Brett Crozier, Captain of aircraft carrier fired

[kent davidge]

I was reading this news
https://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-...ore-roosevelt-who-begged-for-coronavirus-help

As I'm far from good when it comes to understand english terms... what do they mean by fired? Does it mean just that he is no longer the ship captain or was he fired from the navy?

This one
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ired-over-leak-of-letter-asking-navy-for-help

mentions 'relieved of command', so I'm inclined to think he's still with the navy (?)

 

[russ_watters]

As I'm far from good when it comes to understand english terms... what do they mean by fired? Does it mean just that he is no longer the ship captain or was he fired from the navy?

This one...

mentions 'relieved of command', so I'm inclined to think he's still with the navy (?)

Correct. "Fired" isn't a word used in the military. "relieved of command" is the proper term, which means pretty much exactly what it says; that he was removed from his job as commander of the ship. He's still in the Navy and will be given a new job. But as you can imagine, his prospects for future career advancement are basically gone.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Certainly it was outside the normal bounds of conduct to publicize his issue in his local newspaper. However, if the issue really wasn't being properly addressed, it would make him something of a whistleblower.

 

[morrobay]

And I would add that it was very bad judgement to allow the 5 day port call in Da-Nang, Vietnam last month where the virus probably infected the ship .

 

[Vanadium 50]

something of a whistleblower.

Something.

He wrote a letter intended to be leaked - it's not "to" anyone, and then he sent it around to people who might leak it. A more appropriate military action would have been to beat on his boss, and his boss' boss all the way up until he got what he wanted. If he wanted to be a whistle-blower, he should have come right out and done it, rather than trying to have his cake and eat it too via leaking.

Further, he has (well, had) the authority to park his ship in Guam and declaring it unready. (He might have had trouble finding berthing for 4000 sailors, but then again there are a couple thousand unused hotel rooms in Tumon Bay.) He didn't do this.

However, I don't think the letter was the main factor. I think that the reports that there was a climate of panic aboard the TR and that Crozier was claiming 50 sailors would die (no idea where he got that number) contributed to this panic. A panicky crew is a pretty strong reason to replace the skipper. A skipper who is contributing to the panic strengthens these reasons.

 

[Baluncore]

Another view ...
In frustration, the captain took unusual action late on Sunday.
It finally resulted in superiors action on Wednesday. Why so long?
His embarrassed superiors relieved him of command on Thursday.
His superiors hope their failure to act earlier will be blamed on the captain.
The captains sacrifice, for the health of the crew, should be appreciated by the ranks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As I mentioned, I think a panicky crew is much more likely to be the cause of this action.

The captains sacrifice, for the health of the crew, should be appreciated by the ranks.

If that were the case, he should have written a signed letter to the Chronicle, not ensuring it was leaked to the Chronicle. He should have taken responsibility. It would have been more effective, and it's the right thing to do. If you think you're a whistlelower, you blow the whistle. You don't go to Costco to buy a bag of whistles, pass them out to your friends, and hope.

I'll go a step further. For that strategy to have maximum impact, the letter should be signed by the entire command triad (both of them) plus the senior medical officer on board.

 

[russ_watters]

Something.

Yeah, I'm not the strongest proponent of whistleblowing in general to begin with, and I haven't read the letter or followed its release path, but it doesn't sit right in my gut for a military commander to be announcing/leaking his unit's state of (lack of) operational readiness to the world. It feels like that shouldn't even be legal.

An aircraft carrier isn't a cruise ship. I know we're not at war and docking the ship initiating quarantine/social distance protocols is a "nice" thing to do, but his commanders would have been perfectly within the spirit of military readiness to say "You're in the military. Suck it up and deal; we're not cancelling your deployment".

And last week I had to scold my mother to cancel her bridge game.

 

[berkeman]

And last week I had to scold my mother to cancel her bridge game.

Talk about bucking the chain of command!

 

[Baluncore]

My mother told me I was getting old.
She is 93 and voluntarily gave up bridge a few weeks ago, but only for the period of the lockdown.

 

[Vanadium 50]

last week I had to scold my mother to cancel her bridge game.

So she isn't allowed to play bridge, and now the TR's captain isn't allowed on the bridge!

 

[nsaspook]

While I agree with the Captain about what needed to be done he wasn't wrongfully relieved of command. He knew the rules as the commander of a ship with nuclear weapon capability. There is zero tolerance for blatant operational chain of command violations.

 

[Vanadium 50]

After some reflection, I realized that Crozier's immediate superior, an admiral named Stuart Baker has his flag aboard the TR. So his boss has seen everything that the skipper has. Baker's boss is an admiral named Scott Conn, presumably in San Diego.

It is appropriate but unusual for Crozier to contact Conn, and say "I have a disagreement with my boss" This is not to be done lightly, and a wise CO would be sure that both command triads and as many other senior officers as possible saw things his way.

It is not appropriate to arrange for a leak.

 

[russ_watters]

After some reflection, I realized that Crozier's immediate superior, an admiral named Stuart Baker has his flag aboard the TR. So his boss has seen everything that the skipper has. Baker's boss is an admiral named Scott Conn, presumably in San Diego.

It is appropriate but unusual for Crozier to contact Conn, and say "I have a disagreement with my boss"...

Is it known that Crozier had a disagreement with Baker?

 

[phinds]

Is it known that Crozier had a disagreement with his Baker?

You make it sound like he was annoyed that the rye bread was not to his liking.

 

[russ_watters]

You make it sound like he was annoyed that the rye bread was not to his liking.

Two different thoughts fought to a stale*mate there.

*not a pun.

 

[phinds]

Two different thoughts fought to a stale*mate there.

*not a pun.

Not a pun my rear end

But I do know what you mean about switching thoughts a bit in mid typing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is it known that Crozier had a disagreement with Baker?

No. But if he and Baker saw eye to eye on what to do, why a letter signed by Crozier? Why not one signed by Baker? Or for that matter, why a letter at all?

 

[Baluncore]

The captain did not leak the letter. He used it to explain his position to those at his level. Why? probably because his immediate superior was stuck in the dark ages and could not understand the implications of the epidemic.

The mistake made by the captain was to undermine his immediate superior.
That it was leaked by someone else, made it public, which is why we know about it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@Drakkith, I know you were in the Air Force, but what do you think about this?

 

[atyy]

@Drakkith, I know you were in the Air Force, but what do you think about this?

Are you trying to get @Drakkith fired?

 

[BWV]

I seriously doubt more than a tiny minority of upper military brass would place the lives of ordinary servicemen and women above their own career. Evidence for this is nearly 20 years of wasting American lives in the Middle East. Crozier is a rare hero

 

[russ_watters]

No. But if he and Baker saw eye to eye on what to do, why a letter signed by Crozier? Why not one signed by Baker? Or for that matter, why a letter at all?

"I agree with you, but I'm not risking my career to do it."

 

[russ_watters]

I seriously doubt more than a tiny minority of upper military brass would place the lives of ordinary servicemen and women above their own career. Evidence for this is nearly 20 years of wasting American lives in the Middle East. Crozier is a rare hero

I'm having a hard time parsing that -- the military brass doesn't decide what wars to fight. Are you saying you would have expected more to do the "whisteleblower" thing over the past 20 years? More likely, people who didn't agree with the mission would simply quit or not join in the first place. I think you may also be underestimating the military's overall opinion of their mission. In particular, the mission in Afghanistan -- seeing as how the coalition withdrawal from Iraq was completed in 2011.

But yes, I agree what he did was a rare thing. But I'm uncomfortable with the word "hero" in this context, even if he did save lives.

 

[BWV]

I'm having a hard time parsing that -- the military brass doesn't decide what wars to fight. Are you saying you would have expected more to do the "whisteleblower" thing over the past 20 years? More likely, people who didn't agree with the mission would simply quit or not join in the first place. I think you may also be underestimating the military's overall opinion of their mission. In particular, the mission in Afghanistan -- seeing as how the coalition withdrawal from Iraq was completed in 2011.

But yes, I agree what he did was a rare thing. But I'm uncomfortable with the word "hero" in this context, even if he did save lives.

Yes, while that is correct that they don't decide what wars to fight, we need their objective professional judgement to inform the decision, instead we get careerists who will tell those in power only what they think they want to hear. Not a unique phenomenon, the ‘noble’ Prussian military aristocracy did the same with Hitler.

yes, he is a hero - sacrificed his career to save the lives of his sailors, what more do you need?

 

[Drakkith]

@Drakkith, I know you were in the Air Force, but what do you think about this?

Hard to say. The military chain of command can be a blessing and a curse, being a quick way to upchannel your needs and concerns to get things accomplished, but also a potential roadblock if your superiors don't take action (or merely disagree with you). The crux of this issue seems to be that the Captain intentionally emailed more than two dozen people who weren't in his chain of command in an attempt to get the email leaked to the public to pressure the navy into doing something.

Perhaps this worked.

I suspect that the Captain knew exactly what would happen to him and was willing to put his own career on the line for the sailors under him.

To paraphrase the Admiral at the end of Crimson Tide: "You were both right, and you were both wrong."

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, while that is correct that they don't decide what wars to fight, we need their objective professional judgement to inform the decision, instead we get careerists who will tell those in power only what they think they want to hear. Not a unique phenomenon, the ‘noble’ Prussian military aristocracy did the same with Hitler.

Huh? The military brass aren't an aristocracy/ruling class, or any kind of political body. They have precisely zero influence on the decision of what wars to fight. That's 100% a political decision.

yes, he is a hero - sacrificed his career to save the lives of his sailors, what more do you need?

Typically in the military, the word is reserved for people who risk their own lives in battle to save others. Even if he saved lives, risking his job is a really low bar.

And can we please put a number on it, so we know we're talking about the same risk: single-digit deaths is the maximum potential risk there, right?

 

[atyy]

And can we please put a number on it, so we know we're talking about the same risk: single-digit deaths is the maximum potential risk there, right?

4000 sailors
If 50% get infected: 2000 infections
Potenially 80 in intensive care (4% of infections), 20 deaths (1% of infections)
And of course, people will know that the US military cannot do the right thing, there are just too many who care about their own careers, just like the regional Communist Party officials who mishandled the initial phase of the Covid-19 outbreak.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

 

[Bystander]

I suspect that the Captain knew exactly what would happen to him and was willing to put his own career on the line for the sailors under him.

Agreed.

The military brass aren't an aristocracy/ruling class, or any kind of political body.

Flag rank is actually conversion/transmutation to the lowest form of life, politician; see Battle of Savo, and fallout in terms of blame.

 

[russ_watters]

4000 sailors
If 50% get infected: 2000 infections
Potenially 80 in intensive care (4% of infections), 20 deaths (1% of infections)

Ok, so it's roughly 5,600 sailors, but your death rate is almost certainly too high. On the Diamond Princess there were 712 cases out of 3,700 passengers and crew, and 10 deaths. That's 20% and 1.4%. It's hard to get from 20% to 50% even with the reduced social distance potential on a carrier, but I guess it is possible. But the death rate you have is high by at least a factor of 10. 1% is around the overall average death rate right now. But cruise ships have high population of older people (healthier than average ones), and the overall death rate for people in their 20s-40s so far is only 0.2% (and it should be even lower for unusually healthy 20-40 year olds), and that is likely to go down as testing rates increase and more cases are identified:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

So that would give us prediction of <6.

And of course, people will know that the US military cannot do the right thing, there are just too many who care about their own careers...

It's just not that simple. You're making a moral judgement based on a mission you don't really agree with to begin with, and inflated numbers. The "It's peacetime so we shouldn't take the risk" argument is The existential question of the military: if it's peacetime, why do we even have a carrier patrolling the South Pacific, doing training exercises that have a good chance of killing some of its crew? (~100 per year die in aircraft accidents alone, in the Navy).

 

[BWV]

Ironic that the ship’s namesake got in trouble for doing the same thing as Cpt Crozier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-Robin_Letter_(Spanish–American_War)

 

[PeterDonis]

The captain did not leak the letter.

It does not appear that he did so himself, but he did email it over a non-secure, unclassified channel to some 30 people, most of whom were not even in his chain of command. That is a bonehead mistake that even an Ensign who's just been commissioned knows enough not to make. For a captain with 30 years of service to make such an error of judgment is justification for relieving him all by itself. (And that is true even if he fell on his sword deliberately in order to get his crew what they needed.)

 

[PeterDonis]

Why? probably because his immediate superior was stuck in the dark ages and could not understand the implications of the epidemic.

This is speculation. We don't know the details of what anyone in his chain of command thought or said or did.

 

[PeterDonis]

The military brass aren't an aristocracy/ruling class, or any kind of political body. They have precisely zero influence on the decision of what wars to fight.

I disagree if you're talking about the top brass--the Joint Chiefs and the highest level commanders. They don't, strictly speaking, make the decision of what wars to fight, but they have a lot of influence.

The captain of a single ship, though, even a capital ship like an aircraft carrier, does not.

 

[PeterDonis]

if it's peacetime, why do we even have a carrier patrolling the South Pacific, doing training exercises that have a good chance of killing some of its crew?

Obviously, as you imply, because it isn't peacetime. As the Secretary of the Navy said in his statement about this affair, "we are not at war by traditional measures, but neither are we at peace". [1]

IMO our Constitution was not supposed to allow us to get into this vague state which is neither war nor peace and stay there for many years; but that's how our system has evolved.

[1] https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112537

 

[nsaspook]

Obviously, as you imply, because it isn't peacetime. As the Secretary of the Navy said in his statement about this affair, "we are not at war by traditional measures, but neither are we at peace". [1]

IMO our Constitution was not supposed to allow us to get into this vague state which is neither war nor peace and stay there for many years; but that's how our system has evolved.

[1] https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112537

When given the brutal costs of real war a perpetual 'Colder' war posture is an acceptable alternative IMO.