News Brett Crozier, Captain of aircraft carrier fired

[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.

 

[PeterDonis]

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

I'm not sure I agree that the costs of perpetual "colder" war are less, all things considered, than the costs of a "real" war that takes a fairly short amount of time.

 

[BWV]

Well 45 years of Cold War with the USSR was certainly cheaper than a hot one would have been

 

[nsaspook]

Well 45 years of Cold War with the USSR was certainly cheaper than a hot one would have been

+1

Post-9/11 wars and military action in the Middle East and Asia: $6.4 trillion,
People that died as a direct result of fighting: 801,000,
Not dying in a short nuclear holocaust: priceless.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html

 

[PeterDonis]

Post-9/11 wars and military action in the Middle East and Asia: $6.4 trillion,
People that died as a direct result of fighting: 801,000,
Not dying in a short nuclear holocaust: priceless.

You're ignoring the long-term institutional cost of violating the US Constitution. Sure, we might have avoided a nuclear holocaust up to now--but we haven't reached the end of history and never will. And if we keep prioritizing short-term policy objectives, particularly ones which are highly contentious, over the long-term stability of our social institutions, humanity might still end up extinct, even if it isn't by means of a nuclear holocaust.

If we really believe, as a society, that having long-term states that aren't really peace and aren't really war and last for decades is acceptable, then we should amend the Constitution to place appropriate powers to declare such states with either Congress or the President or some combination thereof. We shouldn't just pretend, either that the Constitution says what it does not say, or that it doesn't matter.

 

[hutchphd]

I am suddenly struck again by George Orwell's prescience about the big guy
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength
I had forgotten the last panel of the tryptic. Jeepers.

 

[atyy]

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).

How did you come to the conclusion that it's a mission I don't agree with?

 

[nsaspook]

You're ignoring the long-term institutional cost of violating the US Constitution. Sure, we might have avoided a nuclear holocaust up to now--but we haven't reached the end of history and never will. And if we keep prioritizing short-term policy objectives, particularly ones which are highly contentious, over the long-term stability of our social institutions, humanity might still end up extinct, even if it isn't by means of a nuclear holocaust.

If we really believe, as a society, that having long-term states that aren't really peace and aren't really war and last for decades is acceptable, then we should amend the Constitution to place appropriate powers to declare such states with either Congress or the President or some combination thereof. We shouldn't just pretend, either that the Constitution says what it does not say, or that it doesn't matter.

I'm not ignoring those cost. I'm old enough to have remembered the Vietnam War from start to finish, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from start to finish and a host of others between. The cost of those has been immense and changing the the Constitution to define a state of between would have made little difference IMO.

 

[PeterDonis]

changing the the Constitution to define a state of between would have made little difference

I'm not saying it would have made much difference in the cost of, say, Vietnam in terms of lives lost and resources expended once we were committed to the effort. But it might have made quite a big difference in terms of whether and on what terms we committed to the effort, if we had actually paid attention to the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war and had an open debate in Congress and among the people about whether it was worth spending American lives and treasure there, and for what goals, before we committed ourselves.

Also, you still don't seem to be considering the cost of our society's institutions breaking down at some point in the future because we have allowed them to deteriorate and people don't respect or trust them any more.

 

[nsaspook]

Also, you still don't seem to be considering the cost of our society's institutions breaking down at some point in the future because we have allowed them to deteriorate and people don't respect or trust them any more.

I think we are already well past that point.

 

[Baluncore]

Potential enemies know more about what goes on in the services than does the public. I have been convinced for some time now that the reason for military secrecy is; if the public knew what their taxes were being spent on, they would withdraw funding.

 

[nsaspook]

I've been thinking about the define a state of between. There already is a definition in the military called Expeditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Expeditionary_Medal
Mine was from.

IRAN/INDIAN OCEAN

21 Nov 79 - 20 Oct 81

This is when the unofficial war with Iran/War On Terror started.
Maybe we could add that as a long term constitutional state between peace and war?

 

[sysprog]

Well 45 years of Cold War with the USSR was certainly cheaper than a hot one would have been

A buddy of mine who was a Forward Observer on the DMZ in Korea opined to me that Vietnam was the hot part of the cold war.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not clear how this tangent affects the subject at hand, but ocassionally warming cold wars are hardly a modern creation. Indeed, the first war-like thing the United States was involved in, the 1798 Quasi-War with France was such a thing. Congress empowered President Adams to use the Navy against France to "protect commerce". The first formal declaration of war wasn't until 1812. In between was another not-quite-a-war: the First Barbary War.

 

[russ_watters]

How did you come to the conclusion that it's a mission I don't agree with?

To be honest, you jumped into the middle of a discussion and I didn't notice I was responding to a different person. That was partly because your post seemed in good alignment with what I was responding to before. But with only that one post (really, one sentence), it's much less clear.

 

[russ_watters]

Potential enemies know more about what goes on in the services than does the public.

Is that really surprising? The military operates with a certain level of secrecy. Potential enemies put a lot of effort into penetrating that secrecy. The general public doesn't, because why bother?

I have been convinced for some time now that the reason for military secrecy is; if the public knew what their taxes were being spent on, they would withdraw funding.

I'm not seeing that issue. Most people I've encountered complain about the cost itself. Most people - even military supporters, such as myself - recognize that the practical value of military spending in peacetime is basically zero. Most people understand what the military is doing with that money (training and maintaining). It almost sounds like you think there is a substantial secret use for that money. Like a war being fought that we don't know about. There isn't. Such a thing really isn't possible.

I'd really prefer it if we could keep the thread on topic. Specific to the TR, I think everyone recognizes that its mission was basically to drive around in circles in the Pacific, playing war games. There are a lot of people who think that such a mission has zero value. The captain of the TR decided it was worth committing career suicide to discard that mission in favor of saving his troops from Coronavirus -- but he at least recognized in his memo that the mission's value wasn't zero. Supposedly (according to SECNAV), the military brass had already agreed with his opinion, and was doing what the captain wanted, before he sent his insubordinate memo. If that characterization is true, it would make his action pointless.

 

[Baluncore]

Is that really surprising? The military operates with a certain level of secrecy. Potential enemies put a lot of effort into penetrating that secrecy. The general public doesn't, because why bother?

So you agree with me.

It almost sounds like you think there is a substantial secret use for that money. Like a war being fought that we don't know about. There isn't. Such a thing really isn't possible.

No, I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I have seen too many examples of inefficiency and incompetence that have not been revealed to the public because of secrecy.

 

[sysprog]

Most people - even military supporters, such as myself - recognize that the practical value of military spending in peacetime is basically zero.

I disagree with that statement, not so much because I think it's entirely wrong, but because I think that the peacetime military helps to keep the peace and to deter oppressors, and because I think that the statement is a complacent linguistic abuse of the meaning of 'zero' -- I think that you moderated that abuse with your use of the modifying word "basically", but I still disagree with the statement. If someone asks a General Officer what his troops accomplished today, he's going to be able to honestly say a lot more than "basically zero".

 

[atyy]

Most people I've encountered complain about the cost itself. Most people - even military supporters, such as myself - recognize that the practical value of military spending in peacetime is basically zero.

Not among people I know. Most of us would prefer to have a strong military in peacetime as one contributor to being able to never have to use the capability. Of course this includes trying to build friendships between different countries and armed forces. There are at least some in both China and the US who agree, since the armed forces of both countries continue to work together.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-china-joint-drills-tensions-1471258
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...head-hawaii-joint-disaster-relief-exercise-us

 

[PeterDonis]

Most people - even military supporters, such as myself - recognize that the practical value of military spending in peacetime is basically zero. Most people understand what the military is doing with that money (training and maintaining).

Don't these two sentences contradict each other? I don't think training and maintaining has zero practical value.

 

[morrobay]

And just on the news captain Crozier has tested positive for coronavirus.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's too bad. I hope he recovers soon and without symptoms.

We have a few additional facts:

• The letter did not go to either Crozier's immediate superior (he didn't even know it existed) or the acting SecNav.
• Sailors were being moved into unused hotel space on the 31st. (The letter was sent on the 30th). This could be anywhere between 0 and 48 hours. From my experience with both the military and Guam, this implies that this has been in process for more than 48 hours, but people can believe otherwise if they wish.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I also realized that the Navy had a solution to this that preserves readiness, somewhat radical, had Crozier gone up the chain of command: a hull swap. You take the crew of a carrier currently in dry dock, but scheduled to go to sea soon (there are two at the moment), and you swap them for the TR's crew.

I don't think it's ever been done for a carrier, although it's done for destroyers and cruisers all the time. It would certainly be a challenge.

 

[phinds]

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.

Russ, that strikes me as a very naive view of reality. Yes, the final decision is up to the Commander In Chief, but the top brass have a VERY strong influence over what happens. For example, before we got heavily involved in Viet Nam, which kind of snuck up on us to that point (we still really were just advisers), Lyndon Johnson had to decide whether we should get involved and to what extent. He was undecided, so McNamara and the Chiefs of Staff presented him with three options which were basically, get out now and look wimpy and encourage the Commies, stay in at a low level and end up with a black eye, or get involved to the extent that it would become a ground war including lots of our troops. The statements were VERY heavily weighted to push him towards the option that committed large numbers of US ground troops and led us to a ground war in Asia, which everyone knows from playing Risk is a terrible idea, but which is the option that Johnson selected. He knew it would be unpopular so he hid the extent of the commitment from both Congress and the public.

 

[PeterDonis]

The letter did not go to either Crozier's immediate superior (he didn't even know it existed) or the acting SecNav.

The SecNav's statement that I linked to in post #34 says that this is true for the SecNav, but not Crozier's boss. It says Crozier's boss saw the letter when it was sent to him via email by Crozier.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You're right. The statement is that he didn't know if it before he got it.