US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Turbine D
I think you are asserting and reaching a conclusion that you have no real data or confirmation basis for.
So, why did the Captain write the letter in the first place? Who by name, rank and serial # was on distribution? How is it known the Captain didn't follow the chain of command in requesting aid to deal with the CONVID-19 on his ship before writing the letter? How and why did the acting Navy Secretary respond so quickly? Was there a detailed investigation?
This smells of a clever cover your a** ploy by the acting Navy Secretary to assure becoming more than just acting when the Senate takes up his nomination assuming it will still be on the table.
So, why did the Captain write the letter in the first place? Who by name, rank and serial # was on distribution? How is it known the Captain didn't follow the chain of command in requesting aid to deal with the CONVID-19 on his ship before writing the letter? How and why did the acting Navy Secretary respond so quickly? Was there a detailed investigation?
This smells of a clever cover your a** ploy by the acting Navy Secretary to assure becoming more than just acting when the Senate takes up his nomination assuming it will still be on the table.
SAS
Accomplishment of the assigned mission(s) is essential....but doing so with the least disruption is also key to success.
I have seen the Navy remove forty sailors off a Sub Tender at one time....subsequent to some misconduct by those sailors...and they did that without any second thought during an operational deployment.
We lost the equivalent of a Battalion of Troops due to pregnancy alone during the lead up to the first Gulf War.....and the Military Services carried on.
We lost the equivalent of a Battalion of Troops due to pregnancy alone during the lead up to the first Gulf War.....and the Military Services carried on.
Bottom line, why I don’t know, but the Captain choose a method he knew or should have known would a) lead to the operational capabilities of his ship become publicly known, b) operate outside the chain. Now he pays the price for that.
That he did both a) and b) isn’t in dispute. That is why we was sacked. If he believes the well being of the ship’s crew was worth it, after he retires he can write a book and hit the Sunday morning shows to promote it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,623
Originally Posted by KelvinD
An article I read said he included quite a lot of CCs and I thought it could have been any one of them.
It's all very well following the rules but doesn't there come a point when you have to think "following the rules has now put my crew in danger. Needlessly"?
It's all very well following the rules but doesn't there come a point when you have to think "following the rules has now put my crew in danger. Needlessly"?
Originally Posted by etudiant
The claim is that the letter was cc'd to multiple recipients and consequently went viral even before the Navy Secretary had seen it. I could understand that being unacceptable to the chain of command.
But that claim about "it got away from us" may have substance. The problems created when sending a message "Info the World" is something you are taught as a junior officer. I have seen a few ill advised messages/signals sent out with too large of an "info addressee" list over the years which ended up causing quite a bit of trouble.
My question further up about the ship's last 28 days and what the port call details are/were still interest me; further "discussion" here does not.
Beyond all that, the Navy has, certainly in the last 10 years, proven very willing to relieve CO's left, right, and center. It seems to me (but perhaps my memory is less than crystal clear) that the rate of relief from command has increased substantially since the turn of the century. This makes me wonder if, had the CO raised whatever objection up the chain of command back when I was still serving, perhaps he'd still be in command.
Unknowable, and, since viral email-ness wasn't a thing then, perhaps not even a valid musing.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 81
Posts: 1,159
So, What's the Real Story?
Maybe the acting SECNAV should hire an experienced spokesperson that can put together a believable story, something he hasn't been able to do himself:
Acting SECNAV Modly said the letter made it look as if the Navy was not helping Crozier. The acting secretary repeated his Wednesday denials that the Navy only took action after the letter, and reiterated that preparations for evacuating the majority of the crew had already begun at that point. In the six days since the ship tied up in Guam, Modly said, the Navy has arranged shore-based accommodations for almost 3,000 sailors. “And that’s what’s frustrating about it: it created the perception that the Navy’s not on the job, and the government’s not on the job,” the acting secretary said. Modly added that Crozier had not properly prepared his chief petty officers — the ship’s senior noncommissioned officers — to discuss his plans to put some 90 percent of the crew ashore as fast as possible. The secretary alleged it created “a mini-panic” among the crew and their families.
One former senior military spokesman found that hard to believe. “The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps.
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need. “It makes it appear that you really don’t want them to be honest.”
Acting SECNAV Modly said the letter made it look as if the Navy was not helping Crozier. The acting secretary repeated his Wednesday denials that the Navy only took action after the letter, and reiterated that preparations for evacuating the majority of the crew had already begun at that point. In the six days since the ship tied up in Guam, Modly said, the Navy has arranged shore-based accommodations for almost 3,000 sailors. “And that’s what’s frustrating about it: it created the perception that the Navy’s not on the job, and the government’s not on the job,” the acting secretary said. Modly added that Crozier had not properly prepared his chief petty officers — the ship’s senior noncommissioned officers — to discuss his plans to put some 90 percent of the crew ashore as fast as possible. The secretary alleged it created “a mini-panic” among the crew and their families.
One former senior military spokesman found that hard to believe. “The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps.
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need. “It makes it appear that you really don’t want them to be honest.”
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,409
Originally Posted by Turbine D
Maybe the acting SECNAV should hire an experienced spokesperson that can put together a believable story, something he hasn't been able to do himself:
Acting SECNAV Modly said the letter made it look as if the Navy was not helping Crozier. The acting secretary repeated his Wednesday denials that the Navy only took action after the letter, and reiterated that preparations for evacuating the majority of the crew had already begun at that point. In the six days since the ship tied up in Guam, Modly said, the Navy has arranged shore-based accommodations for almost 3,000 sailors. “And that’s what’s frustrating about it: it created the perception that the Navy’s not on the job, and the government’s not on the job,” the acting secretary said. Modly added that Crozier had not properly prepared his chief petty officers — the ship’s senior noncommissioned officers — to discuss his plans to put some 90 percent of the crew ashore as fast as possible. The secretary alleged it created “a mini-panic” among the crew and their families.
One former senior military spokesman found that hard to believe. “The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps.
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need.“It makes it appear that you really don’t want them to be honest.”
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need.
In our Civil businesses do we expect the Chief Operating Officer to explain to the public the reasons he was PO d at someone?
Most of us that understand the business can fathom the reasons and accept it.
Sure it may have been unfair in the minds of some, but that doesn't make it wrong when you have to run a business smoothly.
Ever been laid off.?
What matters most for me in this incident is the acceptance by the command structure , both serving and retired, of the action without knowing all the minute details
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Turbine D
Maybe the acting SECNAV should hire an experienced spokesperson that can put together a believable story, something he hasn't been able to do himself:
Acting SECNAV Modly said the letter made it look as if the Navy was not helping Crozier. The acting secretary repeated his Wednesday denials that the Navy only took action after the letter, and reiterated that preparations for evacuating the majority of the crew had already begun at that point. In the six days since the ship tied up in Guam, Modly said, the Navy has arranged shore-based accommodations for almost 3,000 sailors. “And that’s what’s frustrating about it: it created the perception that the Navy’s not on the job, and the government’s not on the job,” the acting secretary said. Modly added that Crozier had not properly prepared his chief petty officers — the ship’s senior noncommissioned officers — to discuss his plans to put some 90 percent of the crew ashore as fast as possible. The secretary alleged it created “a mini-panic” among the crew and their families.
One former senior military spokesman found that hard to believe. “The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps.
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need. “It makes it appear that you really don’t want them to be honest.”
Acting SECNAV Modly said the letter made it look as if the Navy was not helping Crozier. The acting secretary repeated his Wednesday denials that the Navy only took action after the letter, and reiterated that preparations for evacuating the majority of the crew had already begun at that point. In the six days since the ship tied up in Guam, Modly said, the Navy has arranged shore-based accommodations for almost 3,000 sailors. “And that’s what’s frustrating about it: it created the perception that the Navy’s not on the job, and the government’s not on the job,” the acting secretary said. Modly added that Crozier had not properly prepared his chief petty officers — the ship’s senior noncommissioned officers — to discuss his plans to put some 90 percent of the crew ashore as fast as possible. The secretary alleged it created “a mini-panic” among the crew and their families.
One former senior military spokesman found that hard to believe. “The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps.
“It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.” John Kirby, a retired rear admiral who served as the State Department’s head spokesman from 2015 to 2017, ”I understand the ‘trust&confidence’ argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by actingSECNAV for why he lost trust&confidence in theTRCO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction& unwarranted at a vital time for the ship.”
Said Lapan, “There are so many flaws in how the Navy is explaining this that it’s causing people to question what the real reasons are.”
Of Modly’s suggestion that Crozier should have contacted him directly, Lapan said it directly contradicts the secretary’s reasoning for the firing. “You’re the acting secretary of the navy. You’re going to suggest an O-6 ship captain coming directly to you is not going outside the chain of command? Everyone above that O-6 would have been furious,” said Lapan.
The acting secretary added that he doesn’t want or expect Crozier’s relief to chill other commanders who might need to sound an alarm. “We want that information coming up to us through the chain of command,” he said.
Lapan said it sends mixed signals, at best. “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Especially, he said, when one day earlier Modly was calling for commanders to be honest about what they need. “It makes it appear that you really don’t want them to be honest.”
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,623
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
What matters most for me in this incident is the acceptance by the command structure , both serving and retired, of the action without knowing all the minute details
His take is that he thinks that the CO may have gone up the chain with his concerns, been frustrated with the response, and may have chosen to fall on his sword - knowing full well that he'd probably be relieved if he did so.
We'll see if that guess is on target or not.
As you point out, a fair number of details are missing.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Loma, I just got off the phone with an old Navy buddy who was a shooter on a CVN a few decades ago.
His take is that he thinks that the CO may have gone up the chain with his concerns, been frustrated with the response, and may have chosen to fall on his sword - knowing full well that he'd probably be relieved if he did so.
We'll see if that guess is on target or not.
As you point out, a fair number of details are missing.
His take is that he thinks that the CO may have gone up the chain with his concerns, been frustrated with the response, and may have chosen to fall on his sword - knowing full well that he'd probably be relieved if he did so.
We'll see if that guess is on target or not.
As you point out, a fair number of details are missing.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Honor over Expediency....tough choice for some....easy for others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ro/2947093001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ro/2947093001/
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by obgraham
Well, Lonewolf and Westy both ripped me a new one over the USN issue. I can take that -- we're all friends here.
But now Biden comes out agreeing with me. Sh!t. I'll have to change my view!
But now Biden comes out agreeing with me. Sh!t. I'll have to change my view!
I kid, I kid...but it’s not above her.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 81
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
But for whom is the story to be put together for?
In our Civil businesses do we expect the Chief Operating Officer to explain to the public the reasons he was PO d at someone?
Most of us that understand the business can fathom the reasons and accept it.
Sure it may have been unfair in the minds of some, but that doesn't make it wrong when you have to run a business smoothly.
Ever been laid off.?
What matters most for me in this incident is the acceptance by the command structure , both serving and retired, of the action without knowing all the minute details
Most of us that understand the business can fathom the reasons and accept it.
Sure it may have been unfair in the minds of some, but that doesn't make it wrong when you have to run a business smoothly.
Ever been laid off.?
What matters most for me in this incident is the acceptance by the command structure , both serving and retired, of the action without knowing all the minute details
I suspect acting SECNAV Thomas B. Modly will be putting his story together before long:
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...71-mrw-tmk.pdf
BTW, It is being reported Captain Crozier has tested positive for the virus and is in quarantine in Guam. As of Friday the Navy had evacuated only ~1,500 sailors not near the number advertised a few days before. The Secretary of Defense said there is a full investigation of this total incident underway but he continues to be supportive of Modly's decision.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 81
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by clareprop
Listen to Her Majesty The Queen this evening and compare it to the idiot in the White House. One cares, the other only cares about himself.
Now the stable genius together with his son-in-law say there are two strategic stockpiles for COVID-19 protection, the federal one and the states that have a stockpile. It seem to me we have one stockpile in time of need like now, the American stockpile. But that isn't the way Trump and Kushner think or look at it. BTW, a number of ventilators in the Trump stockpile that were sent to states are defective and need to be repaired, missing attention to details. Same is true for face masks which suffer from dry rot. But ignoring the reality, it is a clever way for Trump and company to avoid owing up to responsibility by saying the states were/are unprepared for COVID-19, like Trump was fully prepared...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by clareprop
Listen to Her Majesty The Queen this evening and compare it to the idiot in the White House. One cares, the other only cares about himself.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,623
Originally Posted by obgraham
Well, Lonewolf and Westy both ripped me a new one over the USN issue. I can take that -- we're all friends here.
But now Biden comes out agreeing with me. Sh!t. I'll have to change my view!
But now Biden comes out agreeing with me. Sh!t. I'll have to change my view!
I first heard that joke when I'd sunk a shot from a bunker next to a green. (golf).
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Loma, I just got off the phone with an old Navy buddy who was a shooter on a CVN a few decades ago.
His take is that he thinks that the CO may have gone up the chain with his concerns, been frustrated with the response, and may have chosen to fall on his sword - knowing full well that he'd probably be relieved if he did so.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Loma, I just got off the phone with an old Navy buddy who was a shooter on a CVN a few decades ago.
His take is that he thinks that the CO may have gone up the chain with his concerns, been frustrated with the response, and may have chosen to fall on his sword - knowing full well that he'd probably be relieved if he did so.
Deliberate?
Quote: West Coast
We'll see if that guess is on target or not.
As you point out, a fair number of details are missing.
We'll see if that guess is on target or not.
As you point out, a fair number of details are missing.
A tactical move to get help for his ship and crew?
[QUOTE] Quote: Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
That’s the narrative that makes the most sense and fits best with the info available.That’s the narrative that makes the most sense and fits best with the info available.[/QUOTE]
Interesting
Originally Posted by Turbine D
BTW, It is being reported Captain Crozier has tested positive for the virus and is in quarantine in Guam. As of Friday the Navy had evacuated only ~1,500 sailors not near the number advertised a few days before.
Last edited by Islandlad; 6th Apr 2020 at 05:04.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Nothing to do with American leadership, so why do some feel obliged to take potshots?
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) would be my guess....lasts far longer than the Coronavirus and come November could be fatal to some when Trump wins both the Electoral College and the Popular Vote.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 806
I watched a piece on a US News channel yesterday (could have been CNN but I don't remember). They have a tame retired Brigadier on hand and his comments were interesting. He believes the Captain had been in discussions with the hierarchy but felt he was not being heard. He spoke about the Chain of Command issue and then pointed out that there are three Admirals between the Captain and the Secretary for the Navy, suggesting that, if CoC was a big issue, then the Sec for the Navy could have (should have) gone down the same route. He concluded that the Captain had brought it on himself, possibly knowing he was falling on his sword in the process.
