little immature spoiled brat because he didn't think the Navy leadership was doing what HE wanted them to do. He's a Captain of a Carrier, not a BGC, not a Fleet Commander, not the CNO, he went outside the CoC and caused a chit storm, that right there means he's unfit for command.

 

Imagine one of your workers doing that do you when you're the boss, see how you like it.

The "ACTING" SoN was a political appointment, not approved by the Senate, like many now in the upper levels of government and subject tot he whims of the CiC. As soon as he found out about the situation on Roosevelt he ran off the CiC to get his orders. It doesn't take much to figure out what happened after that conversation.

[11bee]

14 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I think everyone is missing one point;

 

The Navy was aware of the situation on the ship, was helping the ship and was taking steps to mitigate the virus on the ship.

 

The CO has just spoken to the SecNav within the past few days before he sent the letter, he even had the number to the SecNav directly, why didn't he call the SecNav to complain about the level of effort the Navy was doing before he sent the letter out?

 

Basically, the CO acted like a little immature spoiled brat because he didn't think the Navy leadership was doing what HE wanted them to do. He's a Captain of a Carrier, not a BGC, not a Fleet Commander, not the CNO, he went outside the CoC and caused a chit storm, that right there means he's unfit for command.

 

Imagine one of your workers doing that do you when you're the boss, see how you like it.

Wow...    To go off on an officer like this pretty sad.  This isn't wartime, there are no OPSEC issues, his requests for help were not being addressed in anything close to a timely manner and he put his crew before his own career and that makes him a immature, spoiled brat?   You sound like that train wreck of an ex-(acting) SECNAV.  

 

As far as if one of my workers went over my head....  Won't speak for others but in my company we've got a culture that encourages this.   Safety is priority one and anyone in the organization is entitled (and expected) to elevate concerns as high up the chain as they need to if they don't get an answer they are comfortable with from their immediate supervisor (or his boss).   I had one of my reports do this and I commended him for following his training.  It takes a lot of balls to go over your bosses head and my worker a did the right thing. 

 

Update - the first COVID related death from the TR's crew has just been reported.  Total number of infected sailors is close to 600 and as of yesterday, the Navy still hasn't completed testing of the entire crew.  

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by 11bee

[11bee]

16 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

A friend of mine is a retired Navy officer, and based on the information he's seen, the problem lies directly with the Captain.  My friend's understanding is that the choice to visit Vietnam was left up to the Captain, and it was recommended that he shouldn't do it, but because of the rarity of the opportunity, he decided to go ahead.  Once the crew was exposed, the Navy leadership began making plans to get the ship to Guam well before Crozier wrote that letter, so steps were already underway to deal with the situation.  My friend's opinion is that Crozier wrote that letter, knowing it would get out, to cover for his own bad decision-making.

 

That contradicts everything that's out there in the press.  The choice to make a port call for a naval task group isn't left up to the captain.  Especially one like this that had major diplomatic implications.   This port call was special and was approved months in advance by both the highest levels of the Navy and the State Dept.  Shortly before it occurred, the visit was re-approved because the folks in charge didn't think the virus was an issue in that part of the country.     

 

Given the SECNAV's crusade to trash this guy's reputation, don't you think that if your buddies story was really the case, that info would be have put out to the public to further the SECNAV's story? 

 

 I think your friend got some fake news there. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by 11bee