Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. I'm relying on the CoC structure that is known and drilled into every military member, Navy or otherwise.
I am relying on official statements for the record made by Big Navy leaders, to include the now ex-acting SECNAV, Chief of Naval Operations, and SECDEF. Do explain to me how I am relying on hearsay? Modly touched on actions that he and other Big Navy leaders were taking. That's not hearsay, though its clear that you don't fully grasp the concept of hearsay or the military chain of command structure.
Of course, even if I did accept the hearsay, anonymous source comments to the press that you rely on, that doesn't change the fact that Crozier had other avenues within his chain of command that he failed to take advantage of (specifically, the 7th Fleet Commander); you conveniently don't touch on that, which is not surprising.
You can continue to say that "he saved his men," but there is nothing (not even in your hearsay accounts) that support such a conclusion; that's just you hoping and wishing that such is true. And, in fact, the official record rejects such a position.
lol...yeah...nothing between you and the brass. No middleman. You and you alone have your finger on the pulse of the brass directly. You (remember...you) believe the statements of the, what was it you liked to call them...oh yes, "Big Navy" (very official term, btw).
To the bolded....oh yes there is....but you just want to be right. Not correct. To sound...what is it...oh yes...superior.
Not buying it.
Gaslighting.
Tell us all...just what anon sources do you ass-ume I'm speaking of? You're making that up to fit your dialogue. Because....? Fill in the blank with your ego-boosting choice of words.
lol...yeah...nothing between you and the brass. No middleman. You and you alone have your finger on the pulse of the brass directly. You (remember...you) believe the statements of the, what was it you liked to call them...oh yes, "Big Navy" (very official term, btw).
To the bolded....oh yes there is....but you just want to be right. Not correct. To sound...what is it...oh yes...superior.
Not buying it.
Gaslighting.
Tell us all...just what anon sources do you ass-ume I'm speaking of? You're making that up to fit your dialogue. Because....? Fill in the blank with your ego-boosting choice of words.
Lots and lots to read. Go for it. Step away from the echo chamber. But one has to want it enough to pay for it.
Fundamentally, nothing I provided comes close to hearsay, but you can continue posting about things you clearly know little about
Whether I have my finger on what the brass is thinking is a silly argument (nice deflection) as I never claimed such. Rather, I only report what they have said and on how we all are trained in the Navy.
"Big Navy" is a term used by Navy service members (of which I am one) and civilians regularly. Here's NavyTimes.com using such a phrase in an article from 2019, entitled Why Big Navy wants to do more to retain sailors: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...etain-sailors/ I don't expect you to know this, but its clear there's a lot that you don't know about the Navy and other matters related to this conversation
Do use all a favor, though. Spell out for the entire forum/thread to see what other than hearsay evidence has been presented to support your claim that Crozier "saved his men." Such a conclusion necessitates that the Navy/DoD changed its course of action as a result of Crozier's letter. Again, nothing in the record supports that this is what happened; that's just wishful thinking. But, again, you are free to put up such evidence. Otherwise, you're spewing more hot air
What is hearsay is the reliance on sources presented in this thread that there was possible friction between the CSG Commander and Crozier that could have led Crozier to believe he had to go outside of the CoC to send his concerns. And, nice try, but that list of NYT articles doesn't support what you think or claim they do.
And the words aren't ego-boosting or flashy. They are simple words, easy to understand. But maybe I'm expecting too much from the American public? I hope not.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 04-07-2020 at 10:02 PM..
Fundamentally, nothing I provided comes close to hearsay, but you can continue posting about things you clearly know little about
Whether I have my finger on what the brass is thinking is a silly argument (nice deflection) as I never claimed such. Rather, I only report what they have said and on how we all are trained in the Navy.
"Big Navy" is a term used by Navy service members (of which I am one) and civilians regularly. Here's NavyTimes.com using such a phrase in an article from 2019, entitled Why Big Navy wants to do more to retain sailors: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...etain-sailors/ I don't expect you to know this, but its clear there's a lot that you don't know about the Navy and other matters related to this conversation
Do use all a favor, though. Spell out for the entire forum/thread to see what other than hearsay evidence has been presented to support your claim that Crozier "saved his men." Such a conclusion necessitates that the Navy/DoD changed its course of action as a result of Crozier's letter. Again, nothing in the record supports that this is what happened; that's just wishful thinking. But, again, you are free to put up such evidence. Otherwise, you're spewing more hot air
What is hearsay is the reliance on sources presented in this thread that there was possible friction between the CSG Commander and Crozier that could have led Crozier to believe he had to go outside of the CoC to send his concerns. And, nice try, but that list of NYT articles doesn't support what you think or claim they do.
And the words aren't ego-boosting or flashy. They are simple words, easy to understand. But maybe I'm expecting too much from the American public? I hope not.
The difference between your approach and that of some other posters here is that you are fine with passing the words of Modly off as the absolute truth and the reporting of everyone else simply as hearsay. Your bias is showing.
Fewer than 100 crewmembers had contracted the virus prior to Crozier sending his letter and the last count I saw was up to 230. Time is, and was, of the essence and perhaps that was more evident to Crozier than Modly, et al. I continue to see the invisible man at the nexus of the problem in Baker. The only statement I have seen from him in all the stories I've read is his acknowledgement that he would have ordered Crozier to eat his letter rather than send it.
And while you appear to love to hang your hat on training and tradition you have yet to cite the Navy tradition that created the term demonstrated here in all its glory - SNAFU.
If sounding the alarm led the Navy to do something that it wasn't already doing, sure. But Big Navy says this isn't the case.
Otherwise, by going outside of the CoC and posting a letter via unclassified channels that was deemed to be leaked, all Crozier did was tarnish the image of the Navy and sow discord at a time when we need unity.
Maybe the image of the Navy needed tarnishing. It seems like there are people in command who are so full of themselves that they will risk lives to keep their own image spotless. The type who take credit for success and assign blame for failure.
Captain Crozier knew exactly what he was doing. He forced the hand of his superiors, and in so doing saved the lives of some indeterminate members of his crew. He didn't do 32 years at Annapolis and then in the Navy without becoming intimately aware of the inevitable consequences of his actions.
He made a choice. He made the right choice. Sometimes, the right choice is an improper one. Obviously, Captain Crozier cared more about doing what was right than about toeing rules for the sake of rules and lives be damned.
I have no doubt Captain Crozier sleeps well at night. I wonder if the same can be said for the flunkie who canned and then smeared him? Or all of that flunkie's apologists?
Nope. I'm relying on the CoC structure that is known and drilled into every military member, Navy or otherwise.
I am relying on official statements for the record made by Big Navy leaders, to include the now ex-acting SECNAV, Chief of Naval Operations, and SECDEF. Do explain to me how I am relying on hearsay? Modly touched on actions that he and other Big Navy leaders were taking. That's not hearsay, though its clear that you don't fully grasp the concept of hearsay or the military chain of command structure.
Of course, even if I did accept the hearsay, anonymous source comments to the press that you rely on, that doesn't change the fact that Crozier had other avenues within his chain of command that he failed to take advantage of (specifically, the 7th Fleet Commander); you conveniently don't touch on that, which is not surprising.
You can continue to say that "he saved his men," but there is nothing (not even in your hearsay accounts) that support such a conclusion; that's just you hoping and wishing that such is true. And, in fact, the official record rejects such a position.
See USS Indianapolis and USS Iowa explosion for examples why the official US Navy statement isn’t always the truth
Captain Crozier knew exactly what he was doing. He forced the hand of his superiors, and in so doing saved the lives of some indeterminate members of his crew. He didn't do 32 years at Annapolis and then in the Navy without becoming intimately aware of the inevitable consequences of his actions.
He made a choice. He made the right choice. Sometimes, the right choice is an improper one. Obviously, Captain Crozier cared more about doing what was right than about toeing rules for the sake of rules and lives be damned.
I have no doubt Captain Crozier sleeps well at night. I wonder if the same can be said for the flunkie who canned and then smeared him? Or all of that flunkie's apologists?
I think someone here mentioned it, but the missing link in this is the admiral Baker, the relationship between him and the CO is rather lacking in any note, info, etc in public at least. For the CO to bypass him on this is pretty significant. I am wondering if this goes back to the port call in Vietnam and it escalated from there.
I am wondering, and it is just a guess, if the CO was against the port call and allowing personnel on shore, and the admiral overruled him (typical reason of not wanting to offend host country), personnel got infected, the admiral continues to be dismissive or obtuse to it, and/or a "told you so" by the CO, the CO then proceeded to what we have now.
Also, does anyone know if the admiral has had a ship command? All I found was air wing commands, but no ship command in his bio. Not that it is a real issue, but maybe it is just a small factor in the communication issue between the CO and the admiral, one being on his second ship command, the other not ever having command of a ship.
Disobeying the chain of command is not what you do. That is how you get your troops killed in combat or even combat exercises. This was not combat and did involve a potential life or death situation. So, it is a tough call for me. I'm not sure I'd seek a second opinion from others in the chain of command.
I certainly would not have leaked Modly's name calling speech. That shows weakness and a lack of confidence in the process. You hear all kinds of names in the service or pro sports. You don't leak your family's garbage to everyone; especially the civilian media. The public does not govern the military. Respect your military branch, your rank and honor. Time for both of them to go, not just one.
- Former enlisted.
Ordinarily, you don't go outside the chain of command. The problem was that Captain Crozier was dealing with an event that was extraordinary. As of today, the captain and 300 of his sailors have testified positive for the coronavirus. Do you understand how this would affect the "readiness" of his ship? It also must be noted that this country is not at war and hostilities are not going on. Finally, Crozier attempted to deal with this problem within the chain of command and that had failed.
I think saying a few words about "loyalty" is important here too. When many people think of loyalty they think only of the lowest people in the command structure supporting the leader. Loyalty actually extends in both directions. A crew must be loyal to the captain, but the captain should also be loyal to his crew. When he can, he must act in a manner consistent with preserving the lives and health of his sailors. Captain Crozier made that exact choice here.
Rules are fine, but the real test of a commander is when he is confronted with an extraordinary situation that would seem to render rules inapplicable. In such cases, discretion is required. IMO, Captain Crozier exercised that discretion in the best way possible.
His relief as captain of the Theodore Roosevelt was wrong. I hope he decision is rescinded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope not.
