Mutiny aboard US Navy Guided Missile Cruiser?, page 1

The Rise and Fall of a Female Captain Bligh

Women are so common in the upper ranks of the U.S. military these days that it's no longer news when they break through another barrier. Unfortunately, the latest benchmark isn't one to brag about: being booted as captain of a billion-dollar warship for "cruelty and maltreatment" of her 400-member crew.

www.time.com...

This story is rather peculiar, not so much that this particular captain of the Navy vessel was a woman, because that is rather common now-a-days in the higher echelons of military service. However, what caught my attention is what happened aboard this vessel. We used to joke when I was in the Navy about the changes that were taking place during my tenure, and we would say to one another, jokingly, "It is no longer your father's Navy, but your mother's."

This statement is not to degrade the service of women currently in the ranks, so please don't take it out of context. What it refers to, is the emergence of politically correct benchmarks being put in place by the Navy brass over the course of the years before I joined, and apparently, it continues long after I came ashore for the final time. In other words, we thought the Navy had gone soft, and that was equated to the emergence of weak leadership, lapses in discipline, cronyism among the senior ranks and subordinates, and essentially shipboard life being maintained in a way that one would see as done in the civilian work world not a naval vessel. I had many good experiences while I was in, but that was one of the things that gave me great displeasure.

Now, in the case of the captain being relieved, I read further about her command, and in a traditional sense, it appears rather reasonable given the importance of her assignment and the overall safety of her crew. On the other hand, it appears the crew wanted her to be their mother or friend instead of a commanding officer of a combat vessel?

Her methods would appear harsh to some who have never served aboard ship in the United States Navy, but to me, I thought she ran the ship in ways that should be expected given the importance of such a significant ship and the mission in which it has. It is not a cruise liner, but a weapon of war! Apparently, some in the Navy have forgotten their way and purpose, given the luxury of naval superiority they have been afforded by the sailors and marines who died in World War II and during the Cold War to ensure the Navy remains the premier force at sea. It is rather disgusting reading about how this woman was sacked for doing nothing more than her job.

Members of her crew were pouting because she ran here vessel sternly and maybe wasn't much of a politician. However, we see what the politicians are doing at the capital, and that particular characteristic has no place aboard a naval vessel at sea. The activities of her crew, is what I consider as a silent mutiny, and they should be brought up on charges. Moreover, it appears the captain took the fall for running her ship as captains have done since the inception of blue water navies. Her approach was to command not win some popularity contest, bend elbows with the subordinates, or be a shoulder to cry on. It is just disgusting how she was relieved for something as trite as using a few harsh words when communicating, or commanding in a way that was politically incorrect.

Imagine if a war was going on akin to what was experienced in World War II, and these crew members acted like they have during peace time, that ship would not be able to mount a defense if under attack or perform a coordinated offensive. In short, the ship would have been a sitting duck, because of the break down in command and control. People can die on deployment and it is a serious matter, and I think she respected that simple fact. Instead of complaining like a bunch of children, they should have just done their jobs!

Now, if there were bold lapses in judgment, a serious accident on her watch, or blatant negligence; then she should be relieved. However, in the case described in this TIME magazine article, I saw no such thing to warrant removal. Perhaps, a counseling session with her immediate superior would have been in order to rectify her off-the-cusp communication style.

Here is how Captain Holly Graf described the situation she was involved in before being dismissed.

the report says she "appeared incredulous at the accusations." She "repeatedly" emphasized her "very high standards for [her] crew" and "repeatedly" spoke of a "groupthink mentality" aboard her vessel. Graf said a "small group of disgruntled officers in the Cowpens wardroom were spreading rumors throughout the crew and convincing others that the command climate and [her] demeanor were far worse than they actually were." But she followed up with an e-mail. "Many times I raised my tone (and used swear words) to ensure they knew this times, it was no kidding," she wrote. "I also did it on other occasions to intentionally pressurize the situation."

Now, after reading her remarks on the situation, and what I have read from the accounts given by her crew in the Navy's Inspector General (IG) report, she was instilling in her crew the importance and danger of their jobs. With an emergence in sea power of both China and Russia in particular, and a potential for a violent naval engagement in the future, leadership on the scale of what Captain Graf displayed among her crew is warranted, if not vital for combat success in the future. Again, as I said earlier, it is not a cruiser liner, but a combat vessel. The insubordination by her crew is nothing short of mutiny, and it should have been dealt with. It was a coup among her officers and department heads to have her removed, and for what apparent reason, only they know?

Now, the article makes reference to Captain William Bligh an officer of the Royal Navy. First a little about him, he was the captain of the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty. The ship was taken over by an unruly crew after a port call in Tahiti during the year of 1789, and it has gone down in history as one of the most famous mutinies at sea. A year after the events on the HMS Bounty, he went before the British Admiralty and was later vindicated for the loss of the ship and the crew. His leadership was brought into question as was Captain Graf in the article, and they deemed Bligh's leadership as reasonable and warranted after inquiry into the events that led to the mutiny. Here is both sides of the story regarding Mutiny on the Bounty.

To this day, the reasons for the mutiny are a subject of considerable debate. Some believe that Bligh was a cruel tyrant whose abuse of the crew led members of the crew to feel that they had no choice but to take the ship from Bligh. Others believe that the crew, inexperienced and unused to the rigours of the sea and, after having been exposed to freedom and sexual license on the island of Tahiti, refused to return to the "Jack Tars" existence of a seaman. They were "led" by a weak Fletcher Christian and were only too happy to be free from Bligh's acid tongue. They believe that the crew took the ship from Bligh so that they could return to a life of comfort and pleasure on Tahiti. Bligh returned to London arriving in March 1790.

The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged. He was an educated man, deeply interested in science, convinced that good diet and sanitation were necessary for the welfare of his crew. He took a great interest in his crew's exercise, was very careful about the quality of their food, and insisted upon the Bounty being kept very clean. He tried (unsuccessfully) to check the spread of venereal disease among them. Prior to the mutiny only 2 members of the Ships crew had died, one seaman from infection and the ship's doctor from indolence. J. C. Beaglehole has described the chief flaw in this otherwise enlightened naval officer: "[Bligh made] dogmatic judgements which he felt himself entitled to make; he saw fools about him too easily... thin-skinned vanity was his curse through life... [Bligh] never learnt that you do not make friends of men by insulting them."

en.wikipedia.org...

Captain Bligh would later go on to claim the rank of Vice-Admiral and a governorship of New South Wales in the British colony of Australia. So, looking at the history behind the reference of Mutiny on the Bounty and the incident described in the article, Captain Graf ran a tight ship while maintaining the highest standards of naval service. The reporters may have thought comparing her to Captain Bligh was some kind of insult, but upon further observation of Bligh's career following the Bounty, it could be considered as praise. Just more shoddy journalism and a smear campaign.

Upon reviewing the case of Captain Graf, she was a victim of a witch hunt and was unduly removed from command. In my humble opinion, the US Navy got this one wrong, and hopefully it doesn't set precedent for future leadership and command evaluations? This type of intrepid behavior on the part of her crew can have disasterous affects during war time. However, the leadership in the Navy believes otherwise, and I guess who am I to offer criticism to such sound judgment? America has just lost an able-bodied commander to the obscurity of a desk, for failing to win nothing more than a popularity contest rather than safely and effectively commanding a billion dollar piece of military hardware? Petty office politics at its worst. Sign of the times I guess?


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51

---

Op you have missed the mark. The captain frequently abused her authority and this was a trend from command to command. Her conduct with junior officers hung her, swearing and belittleing in front of enlisteds and other juniors, throwing coffee mugs across the room at said officers, refusing to train / counsel junior officers. The list continues.
She was one that was promoted to her highest level of incompetency. Not her fault. She should have been weeded out years ago.

What a dog she is.

I can see why they (the crew) wanted her gone.

also: Navy has fired 6 commanders since January, triple its usual monthly rate

www.washingtonpost.com...



[edit on 6-3-2010 by watcher73]

reply to post by Jakes51

---

I don't know that I agree. I don't know exactly what happened on that ship, but there's a certain degree of professionalism that I would expect out of a commanding officer, or any officer, in the military. Its no different than in a business environment. Its hard to respect a boss that swears at and berates the crew, loses their temper often, etc. Again, I don't know what happened, but there's a fine line between being stern and being demeaning, belittling, and disrespectful. The latter creates a poor work environment and usually leads to poor job performance by the subordinates.

reply to post by Jakes51

---

Nothing like a tyrant who knows no bounds and has zero respect for herself, let alone her subordinates, in throwing temper tantrums and tirades.

One has to wonder how she made it this long with her own command.

A soldier, and a Navy Captain is a soldier, has rules and regulations to follow.

I wonder if the people under her command were all new and just how many were men.

This smells to me like a snow-job completely on several levels.

It stinks because I know the military mind and the fact that a female made it to Captain a Navy ship is something new, in the last few decades.

My meaning is that it did not use to be a common practic and I have to wonder if she did the actions she did, in order to keep a bunch of surly men in check, because militarily speaking, men do not like taking orders from women.

This has been a proven fact, it is not some male chauvinistic comment.

And Officer's under her command might very well have set her up for a fall.

I hope that this ship gets a new Captain who takes zero nonsense.

I bet they will find themselves wishing for her return rather quickly.

What this sounds like is a bunch of whiney men under the command of a woman who had more balls than they did, and they did not like that one bit.

Sorry guys, time to wake up, women are in the Navy now, and they can do your jobs too, and they are not just a brasseire with a clipboard either.

Gender integration is coming in every position in today's military.

Whether the proverbial glass ceiling allows it or not, the battle of the sexes is taking a more equal footing in leadership, and men need to keep up.

I have zero problems with a woman in uniform as long as she can do her job.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by awakentired
reply to post by Jakes51

---

Op you have missed the mark. The captain frequently abused her authority and this was a trend from command to command. Her conduct with junior officers hung her, swearing and belittleing in front of enlisteds and other juniors, throwing coffee mugs across the room at said officers, refusing to train / counsel junior officers. The list continues.
She was one that was promoted to her highest level of incompetency. Not her fault. She should have been weeded out years ago.

Perhaps, you are right and I may have missed the mark, but entirely, I have my doubts? Moreover, I have dealt with hard cases such as the one depicted in the article when I was in, and they made everyone know who was boss. There way or the highway. They would have say, "This is not a democracy, we defend democracy." In other words, any inkling of insubordination to command would be dealt with.

Is it wrong to belittle subordinates with profanity and snide remarks? Yes it is, however, we don't know if she had individual counseling with the individuals before her outbursts? Maybe, their incompetence wore thin on her and she let them have it. According to your avatar, you were in military as well? If so, you must have dealt with hard-cases? Correct? That ship isn't a country club and they are not there to party.

They are there to prepare and fight in the next war. Personally, in my opinion, from the complaints I have seen from members of her crew, it was whining. When I was in, they would often tell me to suck it up and do your job like you have been trained and you won't get chewed out. Apparently, her crew mates were not.

Unfortunately, she was a victim of the burden of command. Still, I have found no reason in an operational sense for her removal from command. All I see was whining and bickering among her junior officers. If they can't hack the pressure and importance of the job, at least they have the luxury to resign their commission were the enlistee does not. Now you bring up the incident of her throwing coffee on someone at a previous command? That may have happened or may not have happened? People can make things up about someone, because they are an (insert expletive), a hard case, or are disliked for what ever reason to bring misfortune on another. People can be quite fickle. If that incident did indeed happen and there was a witness, she would have been removed almost immediately.

So, her leadership style was unpopular, and as I have said earlier, it is not a popularity contest. She should have been counseled by her superiors, but not relieved. Over even given basic anger management classes. Maybe in her mind, she thought that style of leadership was warranted? Apparently, she was allowed to continue that style for years without any discipline. It was their failure she was not taken to task sooner, but in terms of conducting operations at sea, I didn't see anything to warrant dismissal. The ship appeared to have operated in a safe and effective manner.

So, I respectfully disagree with you, but not entirely, yes a brute display of leadership is warranted in some cases, but not all. Moreover, she should have bit her tongue when disciplining her crew in front of the enlistees if it happened with such frequency as described in the article, because it would lead to a breakdown in command and cohesion with time. All I see is people with thin-skins. That is the vibe I got from the article. Thanks for the reply and keep up the good work!

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Jakes51

---

I don't know that I agree. I don't know exactly what happened on that ship, but there's a certain degree of professionalism that I would expect out of a commanding officer, or any officer, in the military. Its no different than in a business environment. Its hard to respect a boss that swears at and berates the crew, loses their temper often, etc. Again, I don't know what happened, but there's a fine line between being stern and being demeaning, belittling, and disrespectful. The latter creates a poor work environment and usually leads to poor job performance by the subordinates.

Like you, I wasn't there during the escalation that led to her removal. However, we don't know if she was displaying professionalism and was acting in a harsh manner to stifle widespread incompetence among her subordinates? Maybe there was gross negligence on their part? It is very different from the business environment, because if people are screwing up and shirking work assignments it can often lead to death. It is a dangerous environment at sea during both war and peace time.

I am not kidding, there can be man over boards were the body is not recovered, a jet missing the arresting gear due to a human mishap and killing the pilot or crew on the flight deck, or munitions going off due to shoddy maintenance or stowage (look up the accident aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal during the Vietnam War), and countless other mistakes that can lead to death. In contrast, if there is a mishap in the civilian work world, the end result is a profit loss in most cases. So, with the respects mentioned above, there is a stark contrast between the two environments. As a crew aboard a combat vessel, we put our lives in the hands of others and if someone is not doing their jobs correctly 24/7 and 365 days a year, they ought to be taken to task in the harshest sense possible. If not, the end result is death in most cases. Thanks for the reply!


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51

---

This story is rather peculiar, not so much that this particular captain of the Navy vessel was a woman, because that is rather common now-a-days in the higher echelons of military service. However, what caught my attention is what happened aboard this vessel. We used to joke when I was in the Navy about the changes that were taking place during my tenure, and we would say to one another, jokingly, "It is no longer your father's Navy, but your mother's."

I find the whole thing hilarious Jakes51. Not because of what happened but because it reminded me of when our unit in Washington D.C. had a change of command and it resulted in our unit coming under the authority of a woman C.O. She was fine at first and we all kept our cool with her. She was the boss and the boss has the final say.

Our prior commanding officer took a lot of advice from our second in command. An enlisted Master Chief who was an ex seal, did tours in Vietnam and he was brutally efficient at his job. He convinced the C.O. that physical training was paramount to our effectiveness so we had all become accustom to a very rigorous physical training regimen. We would run two miles and do a wide variety of excersises on Mondays and Wednsdays.

On Friday the whole ordeal was stepped up a notch and we would run, proudly displaying the guideon of the unit at the front, looking for the Marines who would be doing P.T. as well. We would see wich unit ran faster and longer and it became a very serious ritual. A lot of yelling and stuff between the units, it was actually looked forward to believe it or not.

Anyway, this particular female C.O. that joined our unit was in no way shape or form to keep up with us. She fell out on one of the easy days and decided not to join us for our Friday fun fest. We looked at her a little differently, you can't blame us. She decided that she would see if everyone was squared away and began holding snap inspections of dress uniforms and sea bag layouts and what not. Real pain in the butt type of stuff.

So when it came to the summer whites, you know how they are to keep up with, we had it. Everyone was saying they couldn't stand her and that she was focusing on stupidity and couldn't even run with the unit. My friend, who's dress pants had become too tight knew he was in trouble. She would fail you for a thread that was visible and make you do the inspection again within an hour.

So he rolled up a pair of green wool socks. You know the ones they issue you. He rolled them up in a long fat cylinder and forced them down the front of his too tight white dress pants and you know what it looked like. He looked as if he was hung like a mule to put it politely. We were laughing so hard when he told us his devious plan that it was hard to keep a straight face during the actual inspection. Think about it, we had to keep a straight and professional appearance during this whole ordeal.

Anyway, she came to the person who had loaded his pants with the socks and looked him up and down. You know how, the shave then the shirt and ribbons and medals, then down. She stopped, stepped back, still staring. Then she moved on as quickly as she could, you could tell by the way she carried out the rest of the inspection that she just wanted to get it done. When she left the area we all fell out laughing our butts off for a while and thanked the member for coming up with such a devious plot!

Sorry if I'm not on topic but I thought I would share my little mutiny within the ranks as well. True story.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Jakes51

---

Nothing like a tyrant who knows no bounds and has zero respect for herself, let alone her subordinates, in throwing temper tantrums and tirades.

One has to wonder how she made it this long with her own command.

A soldier, and a Navy Captain is a soldier, has rules and regulations to follow.

I wonder if the people under her command were all new and just how many were men.

This smells to me like a snow-job completely on several levels.

It stinks because I know the military mind and the fact that a female made it to Captain a Navy ship is something new, in the last few decades.

My meaning is that it did not use to be a common practic and I have to wonder if she did the actions she did, in order to keep a bunch of surly men in check, because militarily speaking, men do not like taking orders from women.

This has been a proven fact, it is not some male chauvinistic comment.

And Officer's under her command might very well have set her up for a fall.

I hope that this ship gets a new Captain who takes zero nonsense.

I bet they will find themselves wishing for her return rather quickly.

What this sounds like is a bunch of whiney men under the command of a woman who had more balls than they did, and they did not like that one bit.

Sorry guys, time to wake up, women are in the Navy now, and they can do your jobs too, and they are not just a brasseire with a clipboard either.

Gender integration is coming in every position in today's military.

Whether the proverbial glass ceiling allows it or not, the battle of the sexes is taking a more equal footing in leadership, and men need to keep up.

I have zero problems with a woman in uniform as long as she can do her job.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Very good observations, SKL! I walk the the line of your opinion as well. I to see it as you put, and it looks like a "snow-job." She did not hinder the vessel or the crew in any manner, shape, or form, at least that is what I read in the article. To me those crucial elements must be maintained first and foremost. It is her duty to ensure those crucial elements are in place at all times. If not she has to answer for it. Now if harsh words were exchanged in how she carried out that crucial mission, cry me a river. Order her to anger management classes, and lets get the job done.

To me, it sounds like a bunch school kids who weren't getting their way, and they over embellished the seriousness of what transpired? Again, I wasn't on that particular ship or in the company of the CO, but I was in the Navy I know who things work. So, I am a bit perplexed that a captain would be relieved for something as trite as being a harsh disciplinarian and demanding nothing short of excellence, and not endangering the ship or crew?

It is not easy to make captain and she must have had outstanding performance and efficiency standards to make it that far. You only make it that far, by doing your job exceptionally well. The leadership style of Captain Graf should have been counseled if it was not in accordance of what the Navy expects at this juncture in history, but to be sacked like that for doing nothing more than what she thought was necessary given her appointment. It is a cop out and unnecessary. At present, and according to the article, the ship met its operational requirements, and there was no loss of life by an accident or incompetence on her part. The act of dismissal was wrong in my book. Thanks for the reply!


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Jakes51

---

I hope that this ship gets a new Captain who takes zero nonsense.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

You can be certain that this will be the case.

reply to post by Jakes51

---

I don't know what actually happened here. But from the Time article you posted on OP there are statements from 2 female officers as well and both are against her which further discredits her.

the IG asked at least two female officers whether they viewed Graf as a role model. A younger woman recalled going to Graf to seek her help. " 'Don't come to me with your problems,' " she said, quoting Graf. " 'You're a f______ department head.' " The officer also said that Graf once told her, "I can't express how mad you make me without getting violent."

A second female officer told the IG that Graf was a "terrible role model for women in the Navy," alleging that Graf once told her and a fellow officer on the bridge, "You two are f______ unbelievable. I would fire you if I could, but I can't."

However, in the end it's her statement against the disgruntled officers statement, only they know the truth. All we can put is conjecture, unless we have some inside info. it's impossible to comment on it.

reply to post by Jakes51

---

Well my friend Jakes51 it always boils down to whether or not a person is effective or whether they are failing.
From an upper management position no one is interested in those who try they are interested in those that succeed.
They might have a million good excuses as to why they are failing, but they are failing nonetheless.

In any organization you are only as strong as your weakest link, and in huge organizations like the military links are always interchangeable to a certain degree and expendable and replaceable to another degree. After all we are talking about an enterprise where death and attrition is a real possibility, so in such situations no one individual is not expendable, which does make the inherent responsibility of not ending up expended primarily fall on one’s own shoulders.

Challenges to some are simply problems, however to true leaders they are opportunities, opportunities to succeed where others might fail.

There are a couple of things perhaps some might not fully consider in such situations, one is even though a captain represents absolute command on a ship, the ship still has a full cadre and compliment of officers who have their own compartmentalized smaller commands.

In most organizations the chain of command requires communication through the ranks going in both directions. If I have a question or concern I can only take it to my immediate superior who if underpowered to address it, then takes it directly to their superior and so on and so forth until someone with the proper authority can act on it and pass those actions down a chain of command.

If I swab the decks I don’t get to just pull the captain aside and speak directly, I have to go through my chain of command; the captain doesn’t really get to speak directly to me either except in dire circumstances they have to communicate with me through the chain of command.

So the truth is at that top level the captain who only has a relatively small contingent of officers directly under them in a pyramid like structure they simply need to best focus on those people who start the chain of command under them.

In a ship that has a compliment of 500 its doubtful officers on the Captain’s staff number more than a half dozen.
If they can’t figure out how to coexist, and manage those personalities in effective ways then no they really aren’t fit for command.

They don’t have to know all five hundred; they have to know the people directly under them, who have to know the people directly under them, who have to know the people directly under them. These unit sized divisions are in fact kept limited in numbers so a more personal level of interaction and understanding can be utilized, so there is always some inspection of what is expected. So there is always a channel of communications available readily to communicate up and down the ladder.

The rank and file has little reason to dislike you if you aren’t really interacting with them! If you know your key officers well, and know how to interact with them properly, you know how to effectively teach them to do the same on down the chain of command.

Life is not black and white, though the book is written in black and white, but the truth is that life and interactions are full of gray areas subject to interpretation and creative interpretation.

Politics is 85% of everything and people who lack the people skills to be good politicians aren’t going to be effective leaders.

That gray area that defeats people who see things only in black and white absolutes is something that all military officers should be familiar and adept with navigating because the truth is that gray area very much mirrors what is called the fog of war.

No plan no matter how well thought out and executed is going to survive once contact with the enemy is made. That enemy is going to do something in the course of initial contact that surprises you and wasn’t in the plan, they might be stronger, they might be weaker, they might be deployed along different lines, but because life is fluid and can not be full anticipated something is going to occur that requires that initial plan to have to be modified.

That is why commanders are on sight to adapt to the initial contact and change strategy and tactics when necessary.
The plan and the book go out the window. Leadership, a command personality able to make effective observations and then effective decisions is required as well as a broad knowledge of tactics and strategies to combat the unforeseen.

The Book is a guideline; the Plan is a guideline for what has previously been encountered and a known quantity and quality and the preferred way to deal with it for optimum consistent results. However neither the book nor the plan can deal or speak to or provide guidance for the unknown. Books don’t observe and adapt. People observe and adapt.

If faced with an observed crisis the book isn’t going to make that crisis go away, an effective flexible leader who has the respect and command of those under them who trust in their leadership can though. An effective leader will look to the lay of the land and the reality on the ground, observe and adapt, an ineffective leader will look to the book hoping there is a chapter on this new unknown and if not how they can force a chapter to work. They lack innovation, they lack flexibility, in a world of followers where they have been pressed into command they are a follower themselves of a book that probably hasn’t in such cases ever prepared them for that initial contact when the plans and the book disintegrate in the face of the unknown.

In leadership the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few or the one. When a commander sees the problem as those under them, well the fish is rotten from the head down. If poor people skills, a lack of flexibility, a lack of good observation, and poor communication have created a rotten sub-command structure then that is all on the leader.

If that sole leader can’t effectively adapt then that sole leader who is not the few or the many is the weakest link and the one you remove.

Doesn’t matter if they did things by the book, what matters is they are failing, the performance is not there, the cohesion is not there and there presence represents the danger you need to eliminate for over all unit effectiveness.

Tough break, life is full of them especially for those who don’t know how to persevere, adapt and overcome.

Part of what all military commanders in this present day and age have to face is the reality on the ground where a weakened public school system and educational and disciplinary standards is in fact turning out young adults less inclined to respect authority to begin with.

Kids today have little fear or respect of any type of authority as most authority is not empowered to deal with their challenges in firm and concise effective ways.

These attitudes die hard and a youth who has kept them throughout their twenties is going to keep them the rest of their life once their frontal lobes are fully formed.

In many ways you might be looking at this as a sexist issue, highlighting the fact that she is a woman and some prejudice regarding that compelled those in her command to be more derelict in their reaction to her ineffective leadership style.

How do we know it was ineffective? Because she didn’t get results as a leader, and that really is on her as a leader.

I am not interested in excuses, just those who can get the job done!

I have no doubt that male commanders face these same challenges to authority and disgruntled cliques of officers when their command style and presence is ineffective to. One’s masculinity or femininity should not be am extenuating circumstance when reviewing an ineffective officer’s performance.

Chances are it was though as she was being moved up the ladder of command into situations she wasn’t fully matured or seasoned to handle simply because it behooved someone with their heads in a book to put another digit in the female officer column for political reasons of their own.

Conversely Major Hassan the alleged Ft. Hood shooter was routinely moved up the chain of command even though he hadn’t passed performance reviews to merit it, simply because of a shortage of qualified officers, so yes the military will promote an unqualified person to such a position up the ranks.

Ladders in all organizations are up and out ladders, you climb the ladder as long as you succeed in each position, when you fail to succeed in an elevated position and make a grave enough mistake, you are fired, dismissed, court martial and drummed out or your command is yanked.

The woman was a failure in her command it is mute as to why she failed, what is important is she failed and removing the weak link.

Command decisions can be hard, tough, and soul searing, but she has to go Jakes51, I am sorry, Caesar is displeased with her performance.

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Jakes51

---

I don't know what actually happened here. But from the Time article you posted on OP there are statements from 2 female officers as well and both are against her which further discredits her.

the IG asked at least two female officers whether they viewed Graf as a role model. A younger woman recalled going to Graf to seek her help. " 'Don't come to me with your problems,' " she said, quoting Graf. " 'You're a f______ department head.' " The officer also said that Graf once told her, "I can't express how mad you make me without getting violent."

A second female officer told the IG that Graf was a "terrible role model for women in the Navy," alleging that Graf once told her and a fellow officer on the bridge, "You two are f______ unbelievable. I would fire you if I could, but I can't."

However, in the end it's her statement against the disgruntled officers statement, only they know the truth. All we can put is conjecture, unless we have some inside info. it's impossible to comment on it.

Your right and we can go back and forth about this. However, the crust of the matter is that there was a mutiny aboard a billion dollar Navy vessel. That is the fact I see, which is unquestionable in my mind. Then as far as I am concerned the ship performed its missions in a safe and officiant manner and another crucial component. Rather than go back and forth about what may have happened, or who lying or telling the truth, we must look at the two crucial elements above before dismissing someone on complaints about leadership style. Leave the popularity contests to the politicians, it has no place in the military.

All I expect out of a commander is for them to perform their tasks to ensure the ship functions properly, maintaining crew safety, and that people are doing their jobs as specified. I really don't care how they go about performing that task. As Slayer69 said in his post, there are avenues to take to address what was alleged to be happening on Captain Graf's watch as CO. How come no complaints until now, because as was mentioned in the article, her actions have allegedly been going on for quite awhile? Thanks for your incite on the matter!

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

---

As Caesar is displeased, so am I. Really, I am only looking at the core crust of the situation, and what a bunch of people did behind the scenes to conspire and coordinate this woman's removal. It could have been a real violation if it had gotten out of hand, and thank goodness it didn't. Still, we weren't there and can only speculate if her command style was warranted or unwarranted.

Still, they must remember it is a volunteer service and when they are asked to do it must be done. Maybe there was gross-incompetence and she though they needed a swift kick in the rear to step up? Who really knows, but one thing is for certain she will be riding a desk of the rest of her career. We need to be alarmed about how a large group of officers conspired against their captain, and the affect it can have when the rest of the crew learn of their superiors distaste in the Commanding Officer. It could very well lead to a state of emergency aboard ship. That is really the crust of my concern with this story, and the break-down in cohesion.

Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 1 days ago with 103 member flags

Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 13 days ago with 81 member flags

Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags

She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 3 days ago with 49 member flags

Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 10 days ago with 42 member flags

The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags

NDAA Nullification: Tennessee Bills Propose Kidnapping Charges for Federal Agents
  Posted 1 days ago with 35 member flags

Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 5 days ago with 33 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: