- Jan 28, 2013
- Reaction score
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Political Leaning
If hes a carrier captain he was being groomed for admiral.Who the hell is the Big Stick? The Commander? The Secretary of the Navy? The President? Good grief, some of you try way too hard with your jargon.
Let's do this together. The man was a Navy Captain; an O-6. And he was the commander of a Nimitz-Class nuclear powered aircraft carrier. This is not a row boat. He is the equivalent of a Marine Colonel, who leads a Regiment. The next phase for both is the Admiral and the General ranks, respectively.
This means that Crozier had at least two decades of Navy officer behind him, with all the military experience and legal education that this comes with. Thus, even you should have a pretty good idea of what "proper" procedures he followed prior to his widely disseminated letter. Can I assume that, whatever rank you managed to achieve, you retired after twenty? Did you not learn about proper procedures and how to raise an alarm over those two decades? Did you not understand Request Mast as a lower enlisted and Chain-of-Command contacts as a senior enlisted? I remember you saying once how you helped your men defy leadership at every turn because your men came first...whatever that was supposed to mean.
To assume that Captain Crozier simply lost his head and jumped to this extreme is a stupid gamble. He was clearly a trained professional. Or do you think just let anybody command a Nimitz-Class nuclear powered aircraft carrier? To suggest otherwise is to declare that the Navy made a mistake in the first place.
The fact that he took time to write this letter and widely disseminate it suggests that he had tried to handle it.
Suggesting that if even one Sailor dies that he wasn't important enough.
In normal (non-Trump) times I'd say the Captain's career was over, without question.
A "hell of a lot" is knowing a nickname? Does that sum up your career?
That would be a mistake.All he has to do is make it to November.
Yeah, maybe.But, his political career began...if he should so choose.
This is the part where all of Trump's Veteran supporters truly proved themselves. Never mind that they gush for a draft-dodger or his (and his idiot son) persistent degeneration of the military at every turn. And the Captain Crozier issue does come down to their partisan allegiance for some.Deciding to cut and run on our Kurdish allies, causing General Mattis to resign in disgust.
Trump supporters are pretty disgusting. There is no other way to put it.This is the part where all of Trump's Veteran supporters truly proved themselves. Never mind that they gush for a draft-dodger or his (and his idiot son) persistent degeneration of the military at every turn. And the Captain Crozier issue does come down to their partisan allegiance for some.
But whether or not they actually even knew the man, Mattis went from being the "real deal" to being a traitor to Trump. ****ing pathetic. Mattis is absolutely one of America's greatest historical Generals. When Trump is gone, they will all try to jump back on the wagon. As long as I'm here, **** that.
He failed.A "hell of a lot" is knowing a nickname? Does that sum up your career?
Because I don't know your branch's nickname for your ship I don't know "a hell of a lot" about what I have stated about military common sense? Do you realize that the military branches are full of people who have no idea what an aircraft carrier even really is? Big boat with planes? I don't know what you people might have nicknamed your forks either. The little stabber? Durp.
Anyways.. You are more than welcome to actually present some common sense yourself. For a retired Sailor, you appear to have a lot of contempt for the Navy that you would imply that this Captain was far too inexperienced to understand what a Chain-of-Command is and what proper procedures laid before him. Simply assuming that he jumped to this letter is foolish. And I will add that it appears to be a bit seasoned with your partisan politics. Something tells me that were a Democrat the President, you would be all about "supporting the troop" right now.
If we have a new CIC we will have a new sec of the navy.That would be a mistake.
A Commander-in-Chief, especially one who dodged the draft, should know to stay out of internal military affairs. Once the Secretary of the Navy made this decision, it has to come down to the Secretary of the Navy to make another one. A Commander-in-Chief, despite his incidental position as given to him, has no business disrupting legal military cases, promoting ranks, and ruining careers. These things are disruptive to the Chain-of-Command.
The current one, despite being a draft-dodger, fancies himself as a king that sits on high. "Throw me a parade!" "Move that ship!" "Dismiss that case!" Etcetera.
Great post. Thank you for your dedicated service bro.I don't understand the stabbing in the back part. I never experienced that in the Corps. There was always enough integrity going around that anybody who was "less-than" was kept in check. What was (and is) good for the Marine is good for the unit, and what was (and is) good for the unit is good for the Corps.... and vice versa.
I think the Marines are different in that way because our size allows for greater accountability. It's easier when everything revolves around a certain code, which comes with plenty of peer pressure.
For example: it would be far easier to maintain a certain behavioral standard in a group of 12 versus a group of 100. And since the Marines specializes in small unit warfare, each unit becomes a close-knit family that aggregates into other units. A lack of standards introduces weakness in the unit; and this weakness travels up. This is why fatties must pay and the higher up you go the more severe the discipline for a lack of standards. For example: a fat LCpl has time to be corrected, but a fat SNCO is finished with a single FITREP. Of course, this sort of relative accountability certainly exists in the other branches too. But there is something to the notion that it is apparently always Air Force, Army, and Navy field officers being caught lowering their own standards. McArthur? McChrystal? Patreaus? Tail-Hook? Defense industry scandals? The higher up you go, especially in those branches, the more separated and politicized they get. They lose track of what is important. Then they retire and move into their newly created positions within the Defense industry after lobbying on its behalf.
My guess is that this Navy Captain tried and failed to get the attention of his Chain-of-Command, which had lost the plot.
No one has presented any evidence that he did any such thing.He failed.
He sent out a message through non secure channels that even a lowly E-2 would understand the repercussions, and he had sailors under his command emailing and calling home because of his panic.
And you just failed again by saying that I implied that the captain was inexperienced.
He did. So did they. This clearly led to his letter, unless you are still needing this man to have abandoned his military experience and education and simply jumped to an extreme?He failed.
It was surely NIPRNET at least. Given his rank and his experience, he clearly understood the possible repercussions on calling out his Chain-of-Command for its failure to address his concerns. To get the message to some, he would have had to have gotten off SIPRNET.He sent out a message through non secure channels that even a lowly E-2 would understand the repercussions, and he had sailors under his command emailing and calling home because of his panic.
I would think by now that you people would resist the urge to protect your own moronic posts by insisting that I have failed. You imply that he is inexperienced by suggesting that he didn't follow proper procedures before he went to a widely dispersed letter. Your "you have zero idea what 'proper' procedures were used or not" is a statement of negative accusation, not understanding of the probable.And you just failed again by saying that I implied that the captain was inexperienced.