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 don't think a man who was raised to the ranks commanding a ship, not just any ship but the pride of the fleet, a carrier, after years of service and knowing exactly what that entails is casual with his command.
Which is why I said he wasn't relieved of command, he voluntarily resigned his command because he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, how/why it was a gross violation of chain of command, and why such violations cannot and will not be tolerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
What I see here is a courageous man, knowing he is risking his career, to save the lives of his crew, a totally selfless act on his part. There is no higher calling other than facing death for them himself.
What I see is a moron who chose a "cure" that is far worse than the disease. A commanding officer with >6,000 people under his command who wrecks faith in chain of command, especially during a crisis, is creating an explosive and dangerous situation for the entire crew, the ship itself and national security. We are talking about warship with I can't even calculate how much firepower and destructive capability, paid for by the ill gotten gains Leviathan has from robbing you, me and every other taxpayer, and now let's erode faith in the chain of command and have the officers/crew of said vessel disregard chain of command and the mission. Yeah, take a bad idea and make infinitely worse. Good plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
We have had all too many institutions protecting themselves with a code of silence: Universities and other schools, Boy Scouts, churches, Police Departments etc. and the military is right up there with them. In case of fire, break glass.
In the military case, you never break the glass of chain of command. Be in it or don't, but if you are in it, the only way you keep that many knuckleheads with that much access to the machinery of death and destruction from killing themselves and others is by a rigid code of operation called the chain of command and the faith therein. Exceptions to those rules gets people killed, often by the thousands.
You are not seeing the larger picture of the entire organization, its mission, what it's capable of and how freaking scary it would be if said organization went off the rails with the same retardation inducing hysteria the rest of the populace is suffering from.
You hate Trump. Got it. I hate him too, same as every politician currently holding office. Does not excuse a CO from doing literally one of the worst things any senior officer can possibly do while in command, and the justification is meaningless. Death is part of the military bargain. Read the contract. Individual needs are absolutely subordinate to the mission, and you swear and affirm that you get that and will live by same while a member of said organization.
Not a good scenario. The better scenario would be the troops were all sick, throwing up, fever, etc, should they go on with the landings given half the troops can hardly function normally, let alone fight?
More accurately should he put uncoded message out the USS Infected is pulling out of the line thus telling the enemy to shift their firing onto another unit.
Absolutely correct. There is a chain of command, and a system to follow. If the CO of that ship violated the chain of command and or the system which he did by leaking, then he earned what follows.
For those who never served, you will never get it. I would wager the majority of those crying about that Captain's plight, have never served, never would serve, and only care because they think they can hammer Trump with it.
If people think that Naval Leadership don't give a damn about an Aircraft Carrier, its battle group and its mission effectiveness they have smoked too much crack.
That CO had options, he chose poorly.
He exposed indifference and incompetence. Nothing to do with serving or not.
He cares about those who serve under him and that's a bad thing???? Unlike those who think that defending other nations borders and being policemen of the world while sacrificing our sons and daughters,. They have smoked too much crack. And I'm talking about everyone who has voted for the war mongers like Trump and Obama and Bush and.....
What I see here is a courageous man, knowing he is risking his career, to save the lives of his crew, a totally selfless act on his part. There is no higher calling other than facing death for them himself.
^^^^^^^^This. I can't Rep you enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat335
The Chain of command are going to tell him not to worry about it and shut up. The chain of command doesn't give a damn about anything but it's next paycheck and self preservation.
^^^^^^^^And this. Remember, The 7th Fleet Commander, VADM Joseph Aucoin, repeatedly warned PACFLT command that the OPTEMPO (among other things) of 7th Fleet ships was degrading the ability of those ships to carry out their mission. PACFLT command did nothing. Then the USS MCCAIN and USS FITZGERALD collide with commercial shipping, killing sailors and severely damaging both ships. And Aucoin is relieved of command. That's what blindly following the chain of command gets you. Dead sailors.
I suspect that the TR skipper REPEATEDLY discussed the issue with the BG commander and NOTHING HAPPENED. And CAPT Crozer decided to go public, likely knowing it would end his career. I saw it time and time again in my career: commanders paying lip service to "take car of your sailors," and then those commanders doing exactly what was good for THEM, regardless of the effect it had on those under his command.
Keep in mind also: the day before acting SECNAV announced CAPT Crozer's relief for cause, he affirmed to the media that Crozer would not be punished for raising the alarm. I guess his attitude was "adjusted."
Actually that is how the military operates, but you just have to do it the correct way. If his immediate command was not responding, then he suppose to go to the higher command, keeping the immediate command in the loop.
A few sick people on a ship is actually a big deal, it can knock a ship out of commission, been there, done that, stuck in a port for two weeks because of a norovirus outbreak, and in this case, having an entire carrier complete with air wing is a huge deal, as that carrier is not going to operate with a 1000 sick people wondering around.
Still waiting for more info, like did he send it to 30 different people all at once as his first reporting of this? How much time between his reporting to his command and then leaked the info? Etc.
I didn't say a few sick people on a ship isn't a big deal, I said the people above him in the chain of command have to make life-or-death decisions that involve more than a ship with sick soldiers on it. How his superiors address that problem is part of a broader strategic landscape they're responsible for. Until the CO rises high enough in the ranks to also make those decisions, his job is to keep his superiors apprised of the situation and await further instruction.
^^^^^^^^And this. Remember, The 7th Fleet Commander, VADM Joseph Aucoin, repeatedly warned PACFLT command that the OPTEMPO (among other things) of 7th Fleet ships was degrading the ability of those ships to carry out their mission. PACFLT command did nothing. Then the USS MCCAIN and USS FITZGERALD collide with commercial shipping, killing sailors and severely damaging both ships. And Aucoin is relieved of command. That's what blindly following the chain of command gets you. Dead sailors.
I suspect that the TR skipper REPEATEDLY discussed the issue with the BG commander and NOTHING HAPPENED. And CAPT Crozer decided to go public, likely knowing it would end his career. I saw it time and time again in my career: commanders paying lip service to "take car of your sailors," and then those commanders doing exactly what was good for THEM, regardless of the effect it had on those under his command.
Keep in mind also: the day before acting SECNAV announced CAPT Crozer's relief for cause, he affirmed to the media that Crozer would not be punished for raising the alarm. I guess his attitude was "adjusted."
--
Agreed.
B-b-b-but just following orders.
Disobey unlawful ones. The oath “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 04-03-2020 at 11:56 AM..
Go back and read why he was relieved and come back.
It had more to do with going outside chain of command, leaking/releasing classified information, sending that information over an unsecured network and releasing that information to people unauthorized to receive it.
One would hope that he would have been relieved of command under any Administration. It's not always about Trump, the Navy and its regulations predates him and will continue when he leaves office, whenever that is.
The truth will not stand in the way of any opportunity to bash the Trump administration.
Not a good scenario. The better scenario would be the troops were all sick, throwing up, fever, etc, should they go on with the landings given half the troops can hardly function normally, let alone fight?
I believe the word you are looking for is "analogy" and the answer is absolutely yes, continue on if that is the command.
THAT is what being supported, looks and sounds like.
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.
