So, here's the transcript of the SECNAV's speech to the crew.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/wy107Ru

And he didn't say that CPT Crozier was stupid. What he said is that, if CPT Crozier sent that email and didn't think it was going to be publicized, that he was either naive or stupid. The only alternative to that was that he did it on purpose to be publicized. And that that was a serious violation of operational security.

He makes it pretty clear, throughout the speech, that he thinks CPT Crozier deliberately wanted the info to leak.

Personally, I think it was a good speech. It's brutally honest. Some people don't like hearing harsh truths, especially when they expose the wrongful actions of someone who is well-regarded.

maverick2076 said:

---

So, here's the transcript of the SECNAV's speech to the crew.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/wy107Ru

And he didn't say that CPT Crozier was stupid. What he said is that, if CPT Crozier sent that email and didn't think it was going to be publicized, that he was either naive or stupid. The only alternative to that was that he did it on purpose to be publicized. And that that was a serious violation of operational security.

He makes it pretty clear, throughout the speech, that he thinks CPT Crozier deliberately wanted the info to leak.

Personally, I think it was a good speech. It's brutally honest. Some people don't like hearing harsh truths, especially when they expose the wrongful actions of someone who is well-regarded.

---

The Acting Navy Sec. made clear last night that he does not think Capt. Crozier is naive or stupid.

If we take this as truth, then Capt. Crozier, an intelligent and accomplished officer, sacrificed his career to have his memo leaked to the public.

Why? It's quite clear in his memo that he believes the Navy was needlessly (and perhaps recklessly) putting the lives of his crew in danger. He believed his sailors could not be a appropriately quarantined on the vessel, per CDC and Navy and Marine Corps Public Heath Center recommendations.

Quote:

---

He chose - poorly.

---

Depends what you think his priority was. I think the outcome was exactly as he expected. He would take a career hit to help protect the safety of his sailors. I am sure he felt like the established channels for doing so were not responding in a way that he found acceptable. I commend him for his sacrifice.

Sometimes in life, especially when you are a high ranking person or a leader, there is no way out.

Had he not opened his mouth, given the close quarters on the ship, a thousand or so would have got sick and many would have died. They were overwhelmed with the 150 sick already. Do you think his supervisors would have fallen on the sword? Of course not, by keeping his mouth shut he would have been fired and people would have died.

Option 2 - going public. He knew he had a really good chance of being fired, but he thought it would save lives.

Either way, he was getting fired, there was no way out.

Not the Navy's fault either, they had to remove him as you can't let the world know a carrier is a less than full strength.

Kobayashi Maru

I guess I view the risk of the ship being attacked by hostile powers as less than the risk that the virus would run through the ship pretty quickly if the situation had not changed/improved and have severe effects for anybody with pre-existing conditions.

knoxtom said:

---

...can't let the world know a carrier is a less than full strength.

---

This was not a secret.

And for the cool ST reference,

NASAg03 said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

Quote:

---

He chose - poorly.

---

Depends what you think his priority was. I think the outcome was exactly as he expected. He would take a career hit to help protect the safety of his sailors. I am sure he felt like the established channels for doing so were not responding in a way that he found acceptable. I commend him for his sacrifice.

---

He put his entire crew at a huge risk in a dangerous part of the world, when only 150 crew members out of what 3000 were sick?

I wish he was more courageous and used this as an opportunity for a case study to help inform the public!

* edited to correct crew size.

---

Or he acted when the ship was not at risk due to the number sick (relatively small but spreading quickly) to force the issue of protecting his crew before the virus ran rampant through the ship as we all know would in fact have happened quickly. They then would have been both sick and vulnerable.

He blew the whistle at the appropriate time, had he waited (as our government did) then it would have been lose lose. Many more sailors would have been sick and the ship would have been at risk. Really people, let's employ forward thinking while sitting in judgement. Why aren't anyone of you wondering why response to the issue through the appropriate channels failed him and forced his action?

NASAg03 said:

---

Military is pretty strict limiting people with preexisting conditions.

I don't doubt they needed to have the proper supplies to ensure a functioning crew. Those can be flown in. Everything can be flown in, and you have a great case study for isolated study of how easy this virus propagates and all the different effects.

---

You must be kidding. Those young men and women did not sign up to be a science experiment. Wow, their lives matter, every single one and this country is responsible for them.

This isn't the plague.

Read the study on Princess Diamond.

What did the captain think, they could just pull up to any port and offload every crewman to a local hospital? Either way they are going to be quarantined. They have doctors and medical supplies on board. And probably HCQ and meds to fight other viruses. It's the nature of the job.

What good was achieved by "whistleblowing?"

First of all Covid is NOT a death sentence! Second of all the avg age of a Carrier crew is far below 40 which based on over 1 million cases has a very,very, very low death rate. Finally this is a commander of a freaking Nuclear Aircraft carrier, how many of these guys are out there, he is the best of the best, he should have done his job and used the chain of command and led his men. Leaking this to the press was stupid and childish and based on that alone he should be removed from command and never put in charge again. Sorry but he is a military officer who has spent his career in a chain of command.

Not sure I understand why Modly (a civilian) was racing out to be first firing Crozier instead of the investigation/relieving Crozier of his duties being handled through the uniformed officers chain of command. Won't surprise me if Modly ultimately pays a price for his actions in this as well, because he seems to have ticked off at least a few people in the Pentagon.

I think the most obvious question seems to be going unanswered, especially by those defending the Captain.

Why did he not exhaust all of the options he had within the Chain of Command before violating protocol and putting the message out unsecured? There were many ways he could have communicated other than going public and he did not choose them. He didn't give his Superiors the opportunity to address his concerns by following procedure (and there are multiple ways he could have done so in a secure manner above his direct Superiors).

Why would he do that? Well, the assumption here seems to be that a man who has risen to his position within the Navy somehow didn't think about following the Chain of Command or exhausting every possibility before going public because the situation was so desperate. That makes no logical sense. Navy Captain's are not irrational and emotional creatures that flip out at adversity. Thus it is FAR more likely he knew exactly what he was doing. So then why?

Well, the most likely scenario is back to the question of why his ship got the outbreak in the first place. It appears that happened because of his crew going ashore in Vietnam while the outbreak was live there. That's also a decision he as Captain bears significant responsibility for. So if that is the case HE is the one who bears responsibility for the outbreak and he likely knew that. He also knew that by doing so the consequences to his ship's readiness. Besides the threat to his crew his decision also literally cost millions of dollars, likely tens of millions when you consider taking a Carrier offline for any period of time. His career was likely over because of his mistake. Thus it isn't far fetched for him to realize this and decide to send out the email and go out being seen as a martyr instead of an incompetent commander to most (especially people unfamiliar with the military).

Maybe his intentions were pure but even under the best light he violated the trust the Navy put in him as a Commander. His job is to obey orders, follow the chain of command, and do his best to complete his mission. His job is not necessarily to ensure the health and wellbeing over his crew above that. If that were the case the military would not work because a commander would never send his troops into harm's way. Thus he was not suited to command and his actions are his own. To blame anyone but him is even worse because you are literally speaking against men that are doing their duty. His actions have serious consequences for the Navy and will serve as a distraction and difficulty for his Ship. I don't see him as martyr, quite the opposite I see him putting his own interests above that of the Navy.

Unless some evidence comes to light that he actually tried to follow procedure and was truly denied help he deserves every bit of scorn coming to him. Instead we will likely see him writing books and making millions off his publicity for what still comes down to HIS mistake.

I think this was my take on it as well. On March 24, there were 3 cases on board. There are now 155. That's 5 doublings in 13 days or basically what was happening in NYC before their lockdown. In relatively short order, there were going to be more people sick than healthy on that ship and even if they are all young and unlikely to die, the ship was going to be rendered combat ineffective in short order as people were unable to stand their required watches. And this was all public news that the Acting SecNav announced to the world. Our enemies aren't stupid - they can figure out how that infection is likely to spread and take the ship out of service temporarily. So I don't understand why everyone resisted taking the sailors off the boat such that the Capt felt he had to send a letter that he either leaked or someone else did.

As it is, the Navy is now basically doing exactly what Crozier requested in his letter and its public knowledge that carrier is out of service. What did the chain of command gain by resisting his requests?

If you take the Navy at their word that he was an honorable man who had a clean record of doing the right thing until sending that letter, then I think it's easier to reach the conclusion that he felt he had exhausted all of his options in his chain of command and was not getting the urgency on the issue he felt was desired. And now, the Navy has done basically everything the Captain asked them to do in the letter, after the fact.

I find it A LOT more difficult that he committed career suicide without asking his boss for help first.

It doesn't appear it was the captains decision to go to Vietnam but was part of a Pentagon show the flag effort they had been working on for years and the Pentagon set up activities for the sailors as part of a cultural exchange:

https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130563

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/uss-theodore-roosevelt-arrives-in-vietnam-becoming-second-us-carrier-to-visit-since-the-1970s-1.621313

Although the captain is always responsible for the ship, I suspect his chain of command was resistant to some of his requests because they were the ones pushing for them to stop in Vietnam and they might be seen as at fault.

pocketrockets06 said:

---

I think this was my take on it as well. On March 24, there were 3 cases on board. There are now 155. That's 5 doublings in 13 days or basically what was happening in NYC before their lockdown. In relatively short order, there were going to be more people sick than healthy on that ship and even if they are all young and unlikely to die, the ship was going to be rendered combat ineffective in short order as people were unable to stand their required watches. And this was all public news that the Acting SecNav announced to the world. Our enemies aren't stupid - they can figure out how that infection is likely to spread and take the ship out of service temporarily. So I don't understand why everyone resisted taking the sailors off the boat such that the Capt felt he had to send a letter that he either leaked or someone else did.

As it is, the Navy is now basically doing exactly what Crozier requested in his letter and its public knowledge that carrier is out of service. What did the chain of command gain by resisting his requests?

---

That's the kind of fear-mongering that the military, especially a leader, is supposed to resist.

Average age of the Diamond Princess was 62. Out of the 3800 passengers, 718 were infected. 73% infected showed no clinical symptoms. 7 people died.

As such, your statement of "there were going to be more people sick than healthy on that ship" is a lie, and the definition of fear-mongering.

The Diamond Princess went to a full quarantine to achieve that result, and when they hit 19% infected they evacuated the ship. A nuclear carrier can't do either, especially not if they're expected to retain a posture of combat readiness.

So, how severe is the concern here?

Let's assume just for funsies the median age on the ship is around 30. In that age bracket (table 1) roughly 3% of people who are symptomatic will need hospitalization.

Let's assume only 50% of people are symptomatic. That may be high, it may be low.

If you use the 27% growth rate, and figure only half of the crew can get it, you can back into a transmission rate of around 7. With only 50% susceptible to begin with, epidemic peak hits around 35 days in, and at the peak 1000 people will be infected at once. After 60 days, 2500 people have had it, 75 would have been hospitalized, and roughly 20 would have died.



Death aside, How many convalescing sailors, marines, pilots, officers, do you think it takes to render a CVN combat ineffective?

I am not sure of my opinion on Capt. Crozier. There's a lot of the story that doesn't make sense to me. I am sure, though, that comparing this to the Diamond Princess is a bit off.

11 have now died from that ship, and at last report 10 more were still serious or critical. Yes they skewed older, but on the flip side, People that can afford a cruise ship, are able to travel etc are likely wealthier and in better health than the general comparable population. They also had more early dedicated care than most get. It's a really small sample size regardless good or bad.
And because so e people tested were asymptomatic doesn't mean they stayed that way. I haven't seen any follow ups on how many developed symptoms later. I would genuinely be curious as to whether that number was followed up on.

I think it will be very interesting to read the IG report that will almost assuredly be forthcoming. You can also bet there will be hearings held in both the senate and house oversight committees.

wbt5845 said:

---

HotardAg07 said:

---

I guess I view the risk of the ship being attacked by hostile powers as less than the risk that the virus would run through the ship pretty quickly if the situation had not changed/improved and have severe effects for anybody with pre-existing conditions.

---

Not your call.

Wasn't his either.

---

It absolutely was his call. He has to live with the consequences, but it was his call.

NASAg03 said:

---

pocketrockets06 said:

---

I think this was my take on it as well. On March 24, there were 3 cases on board. There are now 155. That's 5 doublings in 13 days or basically what was happening in NYC before their lockdown. In relatively short order, there were going to be more people sick than healthy on that ship and even if they are all young and unlikely to die, the ship was going to be rendered combat ineffective in short order as people were unable to stand their required watches. And this was all public news that the Acting SecNav announced to the world. Our enemies aren't stupid - they can figure out how that infection is likely to spread and take the ship out of service temporarily. So I don't understand why everyone resisted taking the sailors off the boat such that the Capt felt he had to send a letter that he either leaked or someone else did.

As it is, the Navy is now basically doing exactly what Crozier requested in his letter and its public knowledge that carrier is out of service. What did the chain of command gain by resisting his requests?

---

That's the kind of fear-mongering that the military, especially a leader, is supposed to resist.

Average age of the Diamond Princess was 62. Out of the 3800 passengers, 718 were infected. 73% infected showed no clinical symptoms. 7 people died.

As such, your statement of "there were going to be more people sick than healthy on that ship" is a lie, and the definition of fear-mongering.

---

The average cabin on a cruise ship holds four to six people in something akin to the size of a cheap hotel room. Navy enlisted berthing compartments hold 27 sailors or more in triple stack bunk beds in a space the size of a large living room. You can't just confine sick patients to their rooms until it is over. You could try to move sick sailors into a specialized berthing, but spaces are so cramped in many parts of the ship, it would still be difficult to stop the spread. You really need to get the sick off the ship, screen the crew, then send the healthy to clean spaces to put the healthy back on board.

Quote:

---

Personally, I think it was a good speech. It's brutally honest. Some people don't like hearing harsh truths, especially when they expose the wrongful actions of someone who is well-regarded.

---

The speech as given, at best did nothing to further the security of the United States and at worst perpetuated and focused more light on the health and morale issues on the ship, cracks within the Naval ranks, and dragged an apolitical organization further towards and into politics.

The Acting Secretary of the Navy has to be naive or stupid to think that speech wouldn't leak out, and he had to be naive or stupid to think that speech wouldn't cause immense controversy within the Navy, within the media, and within Capitol Hill.

Or, he picked a fight with all of the above on purpose.

Don't defend the speech. The Acting Secretary knows is was a terrible idea.

aggie93 said:

---

Why did he not exhaust all of the options he had within the Chain of Command before violating protocol and putting the message out unsecured?

---

You know for a fact that he didn't?

I'm often amazed at the naivete of civilians regarding concepts such as obeying orders, chain of command, etc.

This captain was not empowered to make that call which is why he was rightfully fired. He ought to be prosecuted for multiple UCMJ violations.

wbt5845 said:

---

I'm often amazed at the naivete of civilians regarding concepts such as obeying orders, chain of command, etc.

This captain was not empowered to make that call which is why he was rightfully fired. He ought to be prosecuted for multiple UCMJ violations.

---

I beg to differ. The oath I took to be commissioned was explicitly different than an oath of enlistment... the phrase "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" is found in the enlistment oath, but it is not found in the oath of commissioned officers.

My instructors made this point explicitly clear - there may be a time when your situational awareness, intimate knowledge of your troops, etc dictates that you have to make a decision that goes against the orders of officers above you. As an officer you have a duty to your troops to make that call (but you better be dang sure about it).

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Not sure I understand why Modly (a civilian) was racing out to be first firing Crozier instead of the investigation/relieving Crozier of his duties being handled through the uniformed officers chain of command. Won't surprise me if Modly ultimately pays a price for his actions in this as well, because he seems to have ticked off at least a few people in the Pentagon.

---

And there ya go....Modly gone.