USNI-Should USS Roosevelt Co Be Reinstated (YES!)
Apr 17, 2020 13:09:00 GMT -5
nzmike11 and 899xxxandretired like this
Post by hapd on Apr 17, 2020 13:09:00 GMT -5
Combat Information Center Watch Supervisor
Should the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) helm be returned to Captain Crozier?
The U.S. Navy has endured an erratic chain of events this past few days; perhaps, more treacherous than the waves of the North Sea. First, the firing of Captain Brett E. Crozier followed by a fleet and family backlash then ultimately ending with acting Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly’s resignation.
Captain Crozier has achieved many significant milestones throughout his career. You don’t just get promoted to captain and handed your own aircraft carrier complimented with deployable assets in excess of 80 aircraft and 5,000 sailors if you haven’t proven yourself RAW (reliable, accountable, and worthy). Fewer people are selected captain of a U.S. aircraft carrier than multimillion-dollar winners of the lottery each year.
Maintaining a fair and level playing field, Secretary Modly has also achieved significant career milestones. He, too, was a Naval Academy graduate, served in the Navy for seven years, and held many prestige and key leadership positions with major corporations and government entities spanning more than three decades. However, what has all the above experience and leadership brought us in return? Much can be debating over this particular question but here are a few additional nuggets to ponder:
Why did Captain Crozier send his e-mail in the first place? Without overly speculating, in synopsis, this scenario parallels Winston Churchill’s definition of Russia’s Iron Curtain, “A riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Consider the following: Navy Times reported that “tensions between Captain Crozier and his immediate boss, Rear Adm. Stuart P. Baker, the commander of a multi-ship task force including the Roosevelt, most likely complicated the Navy’s response to the viral outbreak and prompted the captain to send a four-page letter pleading for help.” Reading between the lines, it appears Captain Crozier was not receiving the guidance needed from his immediate supervisor—if any—prompting him to seek alternate means to keep his crew safe simultaneously maintaining mission readiness.
Why did he address so many people in his e-mail? Common business rules and etiquette suggest he did so because he was not getting individual replies. It’s easy for a someone receiving an e-mail as a single recipient to dodge action, say it wasn’t received, or disregard dialog with a simple sample reply of “working on it” to dismiss immediate action. Copying others in an e-mail informs others that the sender is requesting action from the addressee(s) in the “To:” row as recipient for action. The “Cc:” is generally utilized to copy others as an “FYI” such as a supervisor or others possibly involved or potentially impacted by the information being disseminated while the “Bcc” is to hide addressee(s) primarily for “notary” and documentary purposes. Past experience has demonstrated: this is where leaks usually occur—intended or not.
Who leaked the e-mail? It’s hard to say, exactly; however, that is the counterpunch to sending an e-mail to multiple recipients. Unlike the aforementioned single-recipient, multiple recipients have the option of pointing the finger at each other, as no single addressee can be the pinpointed perpetrator unless it was electronically forwarded. More likely than not, the e-mail was printed by one of the recipients then leaked to the press through a tight-knit, well-organized social network. In some circumstances depending on the level of trust, the e-mail very well may have been forwarded electronically—especially if blind copied, as it hides the electronic hand-off. Intentional or not, it sounds like Captain Crozier was at wits end and did not care if it was leaked or not. He cared about his crew and wanted guidance and action.
Why was Captain Crozier fired for a “loss of confidence in ability to lead?” Again, this is speculation only but if it were a high-stakes gamble, I would ante up. They couldn’t fire him for disobeying a direct order or dereliction of duty because there was never any guidance to disobey; hence, his mass e-mail to his chain of command and then some. He solicited guidance and direction for the well-being of his crew in these unchartered waters, wasn’t getting any responses, and wanted to let someone and everyone know; else, they would THEN likely have fired him for “loss of confidence in ability to lead.” This posed a difficult situation for Captain Crozier so why not identify all those involved and care-less if it leaks to the press. Likewise, if you see the downward spiral continuing, it’s better to be fired for action rather than inaction.
So, in the end, what is the final solution for those above Captain Crozier? Of course, make him the “fall guy” by publicizing his removal from command to project the appearance of correction while self-preserving the upper chain of command. Of course, the public backlashed they received was unseen; however, Modly’s resignation was an easy way out which is not an option for a Navy captain. You can’t resign from a position in the military. The only remote alternative is requesting retirement—options that were never tabled for Captain Crozier. Many likely find it cowardice to fire a person with no options then turn around and resign—an option to somewhat preserve your career—unlike Captain Crozier’s options: None!
In summary, Captain Crozier was terminated from his position for pursuing best alternatives to preserve the welfare of his ship, Sailors, and mission during an unprecedented situation. Perhaps he did just have a “… bad day…” as President Trump has stated but I don’t believe that justifies removal of an aircraft carriers CO, call it a bad day yourself, and then resign. Both Captain Crozier and Secretary Modly may have had bad days and made some bad decisions but what is done is done; however, I believe it only fitting to return the Roosevelt’s helm back over to Captain Crozier as his crew clearly demonstrated his approval and leadership capacity by their unorthodox farewell.
Should the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) helm be returned to Captain Crozier?
The U.S. Navy has endured an erratic chain of events this past few days; perhaps, more treacherous than the waves of the North Sea. First, the firing of Captain Brett E. Crozier followed by a fleet and family backlash then ultimately ending with acting Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly’s resignation.
Captain Crozier has achieved many significant milestones throughout his career. You don’t just get promoted to captain and handed your own aircraft carrier complimented with deployable assets in excess of 80 aircraft and 5,000 sailors if you haven’t proven yourself RAW (reliable, accountable, and worthy). Fewer people are selected captain of a U.S. aircraft carrier than multimillion-dollar winners of the lottery each year.
Maintaining a fair and level playing field, Secretary Modly has also achieved significant career milestones. He, too, was a Naval Academy graduate, served in the Navy for seven years, and held many prestige and key leadership positions with major corporations and government entities spanning more than three decades. However, what has all the above experience and leadership brought us in return? Much can be debating over this particular question but here are a few additional nuggets to ponder:
Why did Captain Crozier send his e-mail in the first place? Without overly speculating, in synopsis, this scenario parallels Winston Churchill’s definition of Russia’s Iron Curtain, “A riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Consider the following: Navy Times reported that “tensions between Captain Crozier and his immediate boss, Rear Adm. Stuart P. Baker, the commander of a multi-ship task force including the Roosevelt, most likely complicated the Navy’s response to the viral outbreak and prompted the captain to send a four-page letter pleading for help.” Reading between the lines, it appears Captain Crozier was not receiving the guidance needed from his immediate supervisor—if any—prompting him to seek alternate means to keep his crew safe simultaneously maintaining mission readiness.
Why did he address so many people in his e-mail? Common business rules and etiquette suggest he did so because he was not getting individual replies. It’s easy for a someone receiving an e-mail as a single recipient to dodge action, say it wasn’t received, or disregard dialog with a simple sample reply of “working on it” to dismiss immediate action. Copying others in an e-mail informs others that the sender is requesting action from the addressee(s) in the “To:” row as recipient for action. The “Cc:” is generally utilized to copy others as an “FYI” such as a supervisor or others possibly involved or potentially impacted by the information being disseminated while the “Bcc” is to hide addressee(s) primarily for “notary” and documentary purposes. Past experience has demonstrated: this is where leaks usually occur—intended or not.
Who leaked the e-mail? It’s hard to say, exactly; however, that is the counterpunch to sending an e-mail to multiple recipients. Unlike the aforementioned single-recipient, multiple recipients have the option of pointing the finger at each other, as no single addressee can be the pinpointed perpetrator unless it was electronically forwarded. More likely than not, the e-mail was printed by one of the recipients then leaked to the press through a tight-knit, well-organized social network. In some circumstances depending on the level of trust, the e-mail very well may have been forwarded electronically—especially if blind copied, as it hides the electronic hand-off. Intentional or not, it sounds like Captain Crozier was at wits end and did not care if it was leaked or not. He cared about his crew and wanted guidance and action.
Why was Captain Crozier fired for a “loss of confidence in ability to lead?” Again, this is speculation only but if it were a high-stakes gamble, I would ante up. They couldn’t fire him for disobeying a direct order or dereliction of duty because there was never any guidance to disobey; hence, his mass e-mail to his chain of command and then some. He solicited guidance and direction for the well-being of his crew in these unchartered waters, wasn’t getting any responses, and wanted to let someone and everyone know; else, they would THEN likely have fired him for “loss of confidence in ability to lead.” This posed a difficult situation for Captain Crozier so why not identify all those involved and care-less if it leaks to the press. Likewise, if you see the downward spiral continuing, it’s better to be fired for action rather than inaction.
So, in the end, what is the final solution for those above Captain Crozier? Of course, make him the “fall guy” by publicizing his removal from command to project the appearance of correction while self-preserving the upper chain of command. Of course, the public backlashed they received was unseen; however, Modly’s resignation was an easy way out which is not an option for a Navy captain. You can’t resign from a position in the military. The only remote alternative is requesting retirement—options that were never tabled for Captain Crozier. Many likely find it cowardice to fire a person with no options then turn around and resign—an option to somewhat preserve your career—unlike Captain Crozier’s options: None!
In summary, Captain Crozier was terminated from his position for pursuing best alternatives to preserve the welfare of his ship, Sailors, and mission during an unprecedented situation. Perhaps he did just have a “… bad day…” as President Trump has stated but I don’t believe that justifies removal of an aircraft carriers CO, call it a bad day yourself, and then resign. Both Captain Crozier and Secretary Modly may have had bad days and made some bad decisions but what is done is done; however, I believe it only fitting to return the Roosevelt’s helm back over to Captain Crozier as his crew clearly demonstrated his approval and leadership capacity by their unorthodox farewell.