Trump should fire acting Secretary of the Navy Modly

I'm sure most here know the story.

First of all, the Captain of the ship was in the wrong.

His intentions may have been good, but that does not excuse what he did. He basically put a bunch of admirals on blast in an email that he copied to subordinates and people who had no business being in on the conversation. That is insubordinate and unprofessional.

He also knowingly (or negligently) compromised sensitive information.

Someone of his rank and experience should have known damn well he was doing something wrong.

I don't necessarily think he should have lost his command over it, although I've seen commanders fired for arguably less serious offenses.

We have a lot of vets on this forum, myself included. If you served a long time ago, it was a different world back then. The military is different now. I mean, you can get kicked out of the Air Force for getting a DUI. Commanders lose their commands and get court martialed for having consensual relationships with enlisted members.

Publicly squaring off with flag officers and compromising sensitive information is gonna get you in deep, deep #, and this Captain knew that. And there were other ways he could have gotten his concerns addressed without making a public spectacle of himself, so the "he was just looking out for his crew" excuse doesn't really fly. He could've done that and observed proper protocol at the same time. He chose to disregard the latter, and he got what was coming to him.

On the other hand, this acting SecNav was just as unprofessional. He himself jumped the chain of command by not leaving the matter up to the admirals to deal with. And his public spectacle on board the ship the other day was every bit as inappropriate as what the Captain did. The Captain was relieved, but he's still an active duty officer and will have another post, unless and until he is forced out. Publicly berating him like that was wrong. What kind of authority will he have at his next job where the SecNav called him stupid and naive? That was completely out of line, even if it's true.

Trump should fire Modly. The door swings both ways.

Can't break the chain of command in the military. There are SOP's for reporting wrongdoing that must be followed, especially in peacetime. This guy has no integrity and once one loses that in the military as an officer they have nothing. They can't follow, can't lead and will get people killed doing their own thing. Glad he is gone and order is restored.

a reply to: face23785

From my reading of several articles on the situation, Crozier followed command structure in his dealings with this problem. He sent his requests for help right up the chain of command.

It is being reported that the news that hit the public arena was via the San Francisco Chronicle based on information that the email that was sent up the chain was later ''leaked'' to the newspaper.

The Navy is holding an investigation into the ''leak'' that will be ongoing until next Monday.

a reply to: face23785

Good thread man.

You offered a different take than the media has been running about this whole story.

I don't know where I stand on this, or even if I should. Never been in the military, not well versed on proper channels and protocol.

Thanks for the read though.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785

From my reading of several articles on the situation, Crozier followed command structure in his dealings with this problem. He sent his requests for help right up the chain of command.

It is being reported that the news that hit the public arena was via the San Francisco Chronicle based on information that the email that was sent up the chain was later ''leaked'' to the newspaper.

The Navy is holding an investigation into the ''leak'' that will be ongoing until next Monday.

That's the problem, when he sent that email, he sent it to enough people that he knew, or should've known, it would leak. And some of the people who were on the email were lower-ranking than him, people that had absolutely no business being in an email that was basically accusing flag officers of being negligent. That's what got him in trouble. All these stories saying he got in trouble for "taking care of his people" are just fodder. That's not what got him in trouble.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: face23785

Good thread man.

You offered a different take than the media has been running about this whole story.

I don't know where I stand on this, or even if I should. Never been in the military, not well versed on proper channels and protocol.

Thanks for the read though.

It's hard for someone who hasn't been in the military to understand just how important chain of command and professionalism is once you get to the higher ranks. Officers especially are held to a much higher standard of professionalism. This Captain clearly violated those standards. As I said in the OP, his intentions do not excuse his conduct.

The SecNav was every bit as unprofessional though. If the Captain got the axe, so should the SecNav.

He leaked it. They already know he leaked it. I know when I was on a carrier a lot of things happened that never made the news. Every deployment about 2 planes crash on average. Ever hear about those. No. They toss the wreckage in the ocean and that is that. Also suicides. Had a few of those. Never in the news or local papers.

a reply to: face23785

Here is the Navy news from Sunday the 5th
news.usni.org...

Here there is no mention of the wide dispersal on the part of Crozier that you contend. It also says that the investigation would be concluded by Monday the 6th. That was yesterday. A rather fast investigation I think.

And here is the same news outlet from early yesterday after noon, Monday day the sixth. No mention of the investigation and it's findings only speculations and accusations on the part of Modly .

news.usni.org...-75175

Modly didn’t specify the violation Crozier had committed but it would likely be a violation of Article 92, failure to obey an order, Rob “Butch” Bracknell, a former Marine and military lawyer told USNI News on Monday.

"Modly didn't specify the violation Crozier had committed''. This sounds as if the ''investigation'' is not over if Modly has not yet come up with a specific violation to charge him with. What do you think?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

business insider

TextCapt. Brett Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt may have been worried that Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate boss and the commander of the carrier strike group, would not have allowed him to send the warning letter to Navy leaders, according to the top Navy official who fired him as told to a Washington Post columnist.

Least this article says he avoided his immediate boss.


On cell phone I'll try to fix it when I get home.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785

Here is the Navy news from Sunday the 5th
news.usni.org...

Here there is no mention of the wide dispersal on the part of Crozier that you contend. It also says that the investigation would be concluded by Monday the 6th. That was yesterday. A rather fast investigation I think.

And here is the same news outlet from early yesterday after noon, Monday day the sixth. No mention of the investigation and it's findings only speculations and accusations on the part of Modly .

news.usni.org...-75175

Modly didn’t specify the violation Crozier had committed but it would likely be a violation of Article 92, failure to obey an order, Rob “Butch” Bracknell, a former Marine and military lawyer told USNI News on Monday.

"Modly didn't specify the violation Crozier had committed''. This sounds as if the ''investigation'' is not over if Modly has not yet come up with a specific violation to charge him with. What do you think?

Just because that particular article doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Here's from the NY Times article a few days after it happened:

But on Thursday Modly, who was named acting navy secretary after Richard Spencer was forced out as the Navy's top civilian late last year, said Crozier had shown "poor judgment" by sending his letter by email to up to 30 people, but not to his immediate superior on the warship.

Link

I've seen this referenced in a few live interviews about the matter as well.

That is NOT how you handle a disagreement with your superiors in the military, and this Captain knew that. He willfully violated chain of command and protocol. That is absolutely not in question.

The SecNav still should've left it to his superiors to deal with the matter.

From what I hear, he was reassigned not fired. He broke the rules, he could have jeopardized the ship by letting our adversaries know the crew was sick. He should have been removed from his position.

In Russia, they would have probably thrown the commander in prison for the rest of his life, same with China. I am sure most countries with aircraft carriers would do the same thing, change the commander of the carrier.

Modly is not a pr person. He is required to make sure rules were followed to insure the safety of our military forces, this is the military. He was doing his job. From what I read from an official source, they had already deployed help for the carrier before that paper was sent. I do not know if that was a military coverup or not, but carriers do have a very good medical unit in them, and the sick were overwhelming the ships ability to deal with it, but help was supposedly already on the way. Why the captain was not informed of what was going on is strange, someone should have called him, but he should not have released that letter improperly.

Did Modly 'jump the chain of command'?
I would have thought that the Admirals are suborniate to him? No?

a reply to: face23785

He's resigned.

a reply to: smurfy

Need a new actor then.
Or a real one, at some point.
I hope it’s jerod Kushner
He read a book on it. Boats n stuff.

a reply to: spacedoubt

I like the female Secretary of the Navy on NCIS. She's tough!

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: face23785

He's resigned.

Good.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Did Modly 'jump the chain of command'?
I would have thought that the Admirals are suborniate to him? No?

"Jumped" may not have been the best term, but it wasn't something the SecNav should've been involved in. There were plenty of others below him that could've handled the situation. As a general rule, the military likes to handle things at as low a level as it can be handled. The secretary jumping on something like that was improper, and then going to the ship and saying the things he said about the Captain was extraordinarily unprofessional. Good on him for resigning.

a reply to: face23785

From the Navy News we can see that Crozier's superior was on the ship with him. According to that article he did not know about the email before it was sent to him. I still find no mention of the wide dispersal of that email.

Now of course we see that Modly has offered his resignation. Yet here we are, on Tuesday the 7th and still no word in the Navy news about what that ''investigation'' has come up with. Most of what else we are hearing from other sources like the NYT seem to just be aspersions and accusations about Crozier's action leveled by Modly. .

edit: and still no more information on who leaked the email to the SF Chronicle.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785

From the Navy News we can see that Crozier's superior was on the ship with him. According to that article he did not know about the email before it was sent to him. I still find no mention of the wide dispersal of that email.

Now of course we see that Modly has offered his resignation. Yet here we are, on Tuesday the 7th and still no word in the Navy news about what that ''investigation'' has come up with. Most of what else we are hearing from other sources like the NYT seem to just be aspersions and accusations about Crozier's action leveled by Modly. .

edit: and still no more information on who leaked the email to the SF Chronicle.

I gave you an article that talks about the email being sent to a bunch of people that had no need to receive it. If you think NY Times just made that part up, that's on you I guess.

The fact that he sent the email over his superior's head, when his superior was literally down the hall from him, is improper in and of itself.

I've tried to explain to you how the Captain's actions were wrong. You don't appear to be interested in any of that. That's fine I guess. No sense in wasting any more time on it when you won't listen to information that contradicts the narrative you've chosen to believe.

In any case, it's good Modly resigned. He would have had no credibility leading the Navy after the stunt he pulled the other day on the ship.

a reply to: face23785

Much of what Modly has put forth to the press seems to be couched in such words as ''may have' and ''could have''.
I don't know of course but another scenario that presents itself is a simple one. Modly was really a partisan player. He wanted to be part of the Trump team and hence put forth the Trump story line, that all is well. When this story broke in the Chronicle, he might have seen a chance to become a hero in Trump's eyes and chimed in with ''suppositions'' and actions prior to those suppositions being proven. He wanted to be judge, jury and executioner of Crozier. And still no ''official'' summary from the investigation.......

Now or course he has offered his resignation. If it is accepted, he then will become the sacrifice and another Trump loyalist will take his place. This of course is only speculation on my part but it fits the bill of evidence.

a reply to: face23785

I gave you an article that talks about the email being sent to a bunch of people that had no need to receive it. If you think NY Times just made that part up, that's on you I guess.

Yep, I missed that link, my bad. So I read it. However that quote in the Times was a quote attributed to Modly.

The leadership issue, Mr. Modly noted, was that Captain Crozier did not go through the military’s formal chain of command, but sent the letter on an unclassified email system to 20 to 30 people.

Modly here already has demonstrated himself as a bad actor, I think we agree on that one.

And face, I haven't chosen to believe a certain narrative here. I'm just trying to fathom the depths of incompetence here. You have offered your opinion of that incompetence by both parties. I am in agreement with you on Modly, but still have to have more information, that is not directly attributable to Modly on the actions of Crozier.