Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
It probably helps to have spent four years in the Coast Guard to gain an insight into these types of situations. Not that anything remotely like this has ever happened in the Naval Command, as far as I am aware. There are wheels within wheels within wheels working here.
• What was the actual response within the command structure to Captain Crozier's initial report and request for assistance?
• Captain Crozier's immediate commanding officer, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the carrier strike group commander, was living on the carrier at the time. Logically, Captain Crozier would have consulted with him regarding the situation. What was the nature of their relationship, and his response to the situation?
• After the letter became public, the normal internal review process was preempted by the former Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, a civilian who fired Captain Crozier, and then made a point of publicly being incredibly offensive towards him. It is a certainty that the naval command who would have normally conducted the review of the situation was not pleased by this bypass.
• There was public speculation about the possibility of discipline or punishment of Captain Crozier after the letter became public. Admiral Michael Gilday, the Navy's top officer, publicly stated that this would be unlikely under the circumstances. Admiral Gilday was then totally undercut by Modley, a civilian.
• Trump initially publicly berated Captain Crozier, and there was public speculation that the firing by Modley was an effort to please Trump. When there was a major public backlash, Trump did his usual instant 180 and backed off on his comments.
• With Modley out of the way, Admiral Gilday was then in a position to recommend restoration of Captain Crozier. I would dearly love to have been able to overhear the internal conversations as the top Navy brass talked over all of this.
From my thinking ... Captain Crozier is a modern day George Patton for all the reasons that rono noted in his above post. Perhaps, he had no choice but to govern in the manner he did. The question to be now answered is Why? Since, this has now become public information ... I'm sure the NAVY will continue to release more information as time goes on about this matter. I'm also thinking that the Commander In Chief pushed for the NAVY to revisit this matter as well. Usually, a Captain faces a hearing before being relieved of command. No such hearing was granted to Captain Crozier. With this, did not the NAVY break it's own code of conduct? Seems there is some smoke here ... now, we need to find the fire. Something, is going on here without being said.
And, perhaps ... the easy way to navigate around this is to restore the Captain to his command.
We still have not heard what led up to the letter being released to the media. Did he try to go through official channels and was ignored/rebuffed? Keep in mind who didn't want any negative publicity during those days. Also, what was his immediate supervisor, who was living onboard, saying/doing during all this?
• It seems clear that for whatever reason the normal chain-of-command channels were not responsive, at least not in a timely manner.
• It is a matter of record that Trump was publicly furious at the actions of Captain Crozier.
• Motley, the "acting" Navy secretary, had extensive experience as a former naval aviator. He certainly knew that the proper way to handle this was to allow the normal internal review process to operate. He obviously chose to deliberately circumvent that process.
• One can only speculate as to his reasons for that. An effort to pander to Trump is certainly a prime possibility.
From my thinking ... Captain Crozier is a modern day George Patton for all the reasons that rono noted in his above post. Perhaps, he had no choice but to govern in the manner he did. The question to be now answered is Why? Since, this has now become public information ... I'm sure the NAVY will continue to release more information as time goes on about this matter. I'm also thinking that the Commander In Chief pushed for the NAVY to revisit this matter as well. Usually, a Captain faces a hearing before being relieved of command. No such hearing was granted to Captain Crozier. With this, did not the NAVY break it's own code of conduct? Seems there is some smoke here ... now, we need to find the fire. Something, is going on here without being said.
And, perhaps ... the easy way to navigate around this is to restore the Captain to his command.
My prediction: restoration of command; in six months or so a quiet reassignment to a dead-end desk job with a fancy title... never to be promoted again. I really hope that I'm absolutely wrong on this one.
Comments
• What was the actual response within the command structure to Captain Crozier's initial report and request for assistance?
• Captain Crozier's immediate commanding officer, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the carrier strike group commander, was living on the carrier at the time. Logically, Captain Crozier would have consulted with him regarding the situation. What was the nature of their relationship, and his response to the situation?
• After the letter became public, the normal internal review process was preempted by the former Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, a civilian who fired Captain Crozier, and then made a point of publicly being incredibly offensive towards him. It is a certainty that the naval command who would have normally conducted the review of the situation was not pleased by this bypass.
• There was public speculation about the possibility of discipline or punishment of Captain Crozier after the letter became public. Admiral Michael Gilday, the Navy's top officer, publicly stated that this would be unlikely under the circumstances. Admiral Gilday was then totally undercut by Modley, a civilian.
• Trump initially publicly berated Captain Crozier, and there was public speculation that the firing by Modley was an effort to please Trump. When there was a major public backlash, Trump did his usual instant 180 and backed off on his comments.
• With Modley out of the way, Admiral Gilday was then in a position to recommend restoration of Captain Crozier. I would dearly love to have been able to overhear the internal conversations as the top Navy brass talked over all of this.
Good. A commander standing up for their troops's well-being is never a bad thing.
This is one of the tragic ironies you sometimes see in the military. He broke the rules and should be disciplined. Period.
He's a hero to his men, the USN and the country and should be decorated. Period.
A hero sacrifices theirselves to save others. He knew when he went public he was toast. And did it anyway.
And yes, he should be reinstated.
And so it goes
Peace and Flatten the Curve
Rono
And, perhaps ... the easy way to navigate around this is to restore the Captain to his command.
I suspect he tried to go thru channels but someone decided Trump wouldn't like it because it would be bad press . . . and said No.
Oh well,
Rono
• It seems clear that for whatever reason the normal chain-of-command channels were not responsive, at least not in a timely manner.
• It is a matter of record that Trump was publicly furious at the actions of Captain Crozier.
• Motley, the "acting" Navy secretary, had extensive experience as a former naval aviator. He certainly knew that the proper way to handle this was to allow the normal internal review process to operate. He obviously chose to deliberately circumvent that process.
• One can only speculate as to his reasons for that. An effort to pander to Trump is certainly a prime possibility.