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

[old salt]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... 1586191567

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

I get it entirely.
Just my opinion as to under whose command I'd rather go into battle.
Crew too.

Does it matter? Well, actually yes.
Do they get to decide, though? no.

Not a close call re Crozier v Modly.

It sure looks like this issue, either the slower than desired movement, or the perception of such, was due primarily to Modly. I suppose it may have been throughout the chain of command, as certainly the lack of sense of urgency around responses to COVID-19 has been endemic across all of government and society, not unique to Trump and Trumpists, and the military folks are human too, but it feels more like Modly was driving this pace more than others.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that was my takeaway from that press conference.

And certainly the reversal by Modly on removal of Crozier was Modly, not driven by the chain of command below, and Modly explicitly has said that he was concerned about Trump's perception and involvement.

Listen, if this scenario had gone down during the Obama Admin 3 years into his first term, COVID-19 had broken out of China, same responses came from the Obama Admin, same downplaying by the POTUS, with the same sort of constant turnover at the top of government, the removal of those not sufficiently 'loyal' to the POTUS (Obama), including these various military positions, and then a captain had made this call, sent up this flare in response to an outbreak and his judgment 'from the field'...where would you and I be on this topic?

I'd be with the captain, not Modly.

And I'd have been very critical of Obama and his Admin for the handling of the pandemic.

I didn't vote for the guy and I'd have seen it as incompetence, a green legislator being way, way over his head, an overweening ego that couldn't admit error, putting American lives and treasure at risk through his management incompetence.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... counts-wsj

A Failure of Discipline Under Capt. Crozier’s Command
He should have spoken truth to power privately. His crew risked infection by gathering to cheer him.

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly relieved Capt. Brett Crozier of command last week after the press published a letter about a Covid-19 outbreak on the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. I agonize for Capt. Crozier, who has tested positive for Covid himself. I too once commanded a warship, and I once took a controversial position at risk to my own career.

Yet I regret his decision. The video of the crew paying respects to Capt. Crozier as he leaves the Roosevelt demonstrates his popularity. But it leaves me with grave concern over the feelings-first zeitgeist on display, and it causes me concern that the crew’s actions will make the ship’s situation much worse.

This event gives a worrisome peek into the fraying of America’s military command structure. That structure relies on aggregated wisdom and dispersed power. It replaces emotion with cold logic. It reins in impulse with carefully considered protocols and procedures. None of those virtues are evident in how the Roosevelt incident played out.

No doubt Capt. Crozier was concerned about the Covid crisis and wanted to escalate the issue to protect his crew. That desire is to be commended. But the crew’s welfare is only part of a Navy captain’s responsibilities, which are global in scope. Capt. Crozier’s letter effectively recommended that the Navy take an operational, forward-deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carrier offline, an event that would be classified and carry significant strategic implications world-wide, hence would have to be escalated to the president. From that standpoint, the Roosevelt was not Capt. Crozier’s ship, it was America’s. But to shotgun that kind of recommendation in a letter via an unclassified email is a violation of the highest order.


Capt. Crozier’s defenders have said he was speaking truth to power. But he could have done so directly. He could have generated serious action with a properly classified, immediate-precedence “Personal for” naval message to any of at least five operational commanders in his chain of command. He could have reached out directly to the Navy secretary. Instead, according to Mr. Modly, Capt. Crozier shotgunned, thereby losing control of, an email containing classified details reflecting the state of readiness of one of America’s most important ships. The upshot is that the Chinese received Capt. Crozier’s letter at the same time as the Pentagon.

The Navy doesn’t always get it right. I spent more than a decade defending Capt. Charles McVay III. He commanded the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis when it was sunk in July 1945, the worst at-sea disaster in U.S. naval history. Like Capt. Crozier, McVay’s story captured national headlines. McVay’s surviving crew rallied around him, fighting to vindicate him even after his 1968 suicide.

McVay was convicted by a court-martial for “hazarding his vessel” by failing to take action the Navy believed would have spared his ship from a Japanese submarine attack. For more than 50 years his crew fought for his exoneration. In 1998 they recruited me—then captain of the submarine that bears the same name as their sunken cruiser—to aid their case. ...I was warned that for the good of my future I needed to learn how to become a “company man,” but I pressed on. Congress passed a resolution exonerating McVay in 2000, and the Navy secretary officially cleared his record in 2001.

Which brings me back to the video of Capt. Crozier leaving his ship. McVay’s crew exhibited more discipline for the greater good of the ship than we saw in the Roosevelt video.

In today’s culture, even in the military, the “right” side of an issue tends increasingly to start with feelings. Social media posts—“We stand with Captain Crozier”—don’t merely reflect attitudes; they drive behavior among the public and, more troubling, among young sailors. The Journal reports that some sailors say they won’t re-enlist over the way they perceive the incident to have been handled. Imagine if this trend continues to its logical extreme—military decisions by Twitter mob.

And while Capt. Crozier recommended the crew be removed from his ship, it’s clear there was much they could have done but didn’t, as evidenced by their social-distance-be-damned rock-star departure celebration, which will likely leave them with more Covid-19 infections. The video suggests that the crew didn’t know—or worse, didn’t care—that their behavior was the naval equivalent of standing on top of a hill with bullets flying around them to generate an Instagram moment. Such behavior reflects poorly on their commander.

Command is a privilege. I pray for the recovery of Capt. Crozier and everyone else who’s been infected. But this event’s legacy also includes thousands, military and civilian, beguiled into rooting for an ineffective form of leadership, a loss of faith in a chain of command that was never properly invoked, and a horrified home front—not to mention media pundits making matters worse by sounding off on issues they don’t understand.

Mr. Toti, a retired U.S. Navy captain, commanded the USS Indianapolis submarine, Submarine Squadron 3 and Fleet Antisubmarine Warfare Command Norfolk.

[cradleandshoot]

Far,
Any good officer is relying on his senior NCO's - they know the heartbeat;
As stated if you think you are being given an illegal order - you have every right to jump as high as you want. The SS is NOT the US Military. The US Military does not operate that way nor at least in my lifetime it ever will.
Can we all agree the situation be either was not handled appropriately. I know one dissenting vote.
Being one of the chest thumpers - do I get a medal for that? Can we all also agree that we have young people in COMBAT - Vietnam was never a declared War nor was Korea nor the Gulf......so MD enlighten some of us beaters what you mean by war/battle or whatever noun you are using. Getting shot at is war/combat/military action, did I meet your satisfaction?

MD,
Everything to you if somebodies have experience in this field and has done it and we are trying to rely personal experiences, now we voted for Trump. Trump probably had no clue where the damn thing was headed. Man, leave the politics out of this. I could give you 100 business cases where the same thing would have happened. Two people fired.

This ship was not under fire nor was it in a position to fire on anyone with a likelihood to fire upon them.

It was indeed unfortunately conscripted into the 'war' that our 'wartime President" talks so much about, the 'unseen enemy'.

Yes, absolutely we do have people in combat. And I mean the same as you do. And we have ships in the region that has such active combat, in support of those on the ground. Important.

I would assume, and Salty has asserted, that the TR would have potentially rotated into position to support those in combat, with another ship rotating out. No argument from me.

But I lean on Crozier to understand exactly the exigencies of his ships' mission, the timetable, and how that mission could be best executed. He sure as heck knew more about that mission than any of us on here.

I haven't heard anyone (YET) argue that there was a a viable option for this crew not to be rotated off the ship, tested, ship scrubbed etc. "Mission" interrupted for a period, if you will. Crozier apparently wanted this to go way faster than the Navy was executing (or what he believed was the Navy's plan of execution). He wanted to have fewer of his crew infected. In addition to the obvious health aspects, that also would mean more of his crew clearable to return to active duty, sooner. Better for the 'mission'.

I respect the service, sacrifices, of those who put their lives on the line for others, for America. That includes posters on here. But chest thumpers, not so much. I don't care whether they voted for Trump or not.

"This ship was not under fire nor was it in a position to fire on anyone with a likelihood to fire upon them."
The same could be said for all those ships parked in Pearl Harbor back in December of 1941.
The same could be said of the USS Cole, remember that?

MD you can not possibly be this stupid or this naive. Do you know what an aircraft carrier is?

They call em BFT, or for you BIG FAT TARGETS. You really need to STFU old sod. You are humiliating your integrity more than you know. Every freaking second a United States Aircraft carrier is at sea they are a huge potential target of destruction for bad people. It is astounding for me with your superior intellect that little fact has totally evaded you. You think not at war means at peace. Why do you think so much of every aircraft carrier is dedicated to protecting the vessel from all the bad folks that would love to see it at the bottom of the ocean. I honestly and truly am hopeful that our military does not have very many people with your perspective defending our country. Fortunately i believe your point of view is a miniscule anomaly to what i call common sense.

Keep doubling down, cradle.

No problem, keep letting Old Salt make your civilian ass look like a fool. Keep coming back for more, I love watching you look like an idiot. You keep thinking you can out think a career naval officer and he keeps making you look like a moron. Keep plodding away.

[MDlaxfan76]

[Trinity]

Salty, check your pms.

[old salt]

Salty, check your pms.

Nothing new there. Try again. If no joy, click on my user id then profile then send me an email.

[DocBarrister]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... 1586191567

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

It’s disgraceful that you continue to support the firing of Capt. Crozier.

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gilday, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, both opposed the firing.

But this entire sordid tale is only the latest chapter in the Trump administration's attack on American civil-military relations. For his part, Trump said Modly's resignation was “unselfish,” but added that he did not know him despite clear evidence to the contrary. It comes in the aftermath of other disturbing events dating to the very beginning of this administration. As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Obama, observed, Modly had “become a vehicle for the president.”

Modly’s decision to relieve Crozier came despite the opposition of Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Mark Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both recommended that the decision be left up to the military leadership. (Modly served in the Navy but retired from active duty in 1990 to attend business school.) Gilday and Milley further stressed that such a drastic step should not be taken until an investigation had been conducted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t ... cna1180806

Your blind support of the worst Commander in Chief in modern American history is simply appalling.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... 1586191567

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

It’s disgraceful that you continue to support the firing of Capt. Crozier.

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gilday, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, both opposed the firing.

But this entire sordid tale is only the latest chapter in the Trump administration's attack on American civil-military relations. For his part, Trump said Modly's resignation was “unselfish,” but added that he did not know him despite clear evidence to the contrary. It comes in the aftermath of other disturbing events dating to the very beginning of this administration. As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Obama, observed, Modly had “become a vehicle for the president.”

Modly’s decision to relieve Crozier came despite the opposition of Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Mark Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both recommended that the decision be left up to the military leadership. (Modly served in the Navy but retired from active duty in 1990 to attend business school.) Gilday and Milley further stressed that such a drastic step should not be taken until an investigation had been conducted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t ... cna1180806

Your blind support of the worst Commander in Chief in modern American history is simply appalling.

DocBarrister

Your (& NBC's) typical distortion. Gilday & Milley said they supported the SecNav's decision. Gilday & Milley wanted an investigation & to allow officers lower in the chain of command to decide or recommend whether or not Crozier should continue. They weren't calling for his relief (yet). Any of the military officers in Crozier's CoC (including the one down the hall that he blindsided) had the authority to direct his relief, as did the SecNav. Although they probably would have run it up the CoC to the SecNav for concurrence. Relief for cause would normally come after an investigation, unless the action was so serious, or the situation so time critical, that immediate action is called for. Apparently Modly felt he could no longer trust Crozier, in dealing with an urgent crisis, based on Crozier's communications with Modly & his CoS & what he had told the CoC before he blind sided them all with his signal flare.
Had Crozier kept his communication within the CoC & not generated a media & political firestorm, he would likely have gotten what he wanted & still have his job, as would Modly.

You & NBC would be well advised to wait to learn what the entire CoC, including the medical CoC was recommending. That will come via the investigation under way & the inevitable Congressional oversight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... intervene/

Modly said he learned about the memo on Tuesday, the day after it was written, when he arrived on a trip to Los Angeles and was told a leaked copy had been published that day in the San Francisco Chronicle. He regarded dissemination of the message as “bizarre behavior for a commanding officer,” especially since Crozier hadn’t contacted Modly directly, and began asking colleagues about Crozier, a widely respected officer.

“I was flabbergasted,” Modly said. “My only conclusion was, ‘he’s panicking.’ It was so out of character.” Modly spoke with Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and other top officers on Tuesday, as the situation aboard the Roosevelt became a national story. “I wanted the senior people in the chain of command to reach out to the captain directly,” Modly said.

On Wednesday, Modly called Crozier personally and asked, “What’s the story?” — meaning, why had he sent the email? According to Modly, Crozier answered: “Sir, we were getting a lot more cases. I felt it was time to send out a signal flare.” (Navy ships fire such a flare when the captain fears they’re in danger of sinking, Modly explained.)

By that time, more sailors were being transferred off the Roosevelt to safer makeshift quarters in Guam, and the anxiety onboard had eased. “I got no indication from Captain Crozier when I spoke with him personally on Wednesday that he wasn’t getting what he needed. None, in fact, the opposite.” Modly said he also received some direct communications from sailors who said the situation onboard wasn’t as dire as Crozier’s now-leaked memo had said.

By Wednesday, Modly said, “it was obvious to me that I couldn’t trust [Crozier’s] judgment." Gilday, with support from Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted to conduct an investigation of the incident. But Modly said he told the chief of naval operations: “I didn’t want to do an investigation while [Crozier] had a cloud over his head. I wanted to take the heat myself.”

Modly said he was concerned that Crozier had allowed the inflammatory message to become public by sending it to so many people. “Either you’re losing it, or you’re extremely naive, or you’re dishonorable. … If he did this intentionally, he’s not honorable.”

The climax came Thursday morning. At 7 a.m., Modly called Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the commander of the Roosevelt’s multi-ship strike group and Crozier’s immediate superior. Modly said he asked Baker if he had known that Crozier would be sending the impassioned memo, and the strike group commander answered: “No. It arrived in my email inbox.” There had been no prior discussion or consultation about the message, Baker said.

Baker told Modly that he pressed Crozier why he hadn’t cleared the sensitive message or wide distribution group in advance. According to Modly, Crozier answered that “he worried Baker would not let him send it to that broad a group.” Baker affirmed to Modly: “He was right. I wouldn’t.”

After that conversation with Baker, whose cabin aboard the Roosevelt was near Crozier’s, the acting secretary said he decided that Crozier had to be relieved. He informed Esper, Milley and Gilday later Thursday morning, and although Gilday favored more investigation before taking such drastic action, Modly said that “I have lost confidence” in the captain. Esper, with Milley’s support, backed the decision, Modly told me, and Gilday stood by the acting secretary.

Modly sent me an email later Sunday morning, summarizing why he reached the decision: “I had serious doubts about how this CO might act if, for example, the ship came under attack by hypersonic missiles, or by cyber forces that crippled his communications, or by any other unpredictable event. It’s essential to love your crew, but it’s not sufficient.”

Modly apparently concluded that either Crozier or Baker needed to go. They could not continue to effectively function as a key operational link in the CoC of a deployed carrier strike group.

[DocBarrister]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... 1586191567

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

It’s disgraceful that you continue to support the firing of Capt. Crozier.

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gilday, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, both opposed the firing.

But this entire sordid tale is only the latest chapter in the Trump administration's attack on American civil-military relations. For his part, Trump said Modly's resignation was “unselfish,” but added that he did not know him despite clear evidence to the contrary. It comes in the aftermath of other disturbing events dating to the very beginning of this administration. As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Obama, observed, Modly had “become a vehicle for the president.”

Modly’s decision to relieve Crozier came despite the opposition of Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Mark Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both recommended that the decision be left up to the military leadership. (Modly served in the Navy but retired from active duty in 1990 to attend business school.) Gilday and Milley further stressed that such a drastic step should not be taken until an investigation had been conducted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t ... cna1180806

Your blind support of the worst Commander in Chief in modern American history is simply appalling.

DocBarrister

Your (& NBC's) typical distortion. Gilday & Milley said they supported the SecNav's decision. Gilday & Milley wanted an investigation & to allow officers lower in the chain of command to decide or recommend whether or not Crozier should continue. They weren't calling for his relief (yet). Any of the military officers in Crozier's CoC (including the one down the hall that he blindsided) had the authority to direct his relief, as did the SecNav. Although they probably would have run it up the CoC to the SecNav for concurrence. Relief for cause would normally come after an investigation, unless the action was so serious, or the situation so time critical, that immediate action is called for. Apparently Modly felt he could no longer trust Crozier, in dealing with an urgent crisis, based on Crozier's communications with Modly & his CoS & what he had told the CoC before he blind sided them all with his signal flare.
Had Crozier kept his communication within the CoC & not generated a media & political firestorm, he would likely have gotten what he wanted & still have his job, as would Modly.

You & NBC would be well advised to wait to learn what the entire CoC, including the medical CoC was recommending. That will come via the investigation under way & the inevitable Congressional oversight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... intervene/

Modly said he learned about the memo on Tuesday, the day after it was written, when he arrived on a trip to Los Angeles and was told a leaked copy had been published that day in the San Francisco Chronicle. He regarded dissemination of the message as “bizarre behavior for a commanding officer,” especially since Crozier hadn’t contacted Modly directly, and began asking colleagues about Crozier, a widely respected officer.

“I was flabbergasted,” Modly said. “My only conclusion was, ‘he’s panicking.’ It was so out of character.” Modly spoke with Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and other top officers on Tuesday, as the situation aboard the Roosevelt became a national story. “I wanted the senior people in the chain of command to reach out to the captain directly,” Modly said.

On Wednesday, Modly called Crozier personally and asked, “What’s the story?” — meaning, why had he sent the email? According to Modly, Crozier answered: “Sir, we were getting a lot more cases. I felt it was time to send out a signal flare.” (Navy ships fire such a flare when the captain fears they’re in danger of sinking, Modly explained.)

By that time, more sailors were being transferred off the Roosevelt to safer makeshift quarters in Guam, and the anxiety onboard had eased. “I got no indication from Captain Crozier when I spoke with him personally on Wednesday that he wasn’t getting what he needed. None, in fact, the opposite.” Modly said he also received some direct communications from sailors who said the situation onboard wasn’t as dire as Crozier’s now-leaked memo had said.

By Wednesday, Modly said, “it was obvious to me that I couldn’t trust [Crozier’s] judgment." Gilday, with support from Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted to conduct an investigation of the incident. But Modly said he told the chief of naval operations: “I didn’t want to do an investigation while [Crozier] had a cloud over his head. I wanted to take the heat myself.”

Modly said he was concerned that Crozier had allowed the inflammatory message to become public by sending it to so many people. “Either you’re losing it, or you’re extremely naive, or you’re dishonorable. … If he did this intentionally, he’s not honorable.”

The climax came Thursday morning. At 7 a.m., Modly called Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the commander of the Roosevelt’s multi-ship strike group and Crozier’s immediate superior. Modly said he asked Baker if he had known that Crozier would be sending the impassioned memo, and the strike group commander answered: “No. It arrived in my email inbox.” There had been no prior discussion or consultation about the message, Baker said.

Baker told Modly that he pressed Crozier why he hadn’t cleared the sensitive message or wide distribution group in advance. According to Modly, Crozier answered that “he worried Baker would not let him send it to that broad a group.” Baker affirmed to Modly: “He was right. I wouldn’t.”

After that conversation with Baker, whose cabin aboard the Roosevelt was near Crozier’s, the acting secretary said he decided that Crozier had to be relieved. He informed Esper, Milley and Gilday later Thursday morning, and although Gilday favored more investigation before taking such drastic action, Modly said that “I have lost confidence” in the captain. Esper, with Milley’s support, backed the decision, Modly told me, and Gilday stood by the acting secretary.

Modly sent me an email later Sunday morning, summarizing why he reached the decision: “I had serious doubts about how this CO might act if, for example, the ship came under attack by hypersonic missiles, or by cyber forces that crippled his communications, or by any other unpredictable event. It’s essential to love your crew, but it’s not sufficient.”

Modly apparently concluded that either Crozier or Baker needed to go. They could not continue to effectively function as a key operational link in the CoC of a deployed carrier strike group.

You keep talking about chain of command, but the most senior officer in the Navy (Adm. Gilday) and the most senior officer in the United States military (Gen. Milley) opposed the firing.

Here’s what happened. Trump was embarrassed by Capt. Crozier’s plea because it further exposed his administration’s incompetence. Trump wanted Crozier fired for embarrassing him. Modly ignored his senior military officers and like the scumbag Trump sycophant he is, fired Crozier. Then just like his petty, vindictive so-called Commander in Chief, Modly spent a quarter million dollars of taxpayer money to fly to Guam to deliver a vulgar, petty, vindictive smear to the beleaguered crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

THAT is what you are defending.

Why?

See the Trump personality cult is alive and well. Boy, you cult members are scary in your persistence.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Salty, you dragged me into this discussion.

I simply said that Crozier was the kind of guy I'd rather follow into the battle than Modly.
Straightforward. Not a close call.

and you just can't let up with all the insults.

the constant posturing and chest thumping is indeed tedious.

You have tons to offer of real insight in this area, but to think your interpretations are therefore absolutely correct, unimpeachable by anyone else, well on that you fall flat.

You insult the members of the military CoC & their civilian leaders, every time you assert or imply that they put pleasing Trump ahead of the welfare of the people in their charge or good order & discipline at all levels of the CoC.

I'm happy to discuss the details with you, but your automatic prejudgements, obsessive TDS, & failure to give the military CoC the benefit of the doubt makes that impossible.

You are incapable of discussion without somehow bringing Trump into the discussion. That's what is the most tedious.

obtw -- you might be suprised to know that a deployed carrier strike group is on a constant war time footing, constantly adapting to the potential likely adversaries in their area of operations.

No, just Modly.
He admitted to doing so.

I'll take Crozier over Modly any day of the week. So will his crew.

You still don't get it. The crew does not choose the CO. He's not the homecoming or prom king.

Any CO can make himself a hero by showing up the CoC in front of the crew.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-failure- ... 1586191567

Most insulting to the CoC was Crozier lecturing them on the need to look out for the sailors, as if he were the only one concerned for them. He really laid that on heavily.

It’s disgraceful that you continue to support the firing of Capt. Crozier.

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gilday, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, both opposed the firing.

But this entire sordid tale is only the latest chapter in the Trump administration's attack on American civil-military relations. For his part, Trump said Modly's resignation was “unselfish,” but added that he did not know him despite clear evidence to the contrary. It comes in the aftermath of other disturbing events dating to the very beginning of this administration. As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Obama, observed, Modly had “become a vehicle for the president.”

Modly’s decision to relieve Crozier came despite the opposition of Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Mark Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both recommended that the decision be left up to the military leadership. (Modly served in the Navy but retired from active duty in 1990 to attend business school.) Gilday and Milley further stressed that such a drastic step should not be taken until an investigation had been conducted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t ... cna1180806

Your blind support of the worst Commander in Chief in modern American history is simply appalling.

DocBarrister

Your (& NBC's) typical distortion. Gilday & Milley said they supported the SecNav's decision. Gilday & Milley wanted an investigation & to allow officers lower in the chain of command to decide or recommend whether or not Crozier should continue. They weren't calling for his relief (yet). Any of the military officers in Crozier's CoC (including the one down the hall that he blindsided) had the authority to direct his relief, as did the SecNav. Although they probably would have run it up the CoC to the SecNav for concurrence. Relief for cause would normally come after an investigation, unless the action was so serious, or the situation so time critical, that immediate action is called for. Apparently Modly felt he could no longer trust Crozier, in dealing with an urgent crisis, based on Crozier's communications with Modly & his CoS & what he had told the CoC before he blind sided them all with his signal flare.
Had Crozier kept his communication within the CoC & not generated a media & political firestorm, he would likely have gotten what he wanted & still have his job, as would Modly.

You & NBC would be well advised to wait to learn what the entire CoC, including the medical CoC was recommending. That will come via the investigation under way & the inevitable Congressional oversight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... intervene/

Modly said he learned about the memo on Tuesday, the day after it was written, when he arrived on a trip to Los Angeles and was told a leaked copy had been published that day in the San Francisco Chronicle. He regarded dissemination of the message as “bizarre behavior for a commanding officer,” especially since Crozier hadn’t contacted Modly directly, and began asking colleagues about Crozier, a widely respected officer.

“I was flabbergasted,” Modly said. “My only conclusion was, ‘he’s panicking.’ It was so out of character.” Modly spoke with Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and other top officers on Tuesday, as the situation aboard the Roosevelt became a national story. “I wanted the senior people in the chain of command to reach out to the captain directly,” Modly said.

On Wednesday, Modly called Crozier personally and asked, “What’s the story?” — meaning, why had he sent the email? According to Modly, Crozier answered: “Sir, we were getting a lot more cases. I felt it was time to send out a signal flare.” (Navy ships fire such a flare when the captain fears they’re in danger of sinking, Modly explained.)

By that time, more sailors were being transferred off the Roosevelt to safer makeshift quarters in Guam, and the anxiety onboard had eased. “I got no indication from Captain Crozier when I spoke with him personally on Wednesday that he wasn’t getting what he needed. None, in fact, the opposite.” Modly said he also received some direct communications from sailors who said the situation onboard wasn’t as dire as Crozier’s now-leaked memo had said.

By Wednesday, Modly said, “it was obvious to me that I couldn’t trust [Crozier’s] judgment." Gilday, with support from Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted to conduct an investigation of the incident. But Modly said he told the chief of naval operations: “I didn’t want to do an investigation while [Crozier] had a cloud over his head. I wanted to take the heat myself.”

Modly said he was concerned that Crozier had allowed the inflammatory message to become public by sending it to so many people. “Either you’re losing it, or you’re extremely naive, or you’re dishonorable. … If he did this intentionally, he’s not honorable.”

The climax came Thursday morning. At 7 a.m., Modly called Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, the commander of the Roosevelt’s multi-ship strike group and Crozier’s immediate superior. Modly said he asked Baker if he had known that Crozier would be sending the impassioned memo, and the strike group commander answered: “No. It arrived in my email inbox.” There had been no prior discussion or consultation about the message, Baker said.

Baker told Modly that he pressed Crozier why he hadn’t cleared the sensitive message or wide distribution group in advance. According to Modly, Crozier answered that “he worried Baker would not let him send it to that broad a group.” Baker affirmed to Modly: “He was right. I wouldn’t.”

After that conversation with Baker, whose cabin aboard the Roosevelt was near Crozier’s, the acting secretary said he decided that Crozier had to be relieved. He informed Esper, Milley and Gilday later Thursday morning, and although Gilday favored more investigation before taking such drastic action, Modly said that “I have lost confidence” in the captain. Esper, with Milley’s support, backed the decision, Modly told me, and Gilday stood by the acting secretary.

Modly sent me an email later Sunday morning, summarizing why he reached the decision: “I had serious doubts about how this CO might act if, for example, the ship came under attack by hypersonic missiles, or by cyber forces that crippled his communications, or by any other unpredictable event. It’s essential to love your crew, but it’s not sufficient.”

Modly apparently concluded that either Crozier or Baker needed to go. They could not continue to effectively function as a key operational link in the CoC of a deployed carrier strike group.

You keep talking about chain of command, but the most senior officer in the Navy (Adm. Gilday) and the most senior officer in the United States military (Gen. Milley) opposed the firing. Wrong. They wanted to wait for an investigation & allow Crozier's more immediate chain of command to decide or recommend whether or not he should continue in command.

Here’s what happened. Trump was embarrassed by Capt. Crozier’s plea because it further exposed his administration’s incompetence. Trump wanted Crozier fired for embarrassing him. Modly ignored his senior military officers and like the scumbag Trump sycophant he is, fired Crozier. Then just like his petty, vindictive so-called Commander in Chief, Modly spent a quarter million dollars of taxpayer money to fly to Guam to deliver a vulgar, petty, vindictive smear to the beleaguered crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
How do you know Trump wanted Crozier fired ? He objected to him sending the letter but he also noted his sterling career & said he didn't want to end it over 1 mistake or 1 bad day. He said he was not involved, but now he might have to.

THAT is what you are defending.
No. I'm defending the continuity of the chain of command.

This event gives a worrisome peek into the fraying of America’s military command structure. That structure relies on aggregated wisdom and dispersed power. It replaces emotion with cold logic. It reins in impulse with carefully considered protocols and procedures. None of those virtues are evident in how the Roosevelt incident played out.

...this event’s legacy also includes thousands, military and civilian, beguiled into rooting for an ineffective form of leadership, a loss of faith in a chain of command that was never properly invoked, and a horrified home front—not to mention media pundits making matters worse by sounding off on issues they don’t understand.

Why?
Because if Crozier were allowed to remain in command & be lauded as a folk hero it would establish a dangerous precedence which endures long after Trump has passed from the scene, Even the retired officers who defend Crozier & condemn Modly, acknowledge that it was wrong for Crozier to depart the chain of command & disclose the classified status of the ship.

See the Trump personality cult is alive and well. Boy, you cult members are scary in your persistence.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Yup, Trump cult.

That said, I'm not so sure that Modly actually knew what Trump wanted; he says he was just anticipating what Trump would think/want.

[old salt]

The conditions on Guam & the perspective of the local citizenry :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/maga ... virus.html

[Farfromgeneva]

The sheer intransigence of this debate at this point is making it a little dumb. I was engaged a little but mainly to understand if the (retired and former) military crew would even acknowledge Modly's actions and behavior which had mixed results. They all still work tirelessly to lay all blame at Crozier's feet and support a guy who clearly isn't fit to be at the top of the command structure which is stunning to me. The rest is just noise.

Stupid parts:

MD would choose Crozier over Modly as a leader. First off he hasn't even explicitly said that was in the realm of military service, he may have meant that, but I took it to mean in the world writ large where this notion of never breaking the chain of command does not exist. Why the other side insists his comments only refer to in this microcosm of the country is unclear to me.

Retired and former military service folks are acting like jerks, repetitive and trying to shout over folks, with the same refrain that the only thing that matters is the chain of command. I highly doubt folks in suits or with a lot of stars and in boardroom type meetings strategizing and planning spend on 1/1100th the time spent here discussing this aspect of it all and there are many other considerations well above their collective pay grade which means they're still speculating as much as anyone else.

No one is moving one inch. Continue to build that carpal tunnel here, but man the conversation looks like a metaphor for the Rock of Gibraltar.

Carry on.

[old salt]

The conditions on Guam & the perspective of the local citizenry :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/maga ... virus.html
Naval Hospital Guam has six I.C.U. beds and at least 15 ventilators, according to the Navy. An additional 12 acute care beds and six critical care beds with ventilators were added in the past two weeks. On base, the elementary and secondary schools, the gym, the Navy Lodge and some older barracks have been converted to housing for sick sailors. About 230 sailors and Marines from a Japan-based medical battalion arrived on the island earlier this week to help the Navy’s medical staff test and treat sailors.

The Navy is in the process of testing every sailor on board, with results taking up to 96 hours. On Friday, a 20-year-old sailor who had been tested a few days earlier was still awaiting her results. For now, she spends part of her day cleaning the ship, a task for which she is issued gloves and a mask. With so many members of the crew off the boat, social distancing is easier. But her worries about her own test results are compounded by the concern she has for her family in New York, the current epicenter of the virus, and for her shipmates, including her former captain, who has become a symbol of strength for the crew.

Sailors who test negative are being moved to hotels off base that stood largely vacant after tourists left the island. Once they arrive, they are not allowed to leave. Mary Rhodes, the president of the Guam Hotel and Restaurant Association who has been helping the Navy move sailors from the base to the hotels, described a lockdown scenario. Sailors are guarded by military police. They are given enough linens to last two weeks, and have access to wireless internet. They may receive laundry service once a week and receive mail, which is subject to inspection. They are allowed to go outside on balconies, but they do not have keys to their doors, which lock behind them.

That’s part of the agreement Leon Guerrero said she struck with the Navy. To protect its own population and health care system — which includes one private and one public hospital — the carrier’s sailors are to have no contact with civilians. “I made it very adamant that sailors are not to go to the beaches, they are not to go outside,” Leon Guerrero said. “So far they are complying.”

The Navy has assured Leon Guerrero that its presence will not hurt Guam’s health care system, she said, adding that the service has helped with testing and supplies and has delivered 35 additional ventilators to the island.

Outside the base’s perimeter, residents are preparing for the possibility that their own outbreak could overwhelm local resources. As of Friday, Guam had a total of 130 cases of the coronavirus, including four deaths. The hospitals have been able to manage the flow of patients so far, but the island could require as many as 6,000 hospital beds by June, according to Dr. Felix Cabrera, a member of Leon Guerrero’s physician's advisory group.

The island has only 75 beds available for coronavirus patients, the governor’s office said. Officials hoped to free up 26 more beds by next week, once patients who did not have the virus were relocated. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently delivered another 100 beds, and officials are looking for a location to set them up.

The island needs more protective gear, including N95 masks, said Dr. Thomas Shieh, who leads the nonprofit advocacy Guam Medical Association. “The struggle for supplies is real,” said Shieh, a former naval officer who spent four years at the base hospital before going into private practice.

Like in much of the rest of the world, there’s fear of community transmission, said Glynis Almonte, a retired nurse who worked at the public hospital and now volunteers with the island’s nursing association. “Our leaders, our medical experts, they’re trying their best to consolidate their efforts to fight this threat of the virus,” Almonte said, adding that the island already has a nursing shortage and school nurses are helping out in hospitals. “We’re just praying,” she added.

Back in the United States, the families of the Theodore Roosevelt’s crew are left feeling hopeless, as their loved ones report back about what’s happening. The mother of a 19-year-old sailor who tested positive said her son was moved to an on-base apartment with other infected crew members. She said he was sick for about five days on the ship before it arrived in Guam. As more and more sailors became ill, the crew was forced to jostle for space. Her son told her so many of the crew’s cooks were getting sick that meals became less frequent. “People were waiting in line for a couple hours for food,” the mother said.

In housing on the base, food continues to be a problem. The first night, the sailors received two two-piece meals of chicken and mashed potatoes. “There were four men sick who had to share those two meals for dinner,” she said. “When you’re sick, you need food.”

For the next several weeks, all that the Guam residents and sailors can do is sit in their respective homes or hotel rooms and wait. A small crew remains on the carrier doing a deep clean. As sailors complete off-base quarantines, they will move back on board, the Navy said.
The intent is to get the Theodore Roosevelt back out on deployment with a “healthy crew,” Lt. j.g. Rachel McMarr, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said Thursday. “That boat’s going back on patrol eventually.”

[old salt]

The sheer intransigence of this debate at this point is making it a little dumb. I was engaged a little but mainly to understand if the (retired and former) military crew would even acknowledge Modly's actions and behavior which had mixed results. They all still work tirelessly to lay all blame at Crozier's feet and support a guy who clearly isn't fit to be at the top of the command structure which is stunning to me. The rest is just noise.

Stupid parts:

MD would choose Crozier over Modly as a leader. First off he hasn't even explicitly said that was in the realm of military service, he may have meant that, but I took it to mean in the world writ large where this notion of never breaking the chain of command does not exist. Why the other side insists his comments only refer to in this microcosm of the country is unclear to me.

Retired and former military service folks are acting like jerks, repetitive and trying to shout over folks, with the same refrain that the only thing that matters is the chain of command. I highly doubt folks in suits or with a lot of stars and in boardroom type meetings strategizing and planning spend on 1/1100th the time spent here discussing this aspect of it all and there are many other considerations well above their collective pay grade which means they're still speculating as much as anyone else.

No one is moving one inch. Continue to build that carpal tunnel here, but man the conversation looks like a metaphor for the Rock of Gibraltar.

Carry on.

If you never served, you can't be expected to understand the importance of the chain of command. The military is different.

MD said he'd prefer to follow Crozier over Modly into battle, not the board room. Hair style matters.

[MDlaxfan76]

well said, geneva.

You are correct that I was speaking more broadly than simply military, which leader I'd prefer to follow into 'battle'.

Leadership in crisis matters.

I do think it also applies in a military perspective and I certainly understand why the ex military folks on here focused specifically on that aspect. No objection from me on their focus.

I just see one leader who puts his people over his personal interest... and another who at least appears to be making decisions based upon what he thinks his boss might get mad about, concerned to keep his job.

The leader who asks me to sacrifice for the good of the mission, whether that's 'staying home in place' or charging the proverbial hill under fire, needs me to be confident that he is doing so not for his personal job security or personal glory but rather because that 'mission' is truly worth of that sacrifice.

Pretty simple really.

But yes Salty, cradle, whoever, if I'm in the military I also recognize that my duty is to follow that order, to make that sacrifice, regardless of whether I trust that leader. But don't kid yourself that it doesn't matter, that morale doesn't matter.

[old salt]

well said, geneva.

You are correct that I was speaking more broadly than simply military, which leader I'd prefer to follow into 'battle'.

Leadership in crisis matters.

I do think it also applies in a military perspective and I certainly understand why the ex military folks on here focused specifically on that aspect. No objection from me on their focus.

I just see one leader who puts his people over his personal interest... and another who at least appears to be making decisions based upon what he thinks his boss might get mad about, concerned to keep his job.

The leader who asks me to sacrifice for the good of the mission, whether that's 'staying home in place' or charging the proverbial hill under fire, needs me to be confident that he is doing so not for his personal job security or personal glory but rather because that 'mission' is truly worth of that sacrifice.

Pretty simple really.

Didn't you say you'd rather follow Crozier into battle ? That's pretty explicitly in the realm of military service.

[MDlaxfan76]

well said, geneva.

You are correct that I was speaking more broadly than simply military, which leader I'd prefer to follow into 'battle'.

Leadership in crisis matters.

I do think it also applies in a military perspective and I certainly understand why the ex military folks on here focused specifically on that aspect. No objection from me on their focus.

I just see one leader who puts his people over his personal interest... and another who at least appears to be making decisions based upon what he thinks his boss might get mad about, concerned to keep his job.

The leader who asks me to sacrifice for the good of the mission, whether that's 'staying home in place' or charging the proverbial hill under fire, needs me to be confident that he is doing so not for his personal job security or personal glory but rather because that 'mission' is truly worth of that sacrifice.

Pretty simple really.

Didn't you say you'd rather follow Crozier into battle ?

Yup, see above.

On a comparison of these two people in positions of leadership, I'd be far more likely to trust Crozier's judgement as to whether my sacrifice, the risks that I would be taking, including the potential loss of my life, was worth it. That's because I'd be confident that he actually values that sacrifice and was not putting his job security above that sacrifice.

[old salt]

well said, geneva.

You are correct that I was speaking more broadly than simply military, which leader I'd prefer to follow into 'battle'.

Leadership in crisis matters.

I do think it also applies in a military perspective and I certainly understand why the ex military folks on here focused specifically on that aspect. No objection from me on their focus.

I just see one leader who puts his people over his personal interest... and another who at least appears to be making decisions based upon what he thinks his boss might get mad about, concerned to keep his job.

The leader who asks me to sacrifice for the good of the mission, whether that's 'staying home in place' or charging the proverbial hill under fire, needs me to be confident that he is doing so not for his personal job security or personal glory but rather because that 'mission' is truly worth of that sacrifice.

Pretty simple really.

Didn't you say you'd rather follow Crozier into battle ?

Yup, see above.

Genenva was claiming you didn't mean it in the realm of military service. To which you replied in the affirmative.