So maybe I'm reading this wrong but it looks like Captain Brett Crozier fell on his sword to save his men and "Acting" US Navy Secretary Thomas Modly is just silencing anyone who makes the administration look bad.
As an American the thought that he knew exactly what he was doing and felt he had no better option is quite disheartening.
Sometimes you don't get the hero you deserve, but the one that you need right now.
China's been using this opportunity to seize up territorial claims in the South China Sea
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/world/asia/Indonesia-sout...
If the chain of command fails you, you have no other choice but to go public when your crews’ well-being is threatened.
> “It creates the perception the Navy is not on the job; the government is not on the job. That's just not true."
I don’t believe anyone is confident the government is on the job, and this letter did nothing to change that perception. It simply confirms what the public already believes.
There's no evidence at all he is the one who leaked the memo. It may have been someone up the totem pole. Without knowing who leaked the memo, his being relieved of duty was premature and will only serve to damage morale. This was a very poor call by the acting Secretary.
Is there evidence of that?
There are formal and proper reporting channels for things like this. He went outside them, on purpose, to ensure the letter got leaked.
Not everyone agrees this was the right call:
https://armedservices.house.gov/press-releases?ID=2EFC2A13-1...
The other has been widely reported, this CNN article has quotes from SECNAV.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/politics/uss-roosevelt-comman...
When the captain made the decision to send the letter, wasn't he at that time superior to you in rank? But it's no problem for you to second guess his actions?
I guess I don't understand this chain of command business very well.
The Captain sent the letter to many people not in his chain of command, including someone who sent it to the newspaper (as he most likely expected would happen). That's not done in the Navy. Sending a letter like that to his superiors was perfectly acceptable. Getting it on the front cover of Navy Enquirer is not.
Yes, you are correct. You don't under this chain of command business at all.
Do you have a reference for this? The letter [1] doesn't appear to mention insufficient support, just that the cases were accelerating.
[1] Letter: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Exclusive-Captai...
I'd recommend rereading what you cited.
> Request all available resources to find NAVADMIN and CDC compliant quarntine rooms for my entire crew as soon as passible.
I read this as a new request for support for the "war free" plan outlined in the letter. Are you suggesting that he had already proposed this or another plan, but it was rejected or not completely fulfilled? If so, do you have a reference for this?
It would be useful if you could make it more clear what is your personal opinion/speculation vs publicly known. I'm trying to understand what happened.
> That by definition means the current support is insufficient.
In this context, that doesn't necesarily have to be true.
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/captain-crozier-captain-croz...
That's a very clear security violation.
As if I needed yet another example to share with anyone even considering enlisting in the armed forces why you shouldn’t. As long as the optics make it worth it, you’re disposable, regardless of rank.
He didn't get fired for leaking, he got fired for attempting to go around the chain of command.
Otherwise he's just another coward who mistreats people who actually put their lives on the line.
What weakens the USN is a lack of leadership. Almost every officer and sailor I know supported this Captain's actions and hold him as a true leader compared to the Navy Secretary.
Similarly, USA had no need to specially wait for provocation to back their allies in the region.
Countries in the region were looking with scepticism on US "security guarantee" for decades. And the last few years gave them even more reasons to move away from USA.
For example, both Philippines and Malaysia were at some moments seriously committed to conduct action on Spratleys, both times it was US who exerted extreme diplomatic pressure on them to not to do so.
They have all reasons to ask questions why do they have to spend diplomatic efforts on maintaining US security guarantee, if US is not willing to defend their land.
CPC's think tanks have long found that the best way to put pressure on countries in the region is through pressuring the US.
They make it look to US government that their relationship with a given country have "too high of a price," and raise risks, and stakes for the US.
Then they come to Washington, and say "hey, let's deescalate, and go back to making money. Just make one small concession on that island." Of course, in the end it will be not USA making concessions, but their vital allies.
The problem is that letter shouldn't have been made public. He sent it to enough people to make sure it was made public, and that's why he got fired.