Teddy Roosevelt's great-grandson weighs in on dismissal of Navy captain: 'Crozier is a hero'

[rangerrebew]

Teddy Roosevelt's great-grandson weighs in on dismissal of Navy captain: 'Crozier is a hero'
By J. Edward Moreno - 04/04/20 12:43 PM EDT
 

Tweed Roosevelt, the great grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, said the captain of an aircraft carrier who was relieved from command following the ship's struggle with a coronavirus outbreak is "a hero."

Capt. Brett Crozier, who led the USS Theodore Roosevelt in Guam, sent a letter that was leaked to the media pleading for permission to relieve his crew, dozens of whom tested positive for COVID-19.

“In this era when so many seem to place expediency over honor, it is heartening that so many others are showing great courage, some even risking their lives. Theodore Roosevelt, in his time, chose the honorable course,” Tweed Roosevelt said in an op-ed in The New York Times. “Captain Crozier has done the same.”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/491167-teddy-roosevelts-great-grandson-weighs-in-on-dismissal-of-navy-captain-crozier

[sneakypete]

What most of you don't understand is that people in the military do NOT have "Constitutional Rights". They come under the 'Code of Military Justice".

This is a perfect example of a system working as it was designed to work,and of a senior officer taking the burden of command upon his shoulders and doing what he is sused AND EXPECTED to do,namely "fall on his own sword for the good of the service and those under his command."

If you hope to have an effective military,you can NOT allow officers or NCO's to disobey standing orders because the reality is the purpose of the military is to bleed and die for their country. "Self" is of no concern to anyone because if it were,nobody would ever "charge into gunfire". Doing your DUTY regardless of risk or personal sacrifice is at the core of the job.

AND.......,a commanders first responsibility is to his superiors,NOT the men and women in his command or himself. It HAS to be this way.

Anyone in command also has a responsibility towards anyone under them. You,as the commander,are responsible for the health,lives,and general well-being of everyone under your command.

Ironically enough,the ONLY person you are not expected,or even allowed,to protect is yourself.

Command in the military is a selfless job.

Sooo,to sum this up. That commander did EXACTLY what was required of him. He made sure the sailors under his command would have access to the medical care they needed even though he KNEW he was violating regulations by bypassing the chain of command.

He also knew without a doubt in his mind that he would be relived of his command and a new commander would be assigned to command his ship because REGARDLESS of the circumstances,a war ship at sea MUST remain a deterrent both in actuality as well as in the eyes of any potential enemy. He went public with the fact that his ship was not combat-ready,which assured him his sailors would be treated and that the ones hospitalized would be INSTANTLY replaced by healthy sailors,thus keeping his ship combat ready.

Nobody ever said life was fair. This is especially true when dealing with the Universal Code of Military Justice.

[truth_seeker]

This guy has lived on his family name. No military service.

Born in Berkeley, prottested Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweed_Roosevelt

[GtHawk]

This guy has lived on his family name. No military service.

Born in Berkeley, prottested Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweed_Roosevelt

That's what I was thinking too, he's just like all the relations of a 'somebody, somewhen' who way in on things they have absolutely no knowledge or experience in but the media gives them a platform because of their surname.

[Absalom]

Au contraire Teddy Bear.
Crozier's behavior revealed his recklessness, rendering him unfit for responsibility.
Assume a wartime situation:
Transmitting any message revealing the poor health of the crew, that would be
intercepted by the enemy, puts the entire Ship in grave danger.
Such conduct is unwittingly criminal.

[sneakypete]

Au contraire Teddy Bear.
Crozier's behavior revealed his recklessness, rendering him unfit for responsibility.
Assume a wartime situation:

@Absalom

Assume that hogs and cattle have wings. Everybody would be running around wearing motorcycle helmets.

Transmitting any message revealing the poor health of the crew, that would be
intercepted by the enemy, puts the entire Ship in grave danger.

We are NOT at war,it did NOT put his ship in danger,and in FACT,it made his crew,and by extension,his ship safer.

Such conduct is unwittingly criminal.

Yeah,mo betta to let his crew die off while drowning in their own puke,right?

As the commanding officer of the ship he had TWO responsibilities.  One is the security of his ship,and the other is the safety of his crew.

I do not know the exact details and I seriously doubt you do,but there is a POSSIBILITY he had alerted the next highest up in his chain of command,and either received no answer,or was told something like "suck it up,and float on!"

Which put him between a rock and a hard place. Guess who would have gotten blamed if anyone sick on his ship had died.

Guess who would have gotten the blame if something happened in waters he was sailing in,and he was commanded to head there at flank speed or to go on alert and launch fighters,and his crew was too sick to do so?

And finally,he IS responsible for the safety and well-being of his crew AS WELL AS RESPONSIBLE for notifiying the Navy if his ship is combat ineffective or likely to become so due to a disease.

 In other words,no matter what was happening,he was caught between a rock and a hard place with his career going down in flames,so the situation became public,the Navy brass were embarrassed,and he was relieved of his command.

[Fishrrman]

Interesting turn of events:
I read a report earlier today that Captain Crozier himself just tested positive for COVID-19.

Sorry, don't have a link for that.

[Absalom]

@Absalomhelmets.
We are NOT at war,it did NOT put his ship in danger,and in FACT,it made his crew,and by extension,his ship safer.
Yeah,mo betta to let his crew die off while drowning in their own puke,right?
As the commanding officer of the ship he had TWO responsibilities.  One is the security of his ship,and the other is the safety of his crew.
I do not know the exact details and I seriously doubt you do,but there is a POSSIBILITY he had alerted the next highest up in his chain of command,and either received no answer,or was told something like "suck it up,and float on!"
Which put him between a rock and a hard place. Guess who would have gotten blamed if anyone sick on his ship had died.
Guess who would have gotten the blame if something happened in waters he was sailing in,and he was commanded to head there at flank speed or to go on alert and launch fighters,and his crew was too sick to do so?
And finally,he IS responsible for the safety and well-being of his crew AS WELL AS RESPONSIBLE for notifiying the Navy if his ship is combat ineffective or likely to become so due to a disease.
In other words,no matter what was happening,he was caught between a rock and a hard place with his career going down in flames,so the situation became public,the Navy brass were embarrassed,and he was relieved of his command.

--------------------------
My words were "assume a war situation".
No matter; this sanctimonious humanitarian is gone.
Good riddance!!!!!

[LadyLiberty]

Capt. Brett Crozier, under the circumstances, should have cancelled all shore leave.

[montanajoe]

What most of you don't understand is that people in the military do NOT have "Constitutional Rights". They come under the 'Code of Military Justice".

This is a perfect example of a system working as it was designed to work,and of a senior officer taking the burden of command upon his shoulders and doing what he is sused AND EXPECTED to do,namely "fall on his own sword for the good of the service and those under his command."

If you hope to have an effective military,you can NOT allow officers or NCO's to disobey standing orders because the reality is the purpose of the military is to bleed and die for their country. "Self" is of no concern to anyone because if it were,nobody would ever "charge into gunfire". Doing your DUTY regardless of risk or personal sacrifice is at the core of the job.

AND.......,a commanders first responsibility is to his superiors,NOT the men and women in his command or himself. It HAS to be this way.

Anyone in command also has a responsibility towards anyone under them. You,as the commander,are responsible for the health,lives,and general well-being of everyone under your command.

Ironically enough,the ONLY person you are not expected,or even allowed,to protect is yourself.

Command in the military is a selfless job.

Sooo,to sum this up. That commander did EXACTLY what was required of him. He made sure the sailors under his command would have access to the medical care they needed even though he KNEW he was violating regulations by bypassing the chain of command.

He also knew without a doubt in his mind that he would be relived of his command and a new commander would be assigned to command his ship because REGARDLESS of the circumstances,a war ship at sea MUST remain a deterrent both in actuality as well as in the eyes of any potential enemy. He went public with the fact that his ship was not combat-ready,which assured him his sailors would be treated and that the ones hospitalized would be INSTANTLY replaced by healthy sailors,thus keeping his ship combat ready.

Nobody ever said life was fair. This is especially true when dealing with the Universal Code of Military Justice.

Exactly...

[Smokin Joe]

Capt. Brett Crozier, under the circumstances, should have cancelled all shore leave.

And then what? Considerng the berthing situation, passageway width, on even a Carrier, maintaining "personal separation" is just not going to happen. Even in the ship's messes, (hard to eat and be masked up), there is a very limited ability to isolate even a fraction of the crew.  Anyone not immune will catch the bug.

[mountaineer]

This guy has lived on his family name. No military service.

And that's one reason I put no stock in his opinion. I didn't serve, either, but at least I understand the importance of an officer following the rules and not going behind one's superiors' backs to protest a policy or order.

[rangerrebew]

It’s hardly shocking the Navy fired a commander for warning of COVID-19 threat. It’s part of a pattern

    T. Christian Miller and Megan Rose, ProPublica
Updated:
    Apr 5, 2020 12:40 PM EDT
Original:
    Apr 5, 2020

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on ProPublica.

Capt. Brett Crozier, fired this week from command of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, joins a growing list of Navy officers who attempted to raise concerns about the safety of their ships and crew, only to pay with their jobs.

Crozier wrote a letter dated March 30 warning that an outbreak of the coronavirus on his ship was a threat to his crew of some 4,000 sailors unless they disembarked and quarantined.

https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/brett-crozier-firing-navy-pattern

[rangerrebew]

'We hold leaders accountable': Esper defends firing of Navy captain who warned about coronavirus spread
by Tim Pearce
 | April 05, 2020 01:30 PM
 

Defense Secretary Mark Esper defended the Navy’s decision to fire the captain of a nuclear aircraft carrier who had urged military leadership to act faster to protect his crew from the coronavirus.

Former Capt. Brett Crozier commanded the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt before he was fired on Thursday. On Monday, Crozier sent a letter to top Navy officials requesting their help evacuating sailors from his carrier and cleansing the ship after dozens of servicemen in the 400-person crew tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/we-hold-leaders-accountable-esper-defends-firing-of-navy-captain-who-warned-about-coronavirus-spread

[rangerrebew]

Here is how the Navy has been known to hold it's leaders accountable - by lying.



https://ussindianapolis.org/

[rangerrebew]

The Navy moved at light speed to fire a captain who did not ram his ship into another vessel

    Jeff Schogol
    Apr 4, 2020 1:27 PM EDT

The Navy has hit a new low by firing an aircraft carrier captain who was trying to save his crew from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

Officially, the reason Navy Capt. Brett E. Crozier was fired on April 2 because he sent too many people a memo outlining the dire conditions aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. That excuse is all the more laughable considering nothing in Crozier’s memo was classified.

Events moved quickly after the San Francisco Chronicle published a leaked copy of Crozier’s memo on March 31. The following day, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly promised reporters that Crozier would not be made a sacrificial lamb.

https://taskandpurpose.com/pentagon-run-down/navy-captain-unfairly-fired

[sneakypete]

And that's one reason I put no stock in his opinion. I didn't serve, either, but at least I understand the importance of an officer following the rules and not going behind one's superiors' backs to protest a policy or order.

@mountaineer

You clearly don't understand the military. BOTH officers and Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO's) have a DUTY to protect those under their command. YOUR "troops" are YOUR responsibility and if you neglect their welfare in order to protect your own position,you will soon find the hammers of military hell pounding on your noggin.

In the military there is a truism that states "command is a privilege,not a right.",and they mean it. It MUST be that way or your men won't trust you enough to follow you into battle.

[MOD3]

Four other threads have been merged into this one thread. 5 or 10 threads about the same topic are not necessary.

[rangerrebew]

the Navy making Captain Crozier step down

It is normal for military commanders to be relieved of duty for losing the “trust and confidence” of their superiors. Civilian leaders have relieved commanders over public disputes before — as was the case in 2010 for the commanding general of the war in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

Here’s what’s unusual in this case: As military ethicist Pauline Shanks Kaurin has argued, members of the military are subject to multiple, sometimes competing, loyalties. Unlike most cases of poor judgment or policy disagreement, this case involves an officer who believed he had to choose between loyalty to his people and loyalty to the rules of his organization. The military leadership appears to be saying Crozier showed poor judgment in privileging his loyalty to his people over loyalty to the institution.

https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/04/unusual-navy-making-captain-crozier-step/

[Smokin Joe]

 I guess the question arises of when his loyalty to his crew, the life's blood, nerves, and breath of his vessel, coincides with the loyalty to his mission and position and the Service in general.

No crew, you have an expensive buoy.

Healthy (at least, healthy enough) crew, you have a fighting vessel.

[rangerrebew]

 

What was so unusual about the Navy making Captain Crozier step down

It is normal for military commanders to be relieved of duty for losing the “trust and confidence” of their superiors. Civilian leaders have relieved commanders over public disputes before — as was the case in 2010 for the commanding general of the war in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

Here’s what’s unusual in this case: As military ethicist Pauline Shanks Kaurin has argued, members of the military are subject to multiple, sometimes competing, loyalties. Unlike most cases of poor judgment or policy disagreement, this case involves an officer who believed he had to choose between loyalty to his people and loyalty to the rules of his organization. The military leadership appears to be saying Crozier showed poor judgment in privileging his loyalty to his people over loyalty to the institution.

https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/04/unusual-navy-making-captain-crozier-step/

[sneakypete]

the Navy making Captain Crozier step down

It is normal for military commanders to be relieved of duty for losing the “trust and confidence” of their superiors. Civilian leaders have relieved commanders over public disputes before — as was the case in 2010 for the commanding general of the war in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

Here’s what’s unusual in this case: As military ethicist Pauline Shanks Kaurin has argued, members of the military are subject to multiple, sometimes competing, loyalties. Unlike most cases of poor judgment or policy disagreement, this case involves an officer who believed he had to choose between loyalty to his people and loyalty to the rules of his organization. The military leadership appears to be saying Crozier showed poor judgment in privileging his loyalty to his people over loyalty to the institution.

https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/04/unusual-navy-making-captain-crozier-step/

@rangerrebew

That's because this is the US Navy,and it's alleged "leadership" is populated by the children of former Admirals,and these elitist prima donnas don't give a damn about the Non-Flag officers and the enlisted swine under their commands. They think THEY "own" the Navy,and it exists to make them important and rich from the contacts they make while in DC and in procurement commands.

Biggest bunch of self-serving punks to ever wear a uniform.

The FACT is that Captain Crozier served his crew,the US Navy,AND America by letting the Navy know his ship was no longer "combat effective" (like there IS such a thing in the US Navy) due to his crew being sick from the virus. If called upon to respond to a national emergency,they wouldn't be able to do it due to a sick crew.

 

[sneakypete]

I guess the question arises of when his loyalty to his crew, the life's blood, nerves, and breath of his vessel, coincides with the loyalty to his mission and position and the Service in general.

No crew, you have an expensive buoy.

Healthy (at least, healthy enough) crew, you have a fighting vessel.

@Smokin Joe

Minor things like the well-being of his crew and the ability of his ship to perform it's duty are minor compared to embarrassing the Annapolis grads who love to dress up and pretend they are in the military while treating those under them like pledges to a homo college fraternity.

[Cyber Liberty]

Is there some sort of point Hot Air is trying to make?

[PeteS in CA]

This article is already posted in this thread, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,397156.msg2184980.html#msg2184980 .