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

[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.

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.

You can make that claim all day and night but it doesn't mean it's true. I would add that even military ops change over time and where you are in the food chain matters.

Also, that applies to our homeboy at 1600 Pennsy

Classic mistake of conflating domain knowledge with comprehensive expertise. And before someone surely bugs out about this post, also understand, if capable of doing so, that respect for acts/actions/service is not the same as evaluation of a persons overall ability to be trusted or believed. I have a cousin who talks all sorts of crap about military, good guy, all over FB lecturing others on this realm and yet I know for a fact he was discharged not dishonorably or honorably, something else, but it was because he was shot in the leg while serving on a base in SoCal while also some how running a side hustle limo service business front for selling weed and was shot from a issue involving said side hustle business. I love him and all that but I still question his judgement when he talks military.

[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.

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

sure, he correctly read me more broadly than only military. But as I said, IMO it applies to the military as well, for the reasons that I explain.

I certainly understand why you and some others took a narrower focus. I just think you're wrong even with that limitation.

Again, I've tried to explain why, but you guys seem to be so locked into a position that you're really not listening to what I'm saying.

[old salt]

I don't think you appreciate the limitations on the prerogatives & the span of decision making of a carrier CO vs the CO's of other warships. It's a prestigious assignment because of the size & value of the ship & the crew. Compared to smaller warships, the carrier CO's operational decision making is much more constricted. He provides the airfield & the hotel for the embarked Air Wing commanded by the CAG. Both report directly to the embarked Admiral who is the strike group commander. In terms of the range of critical & independent decision making -- the CO of a sub, destroyer, frigate or even a littoral combat ship, has to make more unsupervised decisions than does a carrier CO.

Crozier would not lead the TR into battle, the embarked CAG & the Strike Group Commander would do that. Crozier would be responsible for driving the ship & providing a ready deck for the air wing. The Strike Group Commander would be making the tactical decisions. It's critical that all 3 are in sync & trust each other. CAPT Crozier blindsided RADM Baker.

[DocBarrister]

To date, 550 crew members of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, over 10% of the crew, have tested positive for the coronavirus. One of them is in the ICU after being found unresponsive.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/cor ... 3a83c45357

Captain Crozier saved his crew. He should be lauded as a national hero, not smeared by the shameless Trump cultists.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

I don't think you appreciate the limitations on the prerogatives & the span of decision making of a carrier CO vs the CO's of other warships. It's a prestigious assignment because of the size & value of the ship & the crew. Compared to smaller warships, the carrier CO's operational decision making is much more constricted. He provides the airfield & the hotel for the embarked Air Wing commanded by the CAG. Both report directly to the embarked Admiral who is the strike group commander. In terms of the range of critical & independent decision making -- the CO of a sub, destroyer, frigate or even a littoral combat ship, has to make more unsupervised decisions than does a carrier CO.

Crozier would not lead the TR into battle, the embarked CAG & the Strike Group Commander would do that. Crozier would be responsible for driving the ship & providing a ready deck for the air wing. The Strike Group Commander would be making the tactical decisions. It's critical that all 3 are in sync & trust each other. CAPT Crozier blindsided RADM Baker.

It’s pretty clear that both Rear Adm. Baker and former Acting Navy Scumbag Modly were part of the problem. Crozier tried to get them to do the right thing but they wouldn’t treat the situation as the emergency that it was.

Capt. Crozier put the safety and lives of his crew before Navy decorum and his own career. As his memo indicated, he would have acted differently if his ship was engaged in more immediate combat missions, but they weren’t. He did what needed to be done. Had the Teddy Roosevelt stayed out at sea even a few days longer, you could be looking at a majority of the crew being infected, much more than one sailor in the ICU, and the entire carrier being out of service for months.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

I don't think you appreciate the limitations on the prerogatives & the span of decision making of a carrier CO vs the CO's of other warships. It's a prestigious assignment because of the size & value of the ship & the crew. Compared to smaller warships, the carrier CO's operational decision making is much more constricted. He provides the airfield & the hotel for the embarked Air Wing commanded by the CAG. Both report directly to the embarked Admiral who is the strike group commander. In terms of the range of critical & independent decision making -- the CO of a sub, destroyer, frigate or even a littoral combat ship, has to make more unsupervised decisions than does a carrier CO.

Crozier would not lead the TR into battle, the embarked CAG & the Strike Group Commander would do that. Crozier would be responsible for driving the ship & providing a ready deck for the air wing. The Strike Group Commander would be making the tactical decisions. It's critical that all 3 are in sync & trust each other. CAPT Crozier blindsided RADM Baker.

It’s pretty clear that both Rear Adm. Baker and former Acting Navy Scumbag Modly were part of the problem. Crozier tried to get them to do the right thing but they wouldn’t treat the situation as the emergency that it was.

Capt. Crozier put the safety and lives of his crew before Navy decorum and his own career. As his memo indicated, he would have acted differently if his ship was engaged in more immediate combat missions, but they weren’t. He did what needed to be done. Had the Teddy Roosevelt stayed out at sea even a few days longer, you could be looking at a majority of the crew being infected, much more than one sailor in the ICU, and the entire carrier being out of service for months.

DocBarrister

OK Doc - did Crozier consult the Governor of Guam ? Was he aware of the medical capacity ashore ? Did he wait long enough to find out what could be accommodated ashore on the base ? What medical supplies & personnel were on the way ? Did he take the time to find & consider all that before firing off his signal flare ? ...& what was the medical CoC recommending ? There was no delay in getting the TR into Guam. Where do you get they would stay at sea longer ? Did Crozier take advantage of his comm channel directly to Modly & his CoS to convey the urgency voiced in his email ?

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't think you appreciate the limitations on the prerogatives & the span of decision making of a carrier CO vs the CO's of other warships. It's a prestigious assignment because of the size & value of the ship & the crew. Compared to smaller warships, the carrier CO's operational decision making is much more constricted. He provides the airfield & the hotel for the embarked Air Wing commanded by the CAG. Both report directly to the embarked Admiral who is the strike group commander. In terms of the range of critical & independent decision making -- the CO of a sub, destroyer, frigate or even a littoral combat ship, has to make more unsupervised decisions than does a carrier CO.

Crozier would not lead the TR into battle, the embarked CAG & the Strike Group Commander would do that. Crozier would be responsible for driving the ship & providing a ready deck for the air wing. The Strike Group Commander would be making the tactical decisions. It's critical that all 3 are in sync & trust each other. CAPT Crozier blindsided RADM Baker.

To be clear, Modly ain't a combat commander of anything.

Give me a choice of either of these guys in any leadership position and it's an easy choice.
Whether that's me choosing as their boss who to lead in any position or as someone under their command/leadership (though in the military I don't get a choice, just a preference).

That was my sole point.

For me, it was not a Trump thing.
Certainly not initially, as far as we knew Trump wasn't involved.
For me it was just about treating a COVID-19 response as requiring urgency.
The willingness to sacrifice one's career for one's crew.

But you guys have lined up behind Modly...and then he admitted he was thinking about Trump's perceptions...

[Farfromgeneva]

This is how I understood you originally. Commonly using war terms outside war metaphorically. We probably all do this too much, but it does take a fairly obtuse thought process IMO to jump beyond that and take it very literally.

[MDlaxfan76]

This is how I understood you originally. Commonly using war terms outside war metaphorically. We probably all do this too much, but it does take a fairly obtuse thought process IMO to jump beyond that and take it very literally.

I'll cut them some slack on that, it's their lens, and it certainly involved actual military folks.
I meant more broadly, but I understand their lens.

I do take their point on chain of command.
Again, their lens.

But not on leadership.
Even within their lens of military in specific, IMO that leadership quality also impacts effectiveness in that realm.

What's more puzzling to me is the insistence on taking repeated swings at the guy who put his crew first and yet supporting the guy who admitted he removed him from command because he was concerned about Trump being mad about the situation being public. Wanted to preempt Trump stepping in. And now we learn that the others in the chain of command were trying to keep him from acting prematurely.

so, is this all knee jerk response to support the guy Trump put in charge, who makes decisions because he's concerned about Trump getting upset about pr aspects...?

[old salt]

I don't think you appreciate the limitations on the prerogatives & the span of decision making of a carrier CO vs the CO's of other warships. It's a prestigious assignment because of the size & value of the ship & the crew. Compared to smaller warships, the carrier CO's operational decision making is much more constricted. He provides the airfield & the hotel for the embarked Air Wing commanded by the CAG. Both report directly to the embarked Admiral who is the strike group commander. In terms of the range of critical & independent decision making -- the CO of a sub, destroyer, frigate or even a littoral combat ship, has to make more unsupervised decisions than does a carrier CO.

Crozier would not lead the TR into battle, the embarked CAG & the Strike Group Commander would do that. Crozier would be responsible for driving the ship & providing a ready deck for the air wing. The Strike Group Commander would be making the tactical decisions. It's critical that all 3 are in sync & trust each other. CAPT Crozier blindsided RADM Baker.

To be clear, Modly ain't a combat commander of anything.

Give me a choice of either of these guys in any leadership position and it's an easy choice.
Whether that's me choosing as their boss who to lead in any position or as someone under their command/leadership (though in the military I don't get a choice, just a preference).

That was my sole point.

For me, it was not a Trump thing.
Certainly not initially, as far as we knew Trump wasn't involved.
For me it was just about treating a COVID-19 response as requiring urgency.
The willingness to sacrifice one's career for one's crew.

But you guys have lined up behind Modly...and then he admitted he was thinking about Trump's perceptions...

No. I've said I don't know enough to judge them. I said they (imho) both tried to do the right thing & both made errors in judgments.
I said I have empathy for both of them.Like the CNO, I'm waiting to learn more from the investigation & hear from the rest of the CoC.

Since the collisions in Pac Flt, Big Navy has been encouraging CO's to "speak truth to power" (through proper channels). For that reason, & because he was well intentioned, I do not expect Crozier to be disciplined. I don't expect him to be reinstated on the TR, but this thing has become so politicized & media driven, nothing will surprise me.

To be clear -- you've made it clear you have no appreciation for the responsibilities & prerogatives of the Secretary of the Navy,
You say it's not a Trump thing, but then you can't stop bringing Trump into it.

[old salt]

This is how I understood you originally. Commonly using war terms outside war metaphorically. We probably all do this too much, but it does take a fairly obtuse thought process IMO to jump beyond that and take it very literally.

I'll cut them some slack on that, it's their lens, and it certainly involved actual military folks.
I meant more broadly, but I understand their lens.

I do take their point on chain of command.
Again, their lens.

But not on leadership.
Even within their lens of military in specific, IMO that leadership quality also impacts effectiveness in that realm.

What's more puzzling to me is the insistence on taking repeated swings at the guy who put his crew first and yet supporting the guy who admitted he removed him from command because he was concerned about Trump being mad about the situation being public. Wanted to preempt Trump stepping in. And now we learn that the others in the chain of command were trying to keep him from acting prematurely.

so, is this all knee jerk response to support the guy Trump put in charge, who makes decisions because he's concerned about Trump getting upset about pr aspects...?

.. ...again, you can't keep Trump out of it. You're ignoring the real reasons Modly relieved Crozier. He no longer trusted his judgement, He told you, he concluded that Crozier was too stupid or too naive to command a warship in a crisis. He made that decision immediately after he asked Crozier & Baker WTFoxtrot were you thinking in sending that out unsecured, outside the CoC, guaranteeing it would be leaked.

Big of you to cut those of us who served some slack for taking this stuff literally.
The TR is an actual warship, not the Love Boat. ..

The Guamanian reaction to Crozier's departure pep rally. Good order & discipline.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/ ... 29238.html

Most social media users and news outlets that shared the videos described the scene as a heartwarming moment - a hero's sendoff for a leader who sacrificed his career for his rank and file. "Wrongfully relieved of command but did right by the sailors," read the caption accompanying one of the Twitter videos. But on Guam, many people saw something different - a careless crowd compromising their shores with a deadly illness.

"There's an entire sea of people," exclaimed Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero, co-chair of the political advocacy organisation Independent Guahan, referring to those who cheered on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the relieved captain disembarked. "Hardly any of them are wearing masks. Nobody is social distancing. The captain himself exits the ship without a mask and shakes hands with [someone who was] picking him up … And now we're hearing that this captain is positive for COVID."

The videos' divergent interpretations highlight what many on Guam - a US territory with a hefty permanent military presence - see as an all-too-common phenomena: their community's erasure and subjugation at the hands of the armed forces. They claim that, since the USS Theodore Roosevelt arrived in mid-March, the US Navy has made unilateral, opaque decisions that have put their communities at risk. And, as US media continue to closely cover the ship's coronavirus outbreak, local residents question why their concerns are not addressed.

Given these tensions and the military's tendency to take over, many local advocates were apprehensive when the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt arrived on March 27 with at least 23 confirmed COVID-19 cases. At the time, Guam already had 51 of its own confirmed cases, including one death.

On March 29, eight Indigenous, environmental, and other community groups signed onto a letter to Guam's governor, Lou Leon Guerrero, expressing concerns regarding what they perceived to be the Navy's attempt to use Guam as a quarantine zone without the local government's input. "We are concerned that their approach to exclude you from being a valued voice in critical decision-making will place more of our people, especially our manamko, at risk," they wrote, using the Chamorro word for elders.

Referencing a statement from the Navy's chief of naval operations, in which he wrote that the Navy's "top two priorities are taking care of our people and maintaining mission readiness", the groups also urged that the "narrative must shift to include prioritising the health and safety of our local people."

In terms of concrete action, the groups implored the governor to request that all the Navy's isolation and quarantine efforts be restricted to the military bases on Guam - which contain barracks and the military's own hospital - to reduce the chances of sailors infecting community members. They also asked that the Navy share its outsized resources with the community by helping to erect a temporary overflow hospital, and by donating personal protective equipment and hard-to-get coronavirus test kits. The Roosevelt has obtained enough kits to test almost all of its 4,800 crew members; as of Thursday, the government of Guam had tested 678 people. At least 447 Roosevelt crew members had tested positive for the virus as of Friday, a large jump from the 286 positive cases the Navy announced on Wednesday.

Concerns ignored?
On April 1, Guam's governor, together with the Navy's Pacific fleet commander, Admiral John Aquilino, announced that Roosevelt crew members suffering from COVID-19 would be held at the naval base, while those who test negative for the novel coronavirus would be quarantined for 14 days inside civilian hotels on Guam.

"I know there will be a small chorus of cynics who will oppose the position," the governor said after announcing the move, "but now is not the time for 'us versus them.'"

Despite the governor's characterisation, local advocates view their concerns as neither cynical nor overly confrontational. They argue that, even though only sailors who test negative are being quarantined in hotels outside of the bases, the virus's especially long incubation period provides no guarantee that they are not compromised. ...recent estimates from the governor's medical advisory group indicate that total COVID-19 cases on Guam could surpass hospital capacity as soon as April 23.

The advocates have expressed special concern for their community's elders, who are especially at risk if young and healthy sailors are not careful enough. They also worry for the workers staffing the hotels in which the ship's crew is quarantining, since they represent the most direct route between sailors and the community.
Civilian hotel workers "prepare meals and laundry service", which are then delivered by service members wearing protective equipment, ensuring that the workers never come into contact with quarantined sailors.

Moore also said that the military is "focused on providing the conditions that provide Guam and [the Northern Mariana Islands, another US territory] with the necessary testing and treatment capabilities to protect the community". He pointed to the medical battalion and Marine logistics group that arrived on April 1 to respond to the Roosevelt situation, saying they "could also be expanded to assist the government of Guam, if required."

When asked about the governor's inclusion in the decision-making process regarding the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Moore said Lou Leon Guerrero and Rear Admiral John Menoni, commander of the region's naval forces, "hold frequent calls and meetings". But many on the island see the relationship as little more than a show.
"It makes it seem as though she had some kind of power, but really she didn't," Leon Guerrero said. Quarantining on Guam, she added, "is something that they could have done with or without her consent, because of Guam's status."

As of Thursday, Guam has had 125 confirmed COVID-19 cases, including four deaths.
More than 3,100 sailors have so far moved ashore, confirming for the advocates the power the military has on their island, even in times of crisis.

"It's basically a question of whose health and safety matters more," said Borja-Kicho'cho'. "And it's so frustrating because we already know the answer to that. We know it's not us."

[old salt]

Javits Center & Comfort still underutilized :
https://nypost.com/2020/04/10/usns-comf ... -patients/

[MDlaxfan76]

This is how I understood you originally. Commonly using war terms outside war metaphorically. We probably all do this too much, but it does take a fairly obtuse thought process IMO to jump beyond that and take it very literally.

I'll cut them some slack on that, it's their lens, and it certainly involved actual military folks.
I meant more broadly, but I understand their lens.

I do take their point on chain of command.
Again, their lens.

But not on leadership.
Even within their lens of military in specific, IMO that leadership quality also impacts effectiveness in that realm.

What's more puzzling to me is the insistence on taking repeated swings at the guy who put his crew first and yet supporting the guy who admitted he removed him from command because he was concerned about Trump being mad about the situation being public. Wanted to preempt Trump stepping in. And now we learn that the others in the chain of command were trying to keep him from acting prematurely.

so, is this all knee jerk response to support the guy Trump put in charge, who makes decisions because he's concerned about Trump getting upset about pr aspects...?

.. ...again, you can't keep Trump out of it. You're ignoring the real reasons Modly relieved Crozier. He no longer trusted his judgement, He told you, he concluded that Crozier was too stupid or too naive to command a warship in a crisis. He made that decision immediately after he asked Crozier & Baker WTFoxtrot were you thinking in sending that out unsecured, outside the CoC, guaranteeing it would be leaked.

Big of you to cut those of us who served some slack for taking this stuff literally.
The TR is an actual warship, not the Love Boat. ..

The Guamanian reaction to Crozier's departure pep rally. Good order & discipline.

As of Thursday, Guam has had 125 confirmed COVID-19 cases, including four deaths.
More than 3,100 sailors have so far moved ashore, confirming for the advocates the power the military has on their island, even in times of crisis.

"It's basically a question of whose health and safety matters more," said Borja-Kicho'cho'. "And it's so frustrating because we already know the answer to that. We know it's not us."[/i]

[/quote]

Yup, you and your fellow vets are hyper focused on the military lens. I get it.

But no, that's not all that Crozier has said. He's also said he was worried about what Trump would think and what he might do. He then said the insulting things about Crozier to the crew.

I didn't know that Modly was thinking about Trump when I made my original comment about the leadership of these two guys. I was simply focused on the urgency factor in responding to the virus.

My sense was that Modly was embarrassed that the lack of urgency (or at least Crozier's perception of it) had reached the press...which was weird since this press conference you posted makes clear that Crozier's command is not at risk, yet it had already gotten to the press. So, it looks like it wasn't so much that it got to the press, but rather that the reaction by the public was critical...and later Modly admits that's when he was thinking about preempting a Trump reaction.

I have no clue as to whether Trump made clear his displeasure and this feeling was transmitted to Modly, but we do know that Trump himself later claimed that Esper had been involved with the decision to relieve Cozier from command. Not sure you can believe anything out of Trump's mouth, so he may have been completely wrong, but that's what he said. Trump to Esper to Crozier? Maybe, maybe not.

But it's no surprise that the same cast of characters on this thread who, at each step of the virus' progression, pooh poohed the seriousness of the virus and the necessity for swift action are the same ones who reacted negatively to the captain taking action on behalf of his crew.

No surprise.

[cradleandshoot]

This is how I understood you originally. Commonly using war terms outside war metaphorically. We probably all do this too much, but it does take a fairly obtuse thought process IMO to jump beyond that and take it very literally.

I'll cut them some slack on that, it's their lens, and it certainly involved actual military folks.
I meant more broadly, but I understand their lens.

I do take their point on chain of command.
Again, their lens.

But not on leadership.
Even within their lens of military in specific, IMO that leadership quality also impacts effectiveness in that realm.

What's more puzzling to me is the insistence on taking repeated swings at the guy who put his crew first and yet supporting the guy who admitted he removed him from command because he was concerned about Trump being mad about the situation being public. Wanted to preempt Trump stepping in. And now we learn that the others in the chain of command were trying to keep him from acting prematurely.

so, is this all knee jerk response to support the guy Trump put in charge, who makes decisions because he's concerned about Trump getting upset about pr aspects...?

.. ...again, you can't keep Trump out of it. You're ignoring the real reasons Modly relieved Crozier. He no longer trusted his judgement, He told you, he concluded that Crozier was too stupid or too naive to command a warship in a crisis. He made that decision immediately after he asked Crozier & Baker WTFoxtrot were you thinking in sending that out unsecured, outside the CoC, guaranteeing it would be leaked.

Big of you to cut those of us who served some slack for taking this stuff literally.
The TR is an actual warship, not the Love Boat. ..

The Guamanian reaction to Crozier's departure pep rally. Good order & discipline.

As of Thursday, Guam has had 125 confirmed COVID-19 cases, including four deaths.
More than 3,100 sailors have so far moved ashore, confirming for the advocates the power the military has on their island, even in times of crisis.

"It's basically a question of whose health and safety matters more," said Borja-Kicho'cho'. "And it's so frustrating because we already know the answer to that. We know it's not us."[/i]

Yup, you and your fellow vets are hyper focused on the military lens. I get it.

But no, that's not all that Crozier has said. He's also said he was worried about what Trump would think and what he might do. He then said the insulting things about Crozier to the crew.

I didn't know that Modly was thinking about Trump when I made my original comment about the leadership of these two guys. I was simply focused on the urgency factor in responding to the virus.

My sense was that Modly was embarrassed that the lack of urgency (or at least Crozier's perception of it) had reached the press...which was weird since this press conference you posted makes clear that Crozier's command is not at risk, yet it had already gotten to the press. So, it looks like it wasn't so much that it got to the press, but rather that the reaction by the public was critical...and later Modly admits that's when he was thinking about preempting a Trump reaction.

I have no clue as to whether Trump made clear his displeasure and this feeling was transmitted to Modly, but we do know that Trump himself later claimed that Esper had been involved with the decision to relieve Cozier from command. Not sure you can believe anything out of Trump's mouth, so he may have been completely wrong, but that's what he said. Trump to Esper to Crozier? Maybe, maybe not.

But it's no surprise that the same cast of characters on this thread who, at each step of the virus' progression, pooh poohed the seriousness of the virus and the necessity for swift action are the same ones who reacted negatively to the captain taking action on behalf of his crew.

No surprise.
[/quote]

Just to clarify MD, none of my comments to you about Crozier had anything to do with Modly. The politics surrounding this mean diddly squat to me. My only concerns were a very poor decision made by the commanding officer of his ship. Crozier has been by all accounts an exceptional commanding officer for his career. You do not get such a plum command by being mediocre. I believe OS has this correct. There will be a post mortem investigation by the navy of Captain Croziers decision making. I don't think it will play out well for Captain Crozier. He made his decision and i believe he thought it the right thing to do. His lack of judgement in sending out an e-mail that he knew would be leaked compromised whatever his mission was. He made the choice, his men over his mission. I understand that for some reason you don't think the mission the TR was deployed on was all that important. I guaran dog gone tee it the upper Navy brass will never see it that way. The Navy is just like the Army in that regard, your mission always comes first.

[old salt]

My sense was that Modly was embarrassed that the lack of urgency (or at least Crozier's perception of it) had reached the press...which was weird since this press conference you posted makes clear that Crozier's command is not at risk, yet it had already gotten to the press. So, it looks like it wasn't so much that it got to the press, but rather that the reaction by the public was critical...and later Modly admits that's when he was thinking about preempting a Trump reaction.

I have no clue as to whether Trump made clear his displeasure and this feeling was transmitted to Modly, but we do know that Trump himself later claimed that Esper had been involved with the decision to relieve Cozier from command. Not sure you can believe anything out of Trump's mouth, so he may have been completely wrong, but that's what he said. Trump to Esper to Crozier? Maybe, maybe not.

But it's no surprise that the same cast of characters on this thread who, at each step of the virus' progression, pooh poohed the seriousness of the virus and the necessity for swift action are the same ones who reacted negatively to the captain taking action on behalf of his crew.

No surprise.

You should be surprised. Show us the words where I ever pooh pooed the seriousness of the virus or the necessity for swift action.

Of course Modly was embarrassed, as was the entire US Navy. That was Modly's point about Crozier's naivety or stupidity. Once the politicians & media became involved, that drove the response & panicked the crews families & the citizens of Guam. It created a media & political firestorm. Loudmouth (D) politicans staked out positions based on what they calculated would harm Trump (as did members of this forum). Everything in dealing with the outbreak became more difficult & politically charged. It became impossible to maintain ambiguity about the degraded readiness of our only deployed carrier in WPac & revealed that it could not repond in a crisis.

Esper made clear that it was Modly's unprompted decision to relieve Crozier, but he supported him in that decision, as did CNO Gilday & CJCS Milley. There's no indication that Trump intervened.

[LandM]

Far/MD - last post here,
Far if you think your relative is blowing smoke up skirts, ask him a few questions, you will find out pretty quickly if he claims he did or is what he claims. Second it is not uncommon for the lower pay-grade enlisted folks to have 2nd jobs. The reality is they do not get paid allot of money. Selling weed now that is a no, no. Finally if your relative is embellishing he will get called on it eventually. I have seen embellishment on resumes and in job interviews in the business world. Unfortunately that happens but I like to think most people are good and honorable people.

MD,
You talk about leadership, battle and taking care of his men. I applaud that. No one is arguing that. What has been debated (the lens) is the coc and what was the mission. That is the forest, you are looking at a big redwood but it is still a tree. There is was no reason why classified information went out in an unsecured setting nor the coc was not followed nor the SF Chronicle got wind of this. He is worried about his crew. But his ship is an invaluable asset both as a deterrent and for air power and probably off the top of my head put about 20,000 sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen in jeopardy. The Chinese and Russians (they share with the Iranians) have tin cans flying in geo-orbit, seeing what is going on, but what was going on the ship and in the group has now been publicly announced. There were better ways to communicate and handle the situation, slip over to Guam and keep them guessing and the military is like any bureaucracy, it does not move at the speed of light. On top of that the whole left has to be filled and you have all kinds of folks at the Pentagon, NORAD, and a few others creating action plans. That is what people are thinking about, it is not just the crew. IMHO 99% of people who had their hands in this cared about the crew. As to Trump, every thread out here is is nothing but rants on the guy. I did not vote for him and believe many of the things people have written about him but based on just your rants, you should be thanking Modley because he tried keeping Trump OUT of the Navy's business. Finally, again your observation about my feelings on the virus are totally misplaced.

Enjoy Easter

[MDlaxfan76]

You guys are nothing if not predictable.

None of you has bothered to actually engage on this with a shred of consideration that the captain knew exactly what his mission was, the unexpected threat to that mission and his crew, and his judgment that the mission would be best served by speedy action to limit the spread of the virus and to return the ship to full readiness therewith.

Nope, you keep glossing over this consideration as if any of you actually know better than the captain on the scene.

[old salt]

You guys are nothing if not predictable.

None of you has bothered to actually engage on this with a shred of consideration that the captain knew exactly what his mission was, the unexpected threat to that mission and his crew, and his judgment that the mission would be best served by speedy action to limit the spread of the virus and to return the ship to full readiness therewith.

Nope, you keep glossing over this consideration as if any of you actually know better than the captain on the scene.

...& you continue to refuse to consider the possibility that the CoC shared the same concerns as the CO, just as urgently as he did, yet they were working to overcome the obstacles ashore necessary to make it happen. I'm willing to wait for the investigation & hear from the CoC, especially the medical CoC who were well represented on the ship. I'm also interested in hearing from the CAG & the Command Master Chief to hear their assessment of conditions on the ship & the recommendations they gave, if they were consulted.

You seem to think that Crozier was the only one trying to find a way to keep the ship mission capable while also trying to protect the crew, or that he was the only one smart enough to appreciate the urgency of the situation, or the only one concerned with the well being of the crew.

[MDlaxfan76]

You guys are nothing if not predictable.

None of you has bothered to actually engage on this with a shred of consideration that the captain knew exactly what his mission was, the unexpected threat to that mission and his crew, and his judgment that the mission would be best served by speedy action to limit the spread of the virus and to return the ship to full readiness therewith.

Nope, you keep glossing over this consideration as if any of you actually know better than the captain on the scene.

...& you continue to refuse to consider the possibility that the CoC shared the same concerns as the CO, just as urgently as he did, yet they were working to overcome the obstacles ashore necessary to make it happen. I'm willing to wait for the investigation & hear from the CoC, especially the medical CoC who were well represented on the ship. I'm also interested in hearing from the CAG & the Command Master Chief to hear their assessment of conditions on the ship & the recommendations they gave, if they were consulted.

No, my comparison was simply with Modly.

However, if the chain of command was indeed acting throughout with the same sense of urgency as Crozier, they most likely failed to communicate it sufficiently.

However, as of that press conference, they were certainly expressing that the letter had affected their perception of the urgency felt by the captain. Likewise, they were NOT critical of the captain's sense of urgency. Nor were they critical of the 'classified' aspect. The sole critique was about the management of communication with the crew families.

Indeed, they were saying that they reacted constructively to the 'flare'. I suspect that was correct and I don't really fault them for not initially being as urgent as Crozier wanted. Very few in this saga in various positions of actual authority acted as swiftly as they should have, in retrospect. The degree of the slow responses, at various levels, however does very considerably. From simply too slow, to downright grossly slow.

In this matter, seems to me that they listened to the captain once he sent up the 'flare'. As they should have. Should they have reacted more swiftly from the outset? sure, but I'd bet they thought they were doing enough, fast enough. This most likely wasn't some sort of cover-up or denial of reality.

[old salt]

Very few in this saga in various positions of actual authority acted as swiftly as they should have, in retrospect. The degree of the slow responses, at various levels, however does very considerably. From simply too slow, to downright grossly slow.

In this matter, seems to me that they listened to the captain once he sent up the 'flare'. As they should have. Should they have reacted more swiftly from the outset? sure, but I'd bet they thought they were doing enough, fast enough. This most likely wasn't some sort of cover-up or denial of reality.

You have no basis for those assertions. It's pure speculation on your part. You have no idea what efforts were underway.
I'm willing to wait for the investigation to learn what the plans & preparations were before Crozier's email.
Listen to SecDef Esper @ 7:00 & 8:45 where he refutes your false narrative : https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... r-full.cnn
You spouted the same unfounded opinion about the "fiddling" in getting the Comfort underway.
We later learned that the DoN had a plan in place to expedite the preps to get underway & did just that as soon as they got the go signal.
They got to NYC before the city was prepared to host them or use their capabilities.