Navy leaders recommend reinstating the Roosevelt captain fired over a virus warning.

https://www.facebook.com/wmycroft/vi...64687250213217

What does this have to do with Houston?

good post Boardman. let me ask you this. suppose you were Captain Crozier, and as you are working your way up the chain of command, your guys are dying. (think cruise ships and aircraft carriers where many people are in close quarters.) what would you do, all things considered? just wait patiently on the chain of command?

also the person who leaked the email to the press is a jackass. only high level brass even received the email. i suspect there was one hater in the bunch who knew that Crozier's command could be jeopardized by publication in the press. Originally Posted by pxmcc

As an officer in charge of an ACC, a M1 Abrams, an F35 or a platoon of riflemen I would follow orders and the Constitutional paradigm. If my orders are to try and contain the virus aboard ship then that's what I do while I make pleas to my superiors and ultimately resign my post as I have worked my way through all prescribes solutions to the dilemma which always point me back to the Constitutional paradigm.

The fact that you even asked me that question tells me you didn't read the abstract I posted nor the opinion piece in the National review written by a Naval academy graduate and former Navy officer. So let me sum it up for you. You sir would be one of those officers that are characterized as stuck in moral understanding. Incapable of reflection on the purpose of rules, standards and beliefs or perhaps even outright rejection of them.

Captain Crozier was responsible for more than the lives on his ship. His transgression was not fighting for his crew's safety. It was putting them in more peril by using an unsecured channel to make that plea knowing those transmissions could and most likely would be intercepted. The moral dilemma he faced is not new. It's why all officers are taught how to come back to a grounding in the order of importance.

The ship was attacked. If N Korea had attacked the Roosevelt would you expect the captain to beg to retreat? No, you would expect him to maneuver and fight until reinforcements arrive and join the fight or relieve you. You seem to want everything to happen immediately but use hindsight to make those calls every time. Do you realize that ship was in one of the most volatile areas of the world? Do you realize that leaving that position put American lives and allied interests in danger? Do you realize that it takes more than a day to figure out how to reassign a CSG or tack force to cover that responsibility and then get it there? If we had pulled that ACC without a backup plan and something had happened that it could have prevented you would have been criticizing Trump for turning his back on those lives or interests. That's how you operate. 20/20 hindsight.

So far 1 sailor has died, 4 others have been hospitalized. Men and women in the military die every day. It sounds like the Roosevelt has become quite the laboratory.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...rrier-outbreak

gotcha. were you in the military?

one more thing. if his transgression was so bad, why did the Chief of Naval Operations recommend his reinstatement?

lol sir. i went to law school and i dont remember any of that crap. must've been half asleep during the lecture..

Perhaps I learned it in law school.

gotcha. were you in the military?

one more thing. if his transgression was so bad, why did the Chief of Naval Operations recommend his reinstatement?

lol sir.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

That's exactly what the Chairman of the JCOS wants to know.


Putting Crozier back in command of that ship is sowing seeds of discontent.

I’m ok with restoration his command. Never let him communicate outside of channels again, or face execution. Those without military background fuck
off or die. Preferably the latter.

Nothing. Good catch. Still, restore control command and execute on further betrayal.

He needs to continue his career on another ship.


Reacting to pressure from those that used to be under is command is a bad idea. It's not a popularity contest, and he doesn't need to be in a position where those that work for him think it was their job/assistance that got him back. He also does not need to feel a sense of obligation to those serving in his command for his position.




.

Follow up to this story.



Looks like more information was uncovered and I thinks he's done................




https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/06...brett-crozier/

In a live-streamed Pentagon press briefing alongside Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite, Admiral Michael Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated:

“I will not reassign Captain Brett Crozier as the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, nor will he be eligible for future command. Captain Crozier will be reassigned.”

Gilday said that the determination to uphold the relief of Crozier was not due to the sending of the email or its subsequent leaking, but rather due to what Crozier did not do during the crisis, which included adherence to guidelines on handling patients, enforcing social distancing measures and communicating clearly with his chain of command. He added that had he known what he knew today, he would not have made the initial recommendation to reinstate Crozier, saying that “if Captain Crozier were still in command today, I would be relieving him. ”

Yeah, there was obviously more to that story as I kept trying to point out. Crozier did not fall back on his training and the established protocols of decision making. Briathwaite was right to pump the brakes and get to the bottom of it.