Theodore Roosevelt Captain Being Reinstated

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I used "walked" in a figurative sense and in regard to the liberty question. Clearly he could not realistically refuse to show up in port. Regarding the liberty situation, if he objected to allowing the crew to go ashore for safety reasons and was overridden, he could have asked for the countermand in writing or put it in the ship's log among other things. He had options. He might have been relieved on the spot, but I seriously doubt it. And what's the difference if he was. Guaranteed he be in a better position today if he'd put the crew ahead of his career when it really counted.
 
Last edited:
I used "walked" in a figurative sense and in regard to the liberty question. Clearly he could not realistically refuse to show up in port. Regarding the liberty situation, if he objected to allowing the crew to go ashore for safety reasons and was overridden, he could have asked for the countermand in writing or put it in the ship's log among other things. He had options. He might have been relieved on the spot, but I seriously doubt it. And what's the difference if he was. Guaranteed he be in a better position today if he'd put the crew ahead of his career when it really counted.

That's what he should have done. As soon as he started cutting paper on this upstream, somebody would have jumped in. Basically career Musical Chairs, no one would have wanted to be caught standing when the music stopped. Would have hurt him a little bit though, but not like this.
 
You know what. I usually try to stay out of these kinds of discussions, but having read all the above, because the story is so relevant to the unprecedented situations that we are all having to face, and the tricky decisions necessitated by them, I have hung in there. I now believe I at least understand why it is that often, (to us mere civilians anyway), members of the military seem to be treated so badly, when push comes to shove, by their own.

Maybe it's naive, but I feel that when someone is willing, by being in the military, to put their life on the line if necessary to protect us mere civilians if the worst should happen, that occasionally when they act like in a rather human way to a given situation, where it is easy to condemn that action with the benefit of hindsight, they be given a little bit of the benefit of the doubt..? But no. Apparently not..! Apparently to hold command they have to be perfect. Yet no-one is, so how does that work..?

Words like 'judgemental', 'unforgiving', 'hypercritical' and 'holier than thou' keep springing to my mind for some reason..? Or was this really all just a great big exercise for many, (not all), in taking the opportunity to show our military knowledge superiority..? I'll let others be the judge on that...

PS. Has Captain Crozier been reinstated or not..? I hope he has, but hey...what do I know..?
 
You know what. I usually try to stay out of these kinds of discussions, but having read all the above, because the story is so relevant to the unprecedented situations that we are all having to face, and the tricky decisions necessitated by them, I have hung in there. I now believe I at least understand why it is that often, (to us mere civilians anyway), members of the military seem to be treated so badly, when push comes to shove, by their own.

Maybe it's naive, but I feel that when someone is willing, by being in the military, to put their life on the line if necessary to protect us mere civilians if the worst should happen, that occasionally when they act like in a rather human way to a given situation, where it is easy to condemn that action with the benefit of hindsight, they be given a little bit of the benefit of the doubt..? But no. Apparently not..! Apparently to hold command they have to be perfect. Yet no-one is, so how does that work..?

Words like 'judgemental', 'unforgiving', 'hypercritical' and 'holier than thou' keep springing to my mind for some reason..? Or was this really all just a great big exercise for many, (not all), in taking the opportunity to show our military knowledge superiority..? I'll let others be the judge on that...

PS. Has Captain Crozier been reinstated or not..? I hope he has, but hey...what do I know..?

He has not been reinstated. If things worked like you think they should. Our military would be dysfunctional. If they effect policy by leaking to the press, they'll be just as useful and worthwhile as your average Senator or Congressman. We have enough of those cesspools in our Government now.
 
The military is like a large company in that there are only so many supervisors, vice presidents and CEO positions. To get one, someone has to retire, die, quit etc.

But unlike most businesses, in the military, if you dont get promoted because there is only a certain number of slots above you, you get kicked out or have to retire if eligible. You dont get to stay and keep your job.

Many even what you might call "perfect officers ( no blemish marks at all)" are forced out every year.

Do something that the top dogs consider even just "unpleasant" and you are gone next promotion. They are looking for reasons to thin the herd because there are always more candidates than positions.

In this case he was just removed from his job...plenty of qualified juniors in a position to jump in and take over.

His career may or may not be over....that occasionally can have funny twists....but getting his job back takes the system to admit it made a mistake and that rarely happens.

There were 2 great guys that worked for me through my career. One stellar guy switched jobs to get back in his specialty and come work for me as he had once before But because he switched positions without enough "accomplishments" during that year's marking period.. .his very good but not great evaluation did not earn him a promotion. Out he went. The other guy had a weak performance period one year because his 5 year old daughter was going blind and my boss said he was missing too much work and others had to cover for him. Though I tried to help these guys, the system ate them up and I still regret it to this day.

Oh, and putting ones life on the line is rarely brought up in the military on matters like this.... heck lots of people do in all kinds of jobs. The military doesn't compare its members to the outside.....the competition is from within..
 
Last edited:
He has not been reinstated. If things worked like you think they should. Our military would be dysfunctional. If they effect policy by leaking to the press, they'll be just as useful and worthwhile as your average Senator or Congressman. We have enough of those cesspools in our Government now.

There’s an even better way to limit leaks to the media: don’t f**k up. Notice I didn’t say “eliminate leaks“ because news organizations will usually publish verified controversies that are in the public interest however they happen to receive the information. It’s called “news” and they publish the information because that’s their job. Leaks can be a nightmare for those who end up being scrutinized but they are often the only way we have of knowing about malfeasance, theft, abuse or incompetence in government (think Watergate, Pentagon papers, or any of the hundreds of other fiascos that we only found out about through leaks over the years).

But not every leak becomes a news story—at least not in responsible news rooms. I know it’s hard for anyone who hasn’t worked in a news room to comprehend the number of “leaks” that go absolutely nowhere because they can’t be substantiated, the leak is deemed to be purely a personal vendetta, it involves true national security or other reasons. There are also, to be sure, organizations that will publish anything they get their hands on. Think Wikileaks, which takes shelter under press freedom rules but operates irresponsibly and without filters, ethics or accountability.

We have, in our culture, a schizophrenic reaction to leaks; usually it depends on whose ox is being gored. The same people who bitch about leaks coming from people within this White House were only too happy to get dirt—by whatever means—on Hillary’s e-mails. The opposite—just switch the names or party affiliations—is also true.

The military has special challenges. It must legitimately operate in secrecy in many cases. However, that too often creates a bubble in which some people in authority believe they will never be accountable to anyone outside the chain of command. When something embarrassing does go public and the wheels come off, they frequently don’t have the ability to manage it—which is what we saw with the TR.

The best defenses against leaks, whistle-blowers or disgruntled employees in a free society are to 1) limit your liability by having practices that are legal, ethical and withstand the laugh and smell tests; 2) put people in positions of authority who understand the media’s role in society and who have the intelligence, skill and ego/temperament to work effectively with them (which Modly clearly had none of) and 3) be prepared to vigorously and credibly defend your behavior in the court of public opinion.

Vilifying the leaker just looks like you’ve got something to hide. Unless there proves to be nothing of substance in the allegation, it almost always backfires. And blaming the media for outing stupid behavior, calling it “the enemy of the people,” or pretending it shouldn’t do what it exists to do when the s**t hits the fan is the weakest and most ineffective response possible.
 
You know what. I usually try to stay out of these kinds of discussions, but having read all the above, because the story is so relevant to the unprecedented situations that we are all having to face, and the tricky decisions necessitated by them, I have hung in there. I now believe I at least understand why it is that often, (to us mere civilians anyway), members of the military seem to be treated so badly, when push comes to shove, by their own.

Maybe it's naive, but I feel that when someone is willing, by being in the military, to put their life on the line if necessary to protect us mere civilians if the worst should happen, that occasionally when they act like in a rather human way to a given situation, where it is easy to condemn that action with the benefit of hindsight, they be given a little bit of the benefit of the doubt..? But no. Apparently not..! Apparently to hold command they have to be perfect. Yet no-one is, so how does that work..?

Words like 'judgemental', 'unforgiving', 'hypercritical' and 'holier than thou' keep springing to my mind for some reason..? Or was this really all just a great big exercise for many, (not all), in taking the opportunity to show our military knowledge superiority..? I'll let others be the judge on that...

PS. Has Captain Crozier been reinstated or not..? I hope he has, but hey...what do I know..?

Your point is well taken, Peter, but... as others have pointed out, the military can be (NOT always) a harsh moral landscape at the higher level of command. It was always easier to be a little more relaxed in the lower levels when appropriate, but the higher you go...

The classic article, by a civilian, which follows is handed to every US Naval Officer (including me) who takes command of a ship in our Navy. It speaks to a horrific situation, not the moral issue we are discussing here, but it sort of sets the tone about unavoidable responsibility and accountability of command.

HOBSON’s Choice

the historic editorial that appeared in the May 14, 1952 edition of the Wall Street Journal after the deadly collision between the USS Wasp and USS Hobson

One night past some thirty thousand tons of ships went hurtling at each other through the darkness. When they had met, two thousand tons of ship and a hundred and seventy-six men lay at the bottom of the sea in a far off place.
Now comes the cruel business of accountability. Those who were there, those who are left from those who were there, must answer how it happened and whose was the error that made it happen.
It is a cruel business because it was no wish of destruction that killed this ship and its hundred and seventy-six men; the accountability lies with good men who erred in judgment under stress so great that it is almost its own excuse. Cruel, because no matter how deep the probe, it cannot change the dead, because it cannot probe deeper the remorse.
And it seems crueler still, because all around us in other places we see the plea accepted that what is done is done beyond discussion, and that for good men in their human errors there should be afterwards no accountability.
We are told it is all to no avail to review so late the course that led to the crash of Pearl Harbor; to debate the courses set at Yalta and Potsdam; to inquire how it is that one war won leaves us only with wreckage and with two worlds still hurtling at each other through the darkness. To inquire into these things now, we are reminded, will not change the dead in Schofield Barracks or on Heartbreak Ridge, nor will it change the dying that will come after the wrong courses.
We are told too how slanderous it is to probe into the doings of a Captain now dead who cannot answer for himself, to hold him responsible for what he did when he was old and tired and when he did what he did under terrible stresses and from the best of intentions. How useless to debate the wrong courses of his successor, caught up in a storm not of his own devising. How futile to talk of what is past when the pressing question is how to keep from sinking.
Everywhere else we are told how inhuman it is to submit men to the ordeal of answering for themselves. To haul them before committees and badger them with questions as to where they were and what they were doing while the ship of state careened from one course to another.
This probing into the sea seems more merciless because almost everywhere else we have abandoned accountability. What is done is done and why torture men with asking them afterwards, why?
Whom do we hold answerable for the sufferance of dishonesty in government, for the reckless waste of public moneys, for the incompetence that wrecks the currency, for the blunders that killed and still kill many times a hundred and seventy-six men in Korea? We can bring to bar the dishonest men, yes. But we are told men should no longer be held accountable for what they do as well as for what they intend. To err is not only human; it absolves responsibility.
Everywhere, that is, except on the sea. On the sea there is a tradition older even then the traditions of the country itself and wiser in its age than this new custom. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority and with them both goes accountability.
This accountability is not for the intentions but for the deed. The captain of a ship, like the captain of a state, is given honor and privileges and trust beyond other men. But let him set the wrong course, let him touch ground, let him bring disaster to his ship or to his men, and he must answer for what he has done. No matter what, he cannot escape.
No one knows yet what happened on the sea after that crash in the night. But nine men left the bridge of the sinking ship and went into the darkness. Eight men came back to tell what happened there. The ninth, whatever happened, will not answer now because he has already answered for his accountability.
It is cruel, this accountability of good and well-intentioned men. But the choice is that or an end to responsibility and finally, as the cruel sea has taught, an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead, for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do.
And when men lose confidence and trust in those who lead, order disintegrates into chaos and purposeful ships into uncontrollable derelicts.
The enormous burden of this responsibility and accountability for the lives and careers of other men and often, the outcome of great issues, is the genesis of the liberality which distinguishes the orders to officers commanding ships of the United States Navy.

Wall Street Journal May 14, 1952

It may well come out some day that Captain Crozier knew well what he was doing when he widely released his letter in an effort to save his crew and was quite willing to fall on his sword as the person responsible for his actions and accountable to the nation for the welfare of his crew. Time will tell, and whether or not he is reinstated may not be the most important thing in his life right now.
 
I would have to write a book point by point to dispute a lot of post #96..... but just dont have the energy anymore to try and discuss how the military is like and not like the civilian world.

Heck, it has it's own military justice system because of some of those differences.

Believe what you want, but I would be surprised if the real underlying issues in this case are high level personal ones as much as "standard issue" ones.
 
::iagree:
Two questions
Why did you need to use a memo to communicate.
Did you contact your superior in the chain of command prior to sending the memo.
 
I would have to write a book point by point to dispute a lot of post #96..... but just dont have the energy anymore to try and discuss how the military is like and not like the civilian world.

Heck, it has it's own military justice system because of some of those differences.

Believe what you want, but I would be surprised if the real underlying issues in this case are high level personal ones as much as "standard issue" ones.

It’s your latter point I was mostly addressing, Scott. I worked with dozens of ex-military in my career—from middle ranks to admirals. They tended to be the most technically astute, dedicated and productive people I encountered. Also the ones I tended to like and get along with best. As a group, however, they often had the hardest time adapting to issues outside the insular system they were trained in — especially, God forbid, public issues involving the media. A few were brilliant at it. Some were sidetracked after abortive attempts and some flamed out spectacularly.

Does anyone really think they could have kept a lid on a large Covid outbreak on the TR? Even if Crozier hadn’t deviated from protocol, the Navy still had a massive PR problem to deal with and Modly did about everything possible to make it worse.
 
::iagree:
Two questions
Why did you need to use a memo to communicate.
Did you contact your superior in the chain of command prior to sending the memo.

What if the answers to these questions were:

—“Because my concerns that dozens of sailors under my command would die unnecessarily were falling on deaf ears.”

and

—“Yes, I did.” (?)
 
The trouble but yet beauty of the military is that "deaf ears" might be part of the chain of command. Going past them puts you in the crosshairs of all kinds of trouble. An airtight exit strategy is critical.

Did a smart guy like the captain really think everyone above him was NOT going to recognize the fact of needless deaths?

Sounds like a lot of TF posts where the poster thinks the other guy is really slow or hasn't already done a lot of homework.

Did the ships safety officer make contact with the Navy Safety Center? If not, they have some juice there and can point out dangers with authority (and importantly within normal channels). Wonder how many different official pressure points were pushed before " the email"?

I am the reverse....I worked with the media enough over the years to recognize good reporting and agenda pushing. Its soooooo easy to leave out a few obvious details that make a story sound different to " non critical thinkers".

I comment in this thread for a reason....and stay out of the others that are soaked in repeated media "news bits".
 
Last edited:
Ok, guys, I shall make a tactical withdrawal at this point. But I will say this. None of the responses has made the situation any better from where I stand. Maybe more understandable...but not better.

Maybe those posts by HiDHo and Angus99 hit the nail, if there was one, on the head where they said...

Originally Posted by HiDHo...

Two questions;

Why did you need to use a memo to communicate?
Did you contact your superior in the chain of command prior to sending the memo?


Angus99 replied...

What if the answers to these questions were:

—“Because my concerns that dozens of sailors under my command would die unnecessarily were falling on deaf ears.”

and

—“Yes, I did.” (?)


I might close by mis-quoting a certain rather abrasive character form a rather iconic movie, but it seems to fit.

"The brass just couldn't handle the truth?"

Loss of face, and all that. So, there needed to be a scape-goat..? What happens next will be really revealing...as to whether anything good was learnt from this whole sorry business - or not..? :flowers:
 
Last edited:
If one reads what the "brass" had to do to make things happen (one link prior discussed the obstacles).... it shouldn't be a stretch to see why the bottom and top of the food chain weren't necessarily on the same page. Disagreements happen all the time....how they are resolved before a command is relieved is crucial and often a few alternatives work without damaging one's career.

"Better" is not really even pertinent....former sr officers have explained some of the nuances of service and career. Captains are relieved of command for all sorts of reasons, many probably for less of a big deal than this one.
 
Last edited:
Over in the "Understahding the Coronavirus" thread....it sounds like a similar issue with a police officer disagreeing with policy.

Sure its different... but step back far enough ....
 
Arleigh Burke - “The difference between a good officer and a poor one is about ten seconds.”

Crozier blew his 10 seconds.
 
What if the answers to these questions were:

—“Because my concerns that dozens of sailors under my command would die unnecessarily were falling on deaf ears.”

and

—“Yes, I did.” (?)

Because in the chain of command, deaf ears go all the way to the Commander in Chief. Not likely that he needed to go out side of the c of c.
I would hope that the Captain had his medical department battling the virus while he was asking for help. Navy ships officer’s and crew are trained to battle total conventional warfare that includes nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Battling the virus should have used that training along with the ships hospital medical staff expertise. Also part of the battle training would be relying on adaptation to fit any situation.
 
Last edited:
Because in the chain of command, deaf ears go all the way to the Commander in Chief. Not likely that he needed to go out side of the c of c.
I would hope that the Captain had his medical department battling the virus while he was asking for help. Navy ships officer’s and crew are trained to battle total conventional warfare that includes nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Battling the virus should have used that training along with the ships hospital medical staff expertise. Also part of the battle training would be relying on adaptation to fit any situation.

I hear you. I do recognize the complexity of this issue and respect your position. Not arguing that it’s an easy, slam-dunk for Crozier, his supporters or his critics.

Apparently there is considerable debate within the military itself between traditionalists and modernists over when it is proper to step outside the chain of command.

https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_and_the_military_professional

One excerpt: If an officer decides that an order is rendered unconscionable by its probable consequences, it follows that he has a moral obligation to dispute the order and, if unsuccessful, to dissent in a manner that has the best chance of averting those consequences, or his dissent is rendered meaningless. Resignation is his ultimate option, but he may choose to take other steps prior to that (for instance, requesting an audience with the President or with the Senate Armed Service Committee). Following resignation, he may decide to "go public" by speaking to the media.
 
Going back as far as I have studied....WWII and certainly my career between 1977-2000.....if there are traditionalists or modern thinkers, it has little do with decisions made under the current chain of command.

That divide has always been there but it is morals and ethics that divide.

Most officers would support the captain...but it is how he proceeded that things unravel

Until you have had those decisions thrust upon you multiple times, I submit that understanding what happened is going to be fuzzy.

I think plenty of non-military people face the same decisions....it's not a military thing solely...it just might happen there more frequently. So I am not on any high horse, just that every day I meet people who don't get absolute leadership and chain of command. Rarely saw it in small business after I retired...but saw where it may be important
 
Last edited:
I would hope that the Captain had his medical department battling the virus while he was asking for help. Navy ships officer’s and crew are trained to battle total conventional warfare that includes nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Battling the virus should have used that training along with the ships hospital medical staff expertise. Also part of the battle training would be relying on adaptation to fit any situation.

Of course the ship's medical team was fighting the good fight, but it was hopeless once that devil was aboard. However, I do NOT see any connection between fighting NBC warfare and controlling a disease as infectious as Covid19 aboard ship - NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER. No training I ever received in 24 years of service in six different ships in the US Navy could have prepared me to fight off a disease like this rampaging through compartments sleeping many people with only several feet from mouth to mouth. Heck, we cannot control it ashore, how do you expect it to be controlled aboard a crowded ship - look at what happened on cruise ships with FAR less crowded living conditions.
 
Arleigh Burke - “The difference between a good officer and a poor one is about ten seconds.”

Crozier blew his 10 seconds.

And you know this how? You might want to wait for the US Navy to make a final decision before dropping your own ax on the man because even within the DOD at more informed circles than this thread there is obvious disagreement.
 
I see that there is another outbreak aboard: a sailor neglected to inform the appropriate personnel that he had lost the sense of taste and smell. He was put ashore, tested and found to be positive. I guess it’s not that easy to disinfect and entire aircraft carrier.
 
Of course the ship's medical team was fighting the good fight, but it was hopeless once that devil was aboard. However, I do NOT see any connection between fighting NBC warfare and controlling a disease as infectious as Covid19 aboard ship - NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER. No training I ever received in 24 years of service in six different ships in the US Navy could have prepared me to fight off a disease like this rampaging through compartments sleeping many people with only several feet from mouth to mouth. Heck, we cannot control it ashore, how do you expect it to be controlled aboard a crowded ship - look at what happened on cruise ships with FAR less crowded living conditions.

The background training for NBC exposure should at least tell you to ID symptoms, isolate in compartments, and treat. Granted Capt Crozier’s actions based on peace time operations meant head for land, but all I’m saying is you fight the “devil” with what you have.
Maybe my 22 years of service on seven ships, 21 months in the Viet Nam combat zone gave me a different way of looking at this situation. MCPO USN Retired
Thanks for your service Captain
 
Last edited:
While true that ship operations and the B in NBC may not directly relate to NBC drills...but then shame on the medical corps for not taking ship contamination further.

Again, responding to this in peacetime allows for deviations....but like people on cruise ships or in Manhattan, NY living in high rises.....extraordinary things had to be done and quick. Not sure POTUS, the CDC, the military, governors and others are being treated fairly for handling things....

The captain in this case had the right idea and sense of urgency...unfortunately life doesn't always allow correct decisions to be executed in a timely manner.
 
Last edited:
Like everyone said in other threads, follow the science. it's foolproof.

Yep science has nailed every turn,too bad everyone hasn't followed the science advice to the letter.

;)
 
Like everyone said in other threads, follow the science. it's foolproof.
Yep science has nailed every turn,too bad everyone hasn't followed the science advice to the letter.
;)
Foolproof? The scientific method may be foolproof but there's no stopping a fool
from making a foolish statement. Fortunately science doesn't care what you believe.
 
I hope you aren't calling me a fool.

I have been reading just like everyone else... so pretty much no one on TF has airtight answers any more than anyone else.

And every day enough changes to prove it.

I would like to keep the only thread I feel like I can really contribute on to the point....while true my post has a bit of sarcasm directed at all the coronavirus self appointed experts.... my comments do somewhat reflect how the Navy can't really react fast enough to come up with "surefire" actions, policies, procedures, etc...etc....and what can happen to a chain of command deluged with conflicting and fast changing info.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom