SECNAV Addresses Roosevelt Crew, Says Cpt. Crozier "Too Naive or Too Stupid" to Command

[iluvatar5150]

Acting Navy secretary blasts ousted aircraft carrier captain as 'stupid' in address to ship's crew - CNNPolitics

The Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly blasted the now ousted commander of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as "stupid" in an address to the ship's crew Monday morning, in remarks obtained by CNN.

In remarks that were piped over the vessel's PA system, Modly suggested Crozier leaked the memo on purpose or was "too naive or too stupid" to be in command if he didn't think that sending it to over 20 people would not result in it getting out to the public.

"If he didn't think, in my opinion, that this information wasn't going to get out to the public, in this day and information age that we live in, then he was either A, too naïve or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this," Modly said. "The alternative is that he did this on purpose."

That's pretty special even by Trump Administration standards.

 

[Hammster]

Informing our enemies of our weaknesses is irresponsible. The old adage stands. Loose lips sink ships.

 

[Ophiolite]

Informing our enemies of our weaknesses is irresponsible. The old adage stands. Loose lips sink ships.

So might a ship whose crew was decimated by the virus.

 

[Hammster]

So might a ship whose crew was decimated by the virus.

Do you think there just might have been another way for him to communicate?

 

[Speedwell]

Even if Modly was right, and Crozier was incompetent, a commander must never, never, never diss a subordinate officer in front of the crew. It undermines the authority of all officers everywhere. If an officer is deemed incompetent or otherwise unsatisfactory, he must be removed. But to denounce him openly to his crew like that is a betrayal worse than anything Crozier could have done.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you think there just might have been another way for him to communicate?

This, I think, neither of us can know at this point. It seems he went outside the chain of command. I think there are instances where other commanders have done this and events have justified them. (In fairness, this may be a false impression gained from seeing too many war movies in my youth.)

Broadly, there seem to be two possible explanations for his actions.

• He exhibited bad judgement and failed to use orthodox channels for communicating his concerns up the command chain. Frustration at his failure led to actions unbecoming for an officer of his rank and experience.
• He exhausted all channels and methods for conveying his concerns to navy brass and chose to place the well being of his crew over his career.

We lack the information to distinguish between these two at the moment. My response to your comment was to shine a light on the second option, not to indicate a preference for either.

 

[Hammster]

Even if Modly was right, and Crozier was incompetent, a commander must never, never, never diss a subordinate officer in front of the crew. It undermines the authority of all officers everywhere. If an officer is deemed incompetent or otherwise unsatisfactory, he must be removed. But to denounce him openly to his crew like that is a betrayal worse than anything Crozier could have done.

I can agree with that. I’ve seen reports where the crew was supporting him. So it needed to be addressed. But it should have been done with more tact.

 

[Ophiolite]

Even if Modly was right, and Crozier was incompetent, a commander must never, never, never diss a subordinate officer in front of the crew. It undermines the authority of all officers everywhere. If an officer is deemed incompetent or otherwise unsatisfactory, he must be removed. But to denounce him openly to his crew like that is a betrayal worse than anything Crozier could have done.

And would I not be right in thinking that as Acting Navy Secretary he is responsible for ensuring that incompetent officers do not get put in charge of multi-billions dollar nuclear aircraft carriers.

 

[cow451]

Do you think there just might have been another way for him to communicate?

Given the lack of response from the chain of command.... it appears not.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They were just letting the crew who applauded the Captain know what their fate will be if they continue to support anyone who stands up to our leader.

 

[cow451]

I can agree with that. I’ve seen reports where the crew was supporting him. So it needed to be addressed. But it should have been done with more tact.

I he was that incompetent, then his commander should also be relieved of duty.

 

[cow451]

They were just letting the crew who applauded the Captain know what their fate will be if they continue to support anyone who stands up to our leader.

Do they still make sailors walk the plank?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Perhaps worth remembering that Modly is Acting Secretary because he, unlike his predecessor, had no problem acquiescing to Trump's pardoning war criminals.

Captain Crozier is a hero. He sacrificed a career he'd spent the entirely of his adult life building, he sacrificed his reputation knowing that men like Modley and Trump would behave precisely as they are, he sacrificed his own wellbeing (he has tested positive for COVID-19) to protect his crew. He is the opposite of stupid, naive, or any other insult those seeking to demolish his reputation and demoralize his crew have claimed, nor did he betray anyone.

This is why he earned their respect.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.” - President Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Speedwell]

I can agree with that. I’ve seen reports where the crew was supporting him. So it needed to be addressed. But it should have been done with more tact.

Whoever they were supporting then, they will certainly not support Modly now, after an unprecedented tirade like that. No self-respecting navy man will, even those who thought Crozier was in the wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

And would I not be right in thinking that as Acting Navy Secretary he is responsible for ensuring that incompetent officers do not get put in charge of multi-billions dollar nuclear aircraft carriers.

That is not the issue. It's Modly's address to the crew which is the issue.

 

[Hammster]

Given the lack of response from the chain of command.... it appears not.

Putting more lives at risk doesn’t seem to be the answer. I’m sure there were other options.

 

[Hammster]

I he was that incompetent, then his commander should also be relieved of duty.

Not really. That would mean removing every sitting president whenever one under his command makes an error.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you think there just might have been another way for him to communicate?

I won't attempt to answer. I do not know all the attempts that he did make, or which possibilities were open to him. And that is a subset of my lack of personal experience with military command.

What I do know is gleaned purely from accounts in military history books, a handful of discussions with military personnel of several nations, and nerdy reading of US government publications on portions of the Armed Forces detailing "defined structures, command relationships, missions, tasks". I hope you'll agree that is insufficient on which to base an informed opinion.

My experience in business is that if there is a problem that upper management don't want to hear about the only way of getting action on it is to make a career limiting decision. But that's anecdotal and not necessarily a universal.

 

[Hammster]

Whoever they were supporting then, they will certainly not support Modly now, after an unprecedented tirade like that. No self-respecting navy man will, even those who thought Crozier was in the wrong.

Hard to disagree with that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Informing our enemies of our weaknesses is irresponsible. The old adage stands. Loose lips sink ships.

How did he "inform our enemies"? Did he leak the letter? Who were the other recipients of the letter? I haven't seen that list; have you?

I can agree with that. I’ve seen reports where the crew was supporting him. So it needed to be addressed. But it should have been done with more tact.

For information's sake, this SF Chronicle piece has the full letter:
Exclusive: Captain of aircraft carrier with growing coronavirus outbreak pleads for help from Navy

The letter itself is quite tactful.