JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[MDlaxfan76]

He confirmed that the entire Navy Medical CoC was fully engaged throughout, from the med team & senior medical officer on the TR, up through the 7thFLT & PACFLT Surgeons, to him. He confirmed that they heard Crozier's concerns, even before his letter, & were already taking action. Help was on the way.

So you & Crozier were better qualified to advise than the fully engaged Navy Medical CoC on the proper course of action ?

Good night Gracie.

Sorry, that's not actually what he says.
You may want to read that into it, but it's not there.

He confirms that they moved faster post letter, and suggests they're doing a good job now.
I take no exception to what he actually says, which was your original question, whether I believed him or not.

Here are the Navy Surgeon General's words.
He confirms that the entire Navy Medical CoC was in the loop.
He confirms that they were aware of Crozier's concerns.
Show us the words that confirm they are now moving faster & would have done anything differently had the contents of letter been conveyed via proper channels :

ADM. GILLINGHAM: Just perhaps the medical response, sir. And I’d like to reassure everyone as the surgeon general that I have been in contact with the senior medical officer aboard the ship and the entire medical chain of command – the 7th Fleet surgeon, the Pacific Fleet surgeon – and I’m aware he expressed some of this concerns to us. I communicated those to the chain – medical chain of command. I will tell you that even prior to the letter that we anticipated they would need additional medical support. So in conjunction with Naval Hospital Guam, which is a full service hospital, as well as 55 members of the 3rd Medical Battalion from Okinawa, we have created a medical task force. So they are there to support the observation and treatment as necessary of those crew members who are – who are positive.
As the secretary of the Navy emphasized, none of those sailors have required hospitalization either aboard the ship or at Naval Hospital Guam. We will continue to monitor their condition. We believe that their relative health and youth is in their favor. We’re not assuming that they won’t become more ill. But so far, indications are that they will continue to be mildly symptomatic and recover without sequelae.

You are correct that he didn't say "we were moving slow and then we accelerated", but this was in a series of questions in which the prior answers given by others did indeed admit that. Gillingham did not contradict their responses, he focused on "yes I heard him and I communicated that to others"...and "We are taking action now".

Again, I take no exception to his words. Just the implication you want to make.

Heck, I don't even take exception to anything Gillingham did or did not do, not just his words in a press conference. We really don't know whether he was privately urging faster response, faster removal of crew, or whether he too was concerned with how it would look to Trump. Frankly, I'd bet on the former if I had to place a bet. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

But Modly is clearly altogether another matter.
Seriously, what did you expect these guys to do in a press conference with their boss?
Say 'the boss was moving slow, we all disagreed with him'???

[LandM]

Far,
Modley did himself and the Navy a disservice with his commentary. I thought I was clear about that BUT they BOTH got emotional and that cannot happen. Two USNA grads that your tax dollars paid for relieved and rightly so. Modley's speech was unwarranted and I am assuming it was pure emotions. Separation since we are practicing that is they BOTH were wrong.

MD,
Keep trying. You have NO flipping idea what or where the crew was going. Yes we are still in combat, go over to Iraq and pound some dirt oh wait how about Afghanistan. Take a trip through Libya and Yemen then try Iran. You have no flipping clue where they were going or what they were going to do and you have no flipping clue as to what combat troops on the ground are doing or where they are going. Way above your pay-grade.

[MDlaxfan76]

Far,
Modley did himself and the Navy a disservice with his commentary. I thought I was clear about that BUT they BOTH got emotional and that cannot happen. Two USNA grads that your tax dollars paid for relieved and rightly so. Modley's speech was unwarranted and I am assuming it was pure emotions. Separation since we are practicing that is they BOTH were wrong.

MD,
Keep trying. You have NO flipping idea what or where the crew was going. Yes we are still in combat, go over to Iraq and pound some dirt oh wait how about Afghanistan. Take a trip through Libya and Yemen then try Iran. You have no flipping clue where they were going or what they were going to do and you have no flipping clue as to what combat troops on the ground are doing or where they are going. Way above your pay-grade.

But not above Crozier's.
I tend to believe his own assessment.
Do I need to quote him?

[Farfromgeneva]

Far,
Modley did himself and the Navy a disservice with his commentary. I thought I was clear about that BUT they BOTH got emotional and that cannot happen. Two USNA grads that your tax dollars paid for relieved and rightly so. Modley's speech was unwarranted and I am assuming it was pure emotions. Separation since we are practicing that is they BOTH were wrong.

MD,
Keep trying. You have NO flipping idea what or where the crew was going. Yes we are still in combat, go over to Iraq and pound some dirt oh wait how about Afghanistan. Take a trip through Libya and Yemen then try Iran. You have no flipping clue where they were going or what they were going to do and you have no flipping clue as to what combat troops on the ground are doing or where they are going. Way above your pay-grade.

Thanks, if you had been clear before I missed it, but got it now. I guess where I fall now is that the higher up the chain, the greater responsibility to do things correctly and the greater cost to the larger number of military personnel as consequence. As such, Modly's behavior reeks, it doesn't seem to be about the personnel and his oversight as much as about himself. At least while I see that Crozier made a mistake/violation and that removal could be a punishment/remedy, it didn't have to be, that's based on the higher person's (Modly) judgement of fitness to lead a ship and given Modly's later behavior, I have to question the decision on punishment as I don't view Modly as being fit to make that aspect of the decision and it does appear that his behavior is having negative consequences on the future of the Navy. I mean even if everyone comes to the conclusion that Crozier had to be removed vs. some other type of penalty less severe within the Navy, the actions after the fact seem to carry more negative costs than Croziers actions. That's my issue.

[old salt]

You are correct that he didn't say "we were moving slow and then we accelerated", but this was in a series of questions in which the prior answers given by others did indeed admit that. Gillingham did not contradict their responses, he focused on "yes I heard him and I communicated that to others"...and "We are taking action now".

Again, I take no exception to his words. Just the implication you want to make.

You're the one conjuring up implications. Show us the words of the others which indicate things were "accelerated" because Crozier chose to convey his words in the manner he chose, rather than via the multiple proper channels readily available to him.

[LandM]

MD,
Quote away still leaves you where you were. You can bit$h, moan, scream and call your teammates a d-bag, but you are still in the same situation. Work the problem, do NOT make the problem worse. The Captain made the problem worse, the SecofNavy made it more worse and the news media and you piled on. You took an asset off the table that you nor I nor anyone on this board knew where it was going. So fire away and you still after all that firepower are back where you started. And yes, we are still in combat whether anyone likes to admit it or not.

[old salt]

Far,
Modley did himself and the Navy a disservice with his commentary. I thought I was clear about that BUT they BOTH got emotional and that cannot happen. Two USNA grads that your tax dollars paid for relieved and rightly so. Modley's speech was unwarranted and I am assuming it was pure emotions. Separation since we are practicing that is they BOTH were wrong.

MD,
Keep trying. You have NO flipping idea what or where the crew was going. Yes we are still in combat, go over to Iraq and pound some dirt oh wait how about Afghanistan. Take a trip through Libya and Yemen then try Iran. You have no flipping clue where they were going or what they were going to do and you have no flipping clue as to what combat troops on the ground are doing or where they are going. Way above your pay-grade.

Thanks, if you had been clear before I missed it, but got it now. I guess where I fall now is that the higher up the chain, the greater responsibility to do things correctly and the greater cost to the larger number of military personnel as consequence. As such, Modly's behavior reeks, it doesn't seem to be about the personnel and his oversight as much as about himself. At least while I see that Crozier made a mistake/violation and that removal could be a punishment/remedy, it didn't have to be, that's based on the higher person's (Modly) judgement of fitness to lead a ship and given Modly's later behavior, I have to question the decision on punishment as I don't view Modly as being fit to make that aspect of the decision and it does appear that his behavior is having negative consequences on the future of the Navy. I mean even if everyone comes to the conclusion that Crozier had to be removed vs. some other type of penalty less severe within the Navy, the actions after the fact seem to carry more negative costs than Croziers actions. That's my issue.

Modley is now unemployed & stigmatized. Crozier remains on active duty, has not been punished (with no indication he will be) & can remain so until he retires with 30 years service. He is now a folk hero. He'll be able to pick his cable channel for a talking head gig. He'll write a book. He's now part of Navy lore. Future commanders will ponder whether or not they should fire off a "Crozier" as a signal flare when the CoC is not giving them what they want as fast as they want it. He's from SF, maybe he'll run to succeed Nancy Pelosi -- he's shown the chops for that job.

[MDlaxfan76]

He confirmed that the entire Navy Medical CoC was fully engaged throughout, from the med team & senior medical officer on the TR, up through the 7thFLT & PACFLT Surgeons, to him. He confirmed that they heard Crozier's concerns, even before his letter, & were already taking action. Help was on the way.

So you & Crozier were better qualified to advise than the fully engaged Navy Medical CoC on the proper course of action ?

Good night Gracie.

Sorry, that's not actually what he says.
You may want to read that into it, but it's not there.

He confirms that they moved faster post letter, and suggests they're doing a good job now.
I take no exception to what he actually says, which was your original question, whether I believed him or not.

Here are the Navy Surgeon General's words.
He confirms that the entire Navy Medical CoC was in the loop.
He confirms that they were aware of Crozier's concerns.
Show us the words that confirm they are now moving faster & would have done anything differently had the contents of letter been conveyed via proper channels :

ADM. GILLINGHAM: Just perhaps the medical response, sir. And I’d like to reassure everyone as the surgeon general that I have been in contact with the senior medical officer aboard the ship and the entire medical chain of command – the 7th Fleet surgeon, the Pacific Fleet surgeon – and I’m aware he expressed some of this concerns to us. I communicated those to the chain – medical chain of command. I will tell you that even prior to the letter that we anticipated they would need additional medical support. So in conjunction with Naval Hospital Guam, which is a full service hospital, as well as 55 members of the 3rd Medical Battalion from Okinawa, we have created a medical task force. So they are there to support the observation and treatment as necessary of those crew members who are – who are positive.
As the secretary of the Navy emphasized, none of those sailors have required hospitalization either aboard the ship or at Naval Hospital Guam. We will continue to monitor their condition. We believe that their relative health and youth is in their favor. We’re not assuming that they won’t become more ill. But so far, indications are that they will continue to be mildly symptomatic and recover without sequelae.

This section:
MODERATOR: Tom Bowman

Q: You know, you keep saying number-one priority is the safety of the sailors. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t you take all of the sailors off the ship, as the captain suggests, and disinfect the ship? He says you have to find lodging for 4,000. It sounds like you still haven’t found that lodging. And, frankly, it seems like there’s a tug of war between the safety of the soldiers, which you say is the number-one priority, and the ability to complete the mission. And we had this conversation last night with the head of the Pacific Fleet. He keeps saying: We have – if there’s a crisis, we have to respond. So again, frankly, isn’t the mission the number-one priority?

SEC. MODLY: Well, you know, that’s the delicate balance that we have to play here. You know, taking all the – taking all the crew off the ship does not leave them safer. You can’t leave a nuclear reactor there running without anybody on the ship.

Q: You have to keep 10 percent onboard to maintain the reactor and so forth.

SEC. MODLY: Right. It’s not just the reactor. It’s more than just the reactor. You have weapons system. You have a variety of other things.

Q: But he laid that out in his letter.

SEC. MODLY: I understand. I understand what he’s saying. We’re doing – we’re basically –

Q: Was he right, though? I mean, you could do it with 10 percent?

SEC. MODLY: I don’t – I don’t believe we can do it with 10 percent. I don’t know, CNO, what’s your position?

ADM. GILDAY: I think the major difference – kind of the eye-opener for us was the fact that he wanted to move at a greater speed to get people off the ship, right? And as he says in the opening paragraph of his letter, hey, look, if we have to fight today we’re ready to take in all lines, get the ship underway, and we’re ready to get in on mission. And so I think that the misunderstanding, perhaps, was the requirement at speed to get people off the ship. And so we had been identifying spaces and getting people off the ship. We are now moving people at speed to get them off – to get them off the ship. And so order to act on a requirement, we have to clearly understand the requirement. And that’s why I spoke, Tom, to a potential comms breakdown wherever it occurred. And we’re not looking to shoot the messenger here. We want to get this right.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll go back to phones. Courtney Kube.

Q: Hi. Thank you. Admiral Gilday, I think this is you who said you think there’s a communications breakdown with the TR crew. Is that correct?

ADM. GILDAY: We haven’t diagnosed that yet. I’m just supposing, if they had a requirement and if we didn’t know – if it wasn’t acted upon, you know, in the manner that the CO – that the CO wanted, you know, there was potentially a break down in communications there at some point.

Q: OK. So I guess my question is really, you know, have you identified that? Because I have to – you know, sort of following on Tom Bowman’s question – like, we – after you guys first came out late last week and announced that there were a couple of cases and they were being flown off the ship, the ship was out at sea. And then we hear soon after, a day or two later, whatever it was that it pulled into Guam, we keep hearing over and over, well, that was a scheduled port visit. So it seems as if there hasn’t been an urgency to respond to this and get the sailors off, when we all know there’s absolutely no way to quarantine or isolate people when you’re on a ship. So I mean, I guess it’s – this communications breakdown, did it occur at the beginning with the TR crew not telling you how significant the potential curve was here, or – I’m just trying to understand a little bit more about that.

ADM. GILDAY: We understood on a day-to-day basis, right, how many cases they had. And so it began with two, and then we saw – we saw a precipitous rise. And so a question, right, in terms of the framework under which they were operating on the ship, is do you test first, as I
mentioned before based on those – based on symptomatic cases, and then isolate – and then move to isolate and quarantine? Or do you flip that approach, and do you quarantine and isolate and then test? And so that’s where we made some adjustments to get people off the ship faster. It’s a difference of approaches, right? It’s a difference of approaches. And perhaps, you know, our understanding now of what his – what his point was. If I could just say something about the commanding officer of the ship, and so that’s an extraordinary responsibility of command. And so he has authorities and he has responsibilities. And so he is also held account for the health and wellbeing of those 4,865 sailors on that ship. He takes it very seriously. And so if he has a difference of approach and he thinks he has a better way to do it, and if he doesn’t feel that, you know, we’re acting at the speed of urgency, then absolutely we need to know about that and we need to – we need to adjust. So I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t – I think that we have quickly responded, and deliberately responded, to the feedback received.

I don't see how one can read this exchange and not see how it embarrassed Modly and that this embarrassment is what led to Crozier's removal. He'd written the letter, it had later hit the press, and this press conference made Modly realize that he was on the hot seat and (according to Modly to Ignatius) he became worried that Trump would get upset and get involved...so, remove Crozier.

[Farfromgeneva]

Far,
Modley did himself and the Navy a disservice with his commentary. I thought I was clear about that BUT they BOTH got emotional and that cannot happen. Two USNA grads that your tax dollars paid for relieved and rightly so. Modley's speech was unwarranted and I am assuming it was pure emotions. Separation since we are practicing that is they BOTH were wrong.

MD,
Keep trying. You have NO flipping idea what or where the crew was going. Yes we are still in combat, go over to Iraq and pound some dirt oh wait how about Afghanistan. Take a trip through Libya and Yemen then try Iran. You have no flipping clue where they were going or what they were going to do and you have no flipping clue as to what combat troops on the ground are doing or where they are going. Way above your pay-grade.

Thanks, if you had been clear before I missed it, but got it now. I guess where I fall now is that the higher up the chain, the greater responsibility to do things correctly and the greater cost to the larger number of military personnel as consequence. As such, Modly's behavior reeks, it doesn't seem to be about the personnel and his oversight as much as about himself. At least while I see that Crozier made a mistake/violation and that removal could be a punishment/remedy, it didn't have to be, that's based on the higher person's (Modly) judgement of fitness to lead a ship and given Modly's later behavior, I have to question the decision on punishment as I don't view Modly as being fit to make that aspect of the decision and it does appear that his behavior is having negative consequences on the future of the Navy. I mean even if everyone comes to the conclusion that Crozier had to be removed vs. some other type of penalty less severe within the Navy, the actions after the fact seem to carry more negative costs than Croziers actions. That's my issue.

Modley is now unemployed & stigmatized. Crozier remains on active duty, has not been punished (with no indication he will be) & can remain so until he retires with 30 years service. He is now a folk hero. He'll be able to pick his cable channel for a talking head gig. He'll write a book. He's now part of Navy lore. Future commanders will ponder whether or not they should fire off a "Crozier" as a signal flare when the CoC is not giving them what they want as fast as they want it. He's from SF, maybe he'll run to succeed Nancy Pelosi -- he's shown the chops for that job.

Well what I see here is certain folks only focused on Crozier and how he ruined all sorts of things within Naval service and general defense of Modly. What I'm reading fro your post here is that you are happy with Modly and angry only at Crozier?

I also don't understand your point regarding future commanders. Do you think so lowly of your own former folks and future Naval officers that they'd mostly or all consider violating the chain of command knowing that removal is a consequence because they'd have decent private sector outcomes? If that's the case then not a single one of them would be fit to lead. You're questioning or accusing the fitness and trust in every future commander based on this one case. Then the entire military complex needs a complete overhaul and every one of them should get blown out and start from scratch. But that's not what you've represented before, rather that this is an outlier and based on training others would not behave this way. That military training, separate and unique from the rest of the country, means commanders and others would never do this because it's not in their training and ethos and now you're telling me because of this one event now all future commanders and suspect? That indictment is pretty big.

And also if I'm clear, removal from command is not, in your opinion, a punishment in any way, shape or form? So commanders have no pride in their leadership?

[cradleandshoot]

It is hard to believe that in his day George Patton was damned near relieved of any command in the US Army because he slapped a soldier. Today as a naval commander you can violate protocol and SOP all day long and yer a freaking hero. Something is really FUBAR here. The sad part is a bunch you folks have absolutely no clue what Crozier did wrong and what is worse, why it was wrong. I remember, the FLP 1st commandment, GOOD INTENTIONS are more important than stupid freaking decisions you make... got it.

[Farfromgeneva]

Everyone acknowledges he violated the chain of command so I don't have any clue why you keep saying people don't understand that. What people don't understand is the specific reaction and behavior of Modly, which OS even said wasn't right. Ever heard of lead by example? I care more about the influence of the people in the top than middle management. But you keep insisting that no one understands or acknowledges the chain of command and I've seen like 15 folks who question the higher up leadership acknowledge the violation, so who are you talking about? Or is this in your head?

[cradleandshoot]

Everyone acknowledges he violated the chain of command so I don't have any clue why you keep saying people don't understand that. What people don't understand is the specific reaction and behavior of Modly, which OS even said wasn't right. Ever heard of lead by example? I care more about the influence of the people in the top than middle management. But you keep insisting that no one understands or acknowledges the chain of command and I've seen like 15 folks who question the higher up leadership acknowledge the violation, so who are you talking about? Or is this in your head?

I keep saying that because certain people here keep saying the captain was justified in his actions. His first obligation was to his mission and what his orders were. There is even one poster here trying to tell us the good captain had no orders, had no mission he was just sailing around on a pleasure cruise just for the hell of it. i understand why the captain did what he did. i just can't understand his reasoning for doing it the way he did. That is not how an experienced, seasoned naval officer responds to the problem at hand. He took actions that he knew were wrong and took his ship out of the fight for the foreseeable future. If that carrier is NEEDED, it won't be able to respond. For those actions any consequences are all on him.

[Farfromgeneva]

Well if you can separate human decisions from ones within the military code of conduct, and clearly many historical military greats have done so, I believe they were saying it was justified on a human/citizen level because some of those folks have explicitly stated that while the action may have been justified that they understand it was a violation of the chain of command. I'm not sure you're really reading the full posts or responding quickly on that.

[old salt]

ADM. GILDAY: I think the major difference – kind of the eye-opener for us was the fact that he wanted to move at a greater speed to get people off the ship, right? And as he says in the opening paragraph of his letter, hey, look, if we have to fight today we’re ready to take in all lines, get the ship underway, and we’re ready to get in on mission. And so I think that the misunderstanding, perhaps, was the requirement at speed to get people off the ship. And so we had been identifying spaces and getting people off the ship. We are now moving people at speed to get them off – to get them off the ship. And so order to act on a requirement, we have to clearly understand the requirement. And that’s why I spoke, Tom, to a potential comms breakdown wherever it occurred. And we’re not looking to shoot the messenger here. We want to get this right.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll go back to phones. Courtney Kube.

Q: Hi. Thank you. Admiral Gilday, I think this is you who said you think there’s a communications breakdown with the TR crew. Is that correct?

ADM. GILDAY: We haven’t diagnosed that yet. I’m just supposing, if they had a requirement and if we didn’t know – if it wasn’t acted upon, you know, in the manner that the CO – that the CO wanted, you know, there was potentially a break down in communications there at some point.

Q: OK. So I guess my question is really, you know, have you identified that? Because I have to – you know, sort of following on Tom Bowman’s question – like, we – after you guys first came out late last week and announced that there were a couple of cases and they were being flown off the ship, the ship was out at sea. And then we hear soon after, a day or two later, whatever it was that it pulled into Guam, we keep hearing over and over, well, that was a scheduled port visit. So it seems as if there hasn’t been an urgency to respond to this and get the sailors off, when we all know there’s absolutely no way to quarantine or isolate people when you’re on a ship. So I mean, I guess it’s – this communications breakdown, did it occur at the beginning with the TR crew not telling you how significant the potential curve was here, or – I’m just trying to understand a little bit more about that.

ADM. GILDAY: We understood on a day-to-day basis, right, how many cases they had. And so it began with two, and then we saw – we saw a precipitous rise. And so a question, right, in terms of the framework under which they were operating on the ship, is do you test first, as I
mentioned before based on those – based on symptomatic cases, and then isolate – and then move to isolate and quarantine? Or do you flip that approach, and do you quarantine and isolate and then test? And so that’s where we made some adjustments to get people off the ship faster. It’s a difference of approaches, right? It’s a difference of approaches. And perhaps, you know, our understanding now of what his – what his point was. If I could just say something about the commanding officer of the ship, and so that’s an extraordinary responsibility of command. And so he has authorities and he has responsibilities. And so he is also held account for the health and wellbeing of those 4,865 sailors on that ship. He takes it very seriously. And so if he has a difference of approach and he thinks he has a better way to do it, and if he doesn’t feel that, you know, we’re acting at the speed of urgency, then absolutely we need to know about that and we need to – we need to adjust. So I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t – I think that we have quickly responded, and deliberately responded, to the feedback received.

I don't see how one can read this exchange and not see how it embarrassed Modly and that this embarrassment is what led to Crozier's removal. He'd written the letter, it had later hit the press, and this press conference made Modly realize that he was on the hot seat and (according to Modly to Ignatius) he became worried that Trump would get upset and get involved...so, remove Crozier.

I cut it down to the relevant part. Sure he embarrassed Modley. He embarrassed the entire chain of command, he embarrassed the entire Navy.
They were already responding. When they finally heard his complaint (requiremant), they then made the decision to move part of the crew off base.

Apparently he did not convey the same sense of urgency in his comms through approved channels as he did in his signal flare.

He could have submitted Casualty Reports via Naval message, he was on video cons, he even talked via phone to the SecNav's CSO the day he fired off his signal flare. He could have gotten what he wanted had he followed proper channels, not caused the controversy, not embarrassed alcon, & not gotten them both fired.

It was a scheduled port call in Guam (not an emergency return). They did not wish to publicize the degraded readiness of the TR. They probably wanted to quietly do a lock down on base, like they were doing with the RR in Yokosuka. His signal flare made it impossible to maintain any strategic ambiguity about the status of the only deployed carrier in WPac.

[MDlaxfan76]

ADM. GILDAY: I think the major difference – kind of the eye-opener for us was the fact that he wanted to move at a greater speed to get people off the ship, right? And as he says in the opening paragraph of his letter, hey, look, if we have to fight today we’re ready to take in all lines, get the ship underway, and we’re ready to get in on mission. And so I think that the misunderstanding, perhaps, was the requirement at speed to get people off the ship. And so we had been identifying spaces and getting people off the ship. We are now moving people at speed to get them off – to get them off the ship. And so order to act on a requirement, we have to clearly understand the requirement. And that’s why I spoke, Tom, to a potential comms breakdown wherever it occurred. And we’re not looking to shoot the messenger here. We want to get this right.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll go back to phones. Courtney Kube.

Q: Hi. Thank you. Admiral Gilday, I think this is you who said you think there’s a communications breakdown with the TR crew. Is that correct?

ADM. GILDAY: We haven’t diagnosed that yet. I’m just supposing, if they had a requirement and if we didn’t know – if it wasn’t acted upon, you know, in the manner that the CO – that the CO wanted, you know, there was potentially a break down in communications there at some point.

Q: OK. So I guess my question is really, you know, have you identified that? Because I have to – you know, sort of following on Tom Bowman’s question – like, we – after you guys first came out late last week and announced that there were a couple of cases and they were being flown off the ship, the ship was out at sea. And then we hear soon after, a day or two later, whatever it was that it pulled into Guam, we keep hearing over and over, well, that was a scheduled port visit. So it seems as if there hasn’t been an urgency to respond to this and get the sailors off, when we all know there’s absolutely no way to quarantine or isolate people when you’re on a ship. So I mean, I guess it’s – this communications breakdown, did it occur at the beginning with the TR crew not telling you how significant the potential curve was here, or – I’m just trying to understand a little bit more about that.

ADM. GILDAY: We understood on a day-to-day basis, right, how many cases they had. And so it began with two, and then we saw – we saw a precipitous rise. And so a question, right, in terms of the framework under which they were operating on the ship, is do you test first, as I
mentioned before based on those – based on symptomatic cases, and then isolate – and then move to isolate and quarantine? Or do you flip that approach, and do you quarantine and isolate and then test? And so that’s where we made some adjustments to get people off the ship faster. It’s a difference of approaches, right? It’s a difference of approaches. And perhaps, you know, our understanding now of what his – what his point was. If I could just say something about the commanding officer of the ship, and so that’s an extraordinary responsibility of command. And so he has authorities and he has responsibilities. And so he is also held account for the health and wellbeing of those 4,865 sailors on that ship. He takes it very seriously. And so if he has a difference of approach and he thinks he has a better way to do it, and if he doesn’t feel that, you know, we’re acting at the speed of urgency, then absolutely we need to know about that and we need to – we need to adjust. So I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t – I think that we have quickly responded, and deliberately responded, to the feedback received.

I don't see how one can read this exchange and not see how it embarrassed Modly and that this embarrassment is what led to Crozier's removal. He'd written the letter, it had later hit the press, and this press conference made Modly realize that he was on the hot seat and (according to Modly to Ignatius) he became worried that Trump would get upset and get involved...so, remove Crozier.

I cut it down to the relevant part. Sure he embarrassed Modley. He embarrassed the entire chain of command, he embarrassed the entire Navy.
They were already responding. When they finally heard his complaint (requiremant), they then made the decision to move part of the crew off base.

Apparently he did not convey the same sense of urgency in his comms through approved channels as he did in his signal flare.

He could have submitted Casualty Reports via Naval message, he was on video cons, he even talked via phone to the SecNav's CSO the day he fired off his signal flare. He could have gotten what he wanted had he followed proper channels, not caused the controversy, not embarrassed alcon, & not gotten them both fired.

It was a scheduled port call in Guam (not an emergency return). They did not wish to publicize the degraded readiness of the TR. They probably wanted to quietly do a lock down on base, like they were doing with the RR in Yokosuka. His signal flare made it impossible to maintain any strategic ambiguity about the status of the only deployed carrier in WPac.

Yup, they say they 'heard' him, knew of his concerns, but when he sent the letter...which they as of this press conference were saying was sent properly up the chain of command...they basically got the message. Louder, more aggressively, and obviously being distributed to more eyes (though not publicly). They hadn't really understood previously. And then acted more aggressively in response. In other words, the letter worked to light a fire, when whatever had been happening previously was just 'heard'.

Remember that there was a lag time between when he sent the letter and it actually got leaked and hit the public. The chain of command got the message prior to it hitting the media. It's not clear how fast they were going before the media had it, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they had at least changed gears. Perhaps in anticipation of it getting to the public, perhaps simply because more folks were watching the response more closely, perhaps because they actually realized that the guy on watch actually was right.

[MDlaxfan76]

Everyone acknowledges he violated the chain of command so I don't have any clue why you keep saying people don't understand that. What people don't understand is the specific reaction and behavior of Modly, which OS even said wasn't right. Ever heard of lead by example? I care more about the influence of the people in the top than middle management. But you keep insisting that no one understands or acknowledges the chain of command and I've seen like 15 folks who question the higher up leadership acknowledge the violation, so who are you talking about? Or is this in your head?

I keep saying that because certain people here keep saying the captain was justified in his actions. His first obligation was to his mission and what his orders were. There is even one poster here trying to tell us the good captain had no orders, had no mission he was just sailing around on a pleasure cruise just for the hell of it. i understand why the captain did what he did. i just can't understand his reasoning for doing it the way he did. That is not how an experienced, seasoned naval officer responds to the problem at hand. He took actions that he knew were wrong and took his ship out of the fight for the foreseeable future. If that carrier is NEEDED, it won't be able to respond. For those actions any consequences are all on him.

There is no such poster saying that. Bother to read what I write, please.

Yes, a 'mission', but I'll take Crozier's word for whether a 'wartime mission'. Nope.

You really ought to also read what Crozier wrote too.

and over and over and over again said that I understand how this was outside the chain of command (even though the admirals were insisting otherwise on April 1) given that the distribution was not limited to just the chain of command. I've said that it is quite likely that Crozier understood that his action jeopardized his personal career.

But "justified"? You betcha.
Unless I see a basis that tells me otherwise.

So far, you guys are just puffing your chests and "mission" and took them out of the "fight" and "chain of command", blah, blah, blah, yet are unwilling to tell us the scenario under which that ship did not need to get a large portion of that crew off fast, and ultimately rotate out all or else cleared via testing.

Tell me the scenario where you say, 'guys you're just going to tough it out these next months on board.'

Now, if you want to make that argument because it was 'wartime' and they couldn't be spared from the 'fight' then ok, have at it.

but otherwise, you're all wet

[cradleandshoot]

Well if you can separate human decisions from ones within the military code of conduct, and clearly many historical military greats have done so, I believe they were saying it was justified on a human/citizen level because some of those folks have explicitly stated that while the action may have been justified that they understand it was a violation of the chain of command. I'm not sure you're really reading the full posts or responding quickly on that.

We keep going around and around and around It is way more serious than violating just the chain of command. He put his freaking men in front of the mission. It sounds noble and I get that. The decision was not the captains to make. That decisions SHOULD have been made by his superiors. He chose to take actions that took his ship out of commision without ORDERS from his superiors how to handle the situation. You don't get it Far. It does not matter if you are commander of an infantry company or the commanding officer of a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier. YOU FOLLOW F***ING ORDERS, you don't get to decide when and where and how you are self authorized to break those orders. The only people who do not seem to understand this simple concept are those of you who never served. I was only a lowly soldier in an infantry company and following freaking orders was a way of life.

I can't find the picture for the life of me but it goes back to the Korean war. The picture is of a young Marine corporal crying in frustration. He is one of the last men still alive in his outfit, he is now in charge because all the other NCOs are dead or wounded. He is almost out of ammunition and he has been ordered to lead another assault up the hill. Maybe he should have fired of a letter to the commander of the Corp and the press about how unfair the situation was. You know what this Marine did... he followed F***ing orders and assaulted the position again. This Marine had more courage than the commander of this aircraft carrier will ever possess in his lifetime. This captain ignored his orders and acted on his own. He gets what he gets. IMO that will be a job at CNN when he leaves the Navy.

[old salt]

ADM. GILDAY: I think the major difference – kind of the eye-opener for us was the fact that he wanted to move at a greater speed to get people off the ship, right? And as he says in the opening paragraph of his letter, hey, look, if we have to fight today we’re ready to take in all lines, get the ship underway, and we’re ready to get in on mission. And so I think that the misunderstanding, perhaps, was the requirement at speed to get people off the ship. And so we had been identifying spaces and getting people off the ship. We are now moving people at speed to get them off – to get them off the ship. And so order to act on a requirement, we have to clearly understand the requirement. And that’s why I spoke, Tom, to a potential comms breakdown wherever it occurred. And we’re not looking to shoot the messenger here. We want to get this right.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll go back to phones. Courtney Kube.

Q: Hi. Thank you. Admiral Gilday, I think this is you who said you think there’s a communications breakdown with the TR crew. Is that correct?

ADM. GILDAY: We haven’t diagnosed that yet. I’m just supposing, if they had a requirement and if we didn’t know – if it wasn’t acted upon, you know, in the manner that the CO – that the CO wanted, you know, there was potentially a break down in communications there at some point.

Q: OK. So I guess my question is really, you know, have you identified that? Because I have to – you know, sort of following on Tom Bowman’s question – like, we – after you guys first came out late last week and announced that there were a couple of cases and they were being flown off the ship, the ship was out at sea. And then we hear soon after, a day or two later, whatever it was that it pulled into Guam, we keep hearing over and over, well, that was a scheduled port visit. So it seems as if there hasn’t been an urgency to respond to this and get the sailors off, when we all know there’s absolutely no way to quarantine or isolate people when you’re on a ship. So I mean, I guess it’s – this communications breakdown, did it occur at the beginning with the TR crew not telling you how significant the potential curve was here, or – I’m just trying to understand a little bit more about that.

ADM. GILDAY: We understood on a day-to-day basis, right, how many cases they had. And so it began with two, and then we saw – we saw a precipitous rise. And so a question, right, in terms of the framework under which they were operating on the ship, is do you test first, as I
mentioned before based on those – based on symptomatic cases, and then isolate – and then move to isolate and quarantine? Or do you flip that approach, and do you quarantine and isolate and then test? And so that’s where we made some adjustments to get people off the ship faster. It’s a difference of approaches, right? It’s a difference of approaches. And perhaps, you know, our understanding now of what his – what his point was. If I could just say something about the commanding officer of the ship, and so that’s an extraordinary responsibility of command. And so he has authorities and he has responsibilities. And so he is also held account for the health and wellbeing of those 4,865 sailors on that ship. He takes it very seriously. And so if he has a difference of approach and he thinks he has a better way to do it, and if he doesn’t feel that, you know, we’re acting at the speed of urgency, then absolutely we need to know about that and we need to – we need to adjust. So I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t – I think that we have quickly responded, and deliberately responded, to the feedback received.

I don't see how one can read this exchange and not see how it embarrassed Modly and that this embarrassment is what led to Crozier's removal. He'd written the letter, it had later hit the press, and this press conference made Modly realize that he was on the hot seat and (according to Modly to Ignatius) he became worried that Trump would get upset and get involved...so, remove Crozier.

I cut it down to the relevant part. Sure he embarrassed Modley. He embarrassed the entire chain of command, he embarrassed the entire Navy.
They were already responding. When they finally heard his complaint (requiremant), they then made the decision to move part of the crew off base.

Apparently he did not convey the same sense of urgency in his comms through approved channels as he did in his signal flare.

He could have submitted Casualty Reports via Naval message, he was on video cons, he even talked via phone to the SecNav's CSO the day he fired off his signal flare. He could have gotten what he wanted had he followed proper channels, not caused the controversy, not embarrassed alcon, & not gotten them both fired.

It was a scheduled port call in Guam (not an emergency return). They did not wish to publicize the degraded readiness of the TR. They probably wanted to quietly do a lock down on base, like they were doing with the RR in Yokosuka. His signal flare made it impossible to maintain any strategic ambiguity about the status of the only deployed carrier in WPac.

Yup, they say they 'heard' him, knew of his concerns, but when he sent the letter...which they as of this press conference were saying was sent properly up the chain of command...they basically got the message. Louder, more aggressively, and obviously being distributed to more eyes (though not publicly). They hadn't really understood previously. And then acted more aggressively in response. In other words, the letter worked to light a fire, when whatever had been happening previously was just 'heard'.

Remember that there was a lag time between when he sent the letter and it actually got leaked and hit the public. The chain of command got the message prior to it hitting the media. It's not clear how fast they were going before the media had it, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they had at least changed gears. Perhaps in anticipation of it getting to the public, perhaps simply because more folks were watching the response more closely, perhaps because they actually realized that the guy on watch actually was right.

CNO said it was appropriate for the CO to communicate his concerns. That's not an endorsement or approval of how he chose to do it.
The additional eyes who saw it were outside the CoC.

The CoC (at least in DC) had not understood previously because Crozier had not used all the approved channels available to him to convey his concerns. The presser also implies that the medical staff & the CPOs on the ship did not share Crozier's level of concern. The CoC (at all levels) likely got numerous "holy sh!t" heads up from shotgunned addressees, including the Adm right down the passageway, before the fit hit the shan in the media.

It's yet to be determined if "the guy on the ship" is right, or not. We'll never know how much of the crew they'd have gotten ashore & how quickly without Crozier's signal flare. VCNO's investigation may tell us. Be patient, the (D) circus ponies will be demanding the details, so they can spin them to somehow blame Trump, as you are already attempting. ...just like you told us the Navy was "fiddlin" rather than getting the Comfort ready to sail.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nope, while certainly the buck stops with the POTUS, and certainly he sets the culture below him, and yes, Modly appears to have been quite concerned about Trump's perceptions...I haven't laid this on 'blame Trump'.

I just think it's ridiculous that all these chest thumpers came out in support of Modly's actions, which were so clearly out of bounds, emotional and based on personal embarrassment, not the best interests of those below.

All while ripping into a captain who put his crew above his own career.

Whether it all would have worked out just fine or not, without the captain acting as he did, who the heck knows.

But as my original comment on this topic said, I know which guy I'd want to be led by into actual battle.
That's all I said.

Had nothing at all to do with Trump.
At least not to me.

BTW, it's getting immensely tiresome having these posters who whine about "mission" when they clearly have not the slightest clue. Despite all their chest thumping, not a clue.

and why? Because they think they're supporting Trump???

[Farfromgeneva]

Well if you can separate human decisions from ones within the military code of conduct, and clearly many historical military greats have done so, I believe they were saying it was justified on a human/citizen level because some of those folks have explicitly stated that while the action may have been justified that they understand it was a violation of the chain of command. I'm not sure you're really reading the full posts or responding quickly on that.

We keep going around and around and around It is way more serious than violating just the chain of command. He put his freaking men in front of the mission. It sounds noble and I get that. The decision was not the captains to make. That decisions SHOULD have been made by his superiors. He chose to take actions that took his ship out of commision without ORDERS from his superiors how to handle the situation. You don't get it Far. It does not matter if you are commander of an infantry company or the commanding officer of a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier. YOU FOLLOW F***ING ORDERS, you don't get to decide when and where and how you are self authorized to break those orders. The only people who do not seem to understand this simple concept are those of you who never served. I was only a lowly soldier in an infantry company and following freaking orders was a way of life.

I can't find the picture for the life of me but it goes back to the Korean war. The picture is of a young Marine corporal crying in frustration. He is one of the last men still alive in his outfit, he is now in charge because all the other NCOs are dead or wounded. He is almost out of ammunition and he has been ordered to lead another assault up the hill. Maybe he should have fired of a letter to the commander of the Corp and the press about how unfair the situation was. You know what this Marine did... he followed F***ing orders and assaulted the position again. This Marine had more courage than the commander of this aircraft carrier will ever possess in his lifetime. This captain ignored his orders and acted on his own. He gets what he gets. IMO that will be a job at CNN when he leaves the Navy.

Isn’t that what the SS Soldiers said?

“I was only following orders”

And by the way being only a lowly soldier is perhaps the most commendable service IMO, but it gives you the most limited window into service life further up the chain to inform your understanding, no?