JackOfNoTrades
Diamond Member
You've served under 6 "acting" SecNavs?
The Secretary Of The Navy is appointed by the President...except when..they aren't.
Here is the last tenured SecNav. There are five "acting" ones after him. Plus...one incumbent.
Navy's Top Admiral recommends reinstating Capt. Brett Crozier of USS Roosevelt
- Thread starter odanny
- Start date
You've served under 6 "acting" SecNavs?
The Secretary Of The Navy is appointed by the President...except when..they aren't.
Here is the last tenured SecNav. There are five "acting" ones after him. Plus...one incumbent.
JackOfNoTrades
Diamond Member
Seriously..you think a Navy Captain with all those years of experience is thinking..."is the guy in the Oval Office Republican?..or Democrat? LOL.
No..what they are thinking (right or left) is "Who the bleep is making these decisions?..Not Orange Man Incompetent. he's thinking, "I have a ship and my sailors are dropping like flies".
Mushroom
Gold Member
I served under 6 Presidents.
However, I did serve under 8 Secretaries of the Navy, including 2 who were "Acting". And when we put ADmiral Kelso's picture up on the wall for the Chain of Command, nowhere on that did it say "Acting".
Not at all, I am talking about those who constantly respond to this in almost a knee-jerk reaction.
And sailors were not "dropping like flies", they had been tied up at the dock for days before that letter was sent. And I notice that you are also not able to list a single thing that could have been done better.
Therefore, your own comments can only be seen as politically driven, and you actually do not give a damn about the sailors. TO you it is all political.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Umm..well, actually, the President is (the top of the chain of command) top dog. That's why they call that position Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary of the Navy has jurisdiction over...well..the Navy. And this douchebag had the title of "Acting". Which any person who's served in the military would dismiss. I'm sorry, who is the nitwit again?
Why would you dismiss an acting SECNAV? Did we dismiss Obama because he would occassionally act like a President?
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,043
- 2,300
..the civilians are and should be in charge ...if not, you get a military dictatorship like Japan in the 30s, saddam Iraq, etc etc ....and MacArthur's MAJOR screw up in KoreaFinally, some good news for a change.
The Navy's top admiral has recommended that Capt. Brett Crozier be reinstated as commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt weeks after he was fired by the Navy's former acting secretary, a U.S. official said Friday.
Navy's top admiral recommends reinstating captain fired over COVID-19 warning
Capt. Brett Crozier was relieved of command three weeks ago, but the investigation into his actions was completed last week.abcnews.go.com
A true travesty of the ongoing "Acting" soap opera that is the Trump Administration. Captain's got a floating petri dish and he gets fired for raising the red flag? Sounds like a bunch of civilians who think they know better than the generals....where have I heard that before? I hear most of the top Navy brass is solidly behind this. (and yeah, I know there are no generals in the Navy).
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,043
- 2,300
o --the other MAJOR screw up by the generals--the Vietnam War--not just American Generals, but also French ones..it's all here:Finally, some good news for a change.
The Navy's top admiral has recommended that Capt. Brett Crozier be reinstated as commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt weeks after he was fired by the Navy's former acting secretary, a U.S. official said Friday.
Navy's top admiral recommends reinstating captain fired over COVID-19 warning
Capt. Brett Crozier was relieved of command three weeks ago, but the investigation into his actions was completed last week.
A true travesty of the ongoing "Acting" soap opera that is the Trump Administration. Captain's got a floating petri dish and he gets fired for raising the red flag? Sounds like a bunch of civilians who think they know better than the generals....where have I heard that before? I hear most of the top Navy brass is solidly behind this. (and yeah, I know there are no generals in the Navy).
Vietnam War was unwinnable
..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...
www.usmessageboard.com
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
o --the other MAJOR screw up by the generals--the Vietnam War--not just American Generals, but also French ones..it's all here:Finally, some good news for a change.
The Navy's top admiral has recommended that Capt. Brett Crozier be reinstated as commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt weeks after he was fired by the Navy's former acting secretary, a U.S. official said Friday.
Navy's top admiral recommends reinstating captain fired over COVID-19 warning
Capt. Brett Crozier was relieved of command three weeks ago, but the investigation into his actions was completed last week.
A true travesty of the ongoing "Acting" soap opera that is the Trump Administration. Captain's got a floating petri dish and he gets fired for raising the red flag? Sounds like a bunch of civilians who think they know better than the generals....where have I heard that before? I hear most of the top Navy brass is solidly behind this. (and yeah, I know there are no generals in the Navy).
Vietnam War was unwinnable
..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...
You think the generals were in charge in Vietnam? You need to read some history!
Rigby5
Diamond Member
That won't fix the problem of the Pentagon failing to deal with a health hazard.
He followed the chain of command as I understand it, and he was not the one who went to the press.
But this is still supposed to be democracy, so sometimes things do have to get to the press in order to get fixed.
Failing to evacuate a ship with an outbreak is irresponsible.
The Navy goofed on this one, big time.
If the goal was to allow herd immunity to run its course, then the ship should have been sent to a base with a hospital capable of handling the extreme cases.
From what I read, Crozier was not only right, but the Navy finally did what he requested anyway.
{...
In the letter, Crozier asked for permission to offload all but 10 percent of the ship’s nearly 5,000-person crew.
As of Thursday, 4,234 sailors have moved ashore to Guam, where the Roosevelt is docked while the ship handles the outbreak.
...}
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Not according to the letter, the press, or the Navy.
The sailors were forced on board until after the letter.
{...
In the letter, Crozier asked for permission to offload all but 10 percent of the ship’s nearly 5,000-person crew.
As of Thursday, 4,234 sailors have moved ashore to Guam, where the Roosevelt is docked while the ship handles the outbreak.
...}
Navy says entire USS Theodore Roosevelt crew has been tested for coronavirus
The Navy has tested the entire crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for the coronavirus, the service said Thursday.So far, 840 sailors have tested positive for the virus, but a “small number” of resu…
thehill.com
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Anyone in the military should be familiar with the term, "situational awareness".
That means a leader in the field who sees a contradiction with remote orders, is fully authorized and required to disobey those orders that would result in a disaster.
The military chain of command is not supposed to be a suicide pact.
When there is a mistake with orders coming down the chain of command, like the Charge of the Light Brigade, those with greater situational awareness are supposed to challenge those orders.
As captain, Crozier should not have waited for order to disperse the majority of the sailors off the ship.
He should have done it immediately.
That means a leader in the field who sees a contradiction with remote orders, is fully authorized and required to disobey those orders that would result in a disaster.
The military chain of command is not supposed to be a suicide pact.
When there is a mistake with orders coming down the chain of command, like the Charge of the Light Brigade, those with greater situational awareness are supposed to challenge those orders.
As captain, Crozier should not have waited for order to disperse the majority of the sailors off the ship.
He should have done it immediately.
Mushroom
Gold Member
Not according to the letter, the press, or the Navy.
The sailors were forced on board until after the letter.
{...
In the letter, Crozier asked for permission to offload all but 10 percent of the ship’s nearly 5,000-person crew.
As of Thursday, 4,234 sailors have moved ashore to Guam, where the Roosevelt is docked while the ship handles the outbreak.
...}
Navy says entire USS Theodore Roosevelt crew has been tested for coronavirus
The Navy has tested the entire crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for the coronavirus, the service said Thursday.So far, 840 sailors have tested positive for the virus, but a “small number” of resu…
They were already moving sailors off as fast as they could.
Tell me what you would do then. You essentially have a ship with over 5,000 sailors tie up alongside a base that only has a little over 2,000 sailors already on it. And there is nowhere to put them. Both the command of the base and the Navy were working frantically to find places to put them all.
And yea, as of Thursday. Over 3 weeks later! But come on, what could/should have been done differently at that time! Remove them from the ship and put them all up in tents? Put them up in the base gym, base theater, and sleeping in hallways and offices?
What would you have had them do?
This is why so many keep failing. And after asking this very question for over 3 weeks not a single person has come up with a solution. You all just scream and cry, but actually offer no solutions.
That is why his ability to command was called into question. Real leaders do not scream and cry, they solve the problem and offer solutions.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Not according to the letter, the press, or the Navy.
The sailors were forced on board until after the letter.
{...
In the letter, Crozier asked for permission to offload all but 10 percent of the ship’s nearly 5,000-person crew.
As of Thursday, 4,234 sailors have moved ashore to Guam, where the Roosevelt is docked while the ship handles the outbreak.
...}
Navy says entire USS Theodore Roosevelt crew has been tested for coronavirus
The Navy has tested the entire crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for the coronavirus, the service said Thursday.So far, 840 sailors have tested positive for the virus, but a “small number” of resu…
They were already moving sailors off as fast as they could.
Tell me what you would do then. You essentially have a ship with over 5,000 sailors tie up alongside a base that only has a little over 2,000 sailors already on it. And there is nowhere to put them. Both the command of the base and the Navy were working frantically to find places to put them all.
And yea, as of Thursday. Over 3 weeks later! But come on, what could/should have been done differently at that time! Remove them from the ship and put them all up in tents? Put them up in the base gym, base theater, and sleeping in hallways and offices?
What would you have had them do?
This is why so many keep failing. And after asking this very question for over 3 weeks not a single person has come up with a solution. You all just scream and cry, but actually offer no solutions.
That is why his ability to command was called into question. Real leaders do not scream and cry, they solve the problem and offer solutions.
Not from what I read.
Not a single sailor was allow off until after Crozier was replaced, according to all accounts I can find.
Guam has a permanent capacity of over 20,000 due to the number of ships normally there.
Tents, stadiums, etc., would be vastly superior.
Mushroom
Gold Member
It may have had that (which I doubt) 30 years ago, before the BRAC closed the Guam Naval Shipyard. At that point they actually did have excess space, but nowhere near 20,000. But please, provide a reference to validate that claim. I have spent over 2 decades in the military, on bases of all 4 branches. And I have never seen one that had "20,000 spaces".
Hell, one of the largest bases in the country is Fort Bliss, and it has less than half that many people on it. And that is home to 2 major Army units, not a sleepy backwater Navy bases.
And really? Tents and stadiums would be superior? OK, let me get this right. You are complaining about compartmentalization not being enough, so you want to cram thousands of people together in tents and basketball courts?
Congratulations, now the entire ship is infected. Way to go Braniac.
Yea, this COVID is a bunch of nonsense. Let's just return to NBA basketball. Because that is quite literally what you just said.
- Thread starter
- #34
Not according to the letter, the press, or the Navy.
The sailors were forced on board until after the letter.
{...
In the letter, Crozier asked for permission to offload all but 10 percent of the ship’s nearly 5,000-person crew.
As of Thursday, 4,234 sailors have moved ashore to Guam, where the Roosevelt is docked while the ship handles the outbreak.
...}
Navy says entire USS Theodore Roosevelt crew has been tested for coronavirus
The Navy has tested the entire crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for the coronavirus, the service said Thursday.So far, 840 sailors have tested positive for the virus, but a “small number” of resu…
They were already moving sailors off as fast as they could.
Tell me what you would do then. You essentially have a ship with over 5,000 sailors tie up alongside a base that only has a little over 2,000 sailors already on it. And there is nowhere to put them. Both the command of the base and the Navy were working frantically to find places to put them all.
And yea, as of Thursday. Over 3 weeks later! But come on, what could/should have been done differently at that time! Remove them from the ship and put them all up in tents? Put them up in the base gym, base theater, and sleeping in hallways and offices?
What would you have had them do?
This is why so many keep failing. And after asking this very question for over 3 weeks not a single person has come up with a solution. You all just scream and cry, but actually offer no solutions.
That is why his ability to command was called into question. Real leaders do not scream and cry, they solve the problem and offer solutions.
Oh for ***** sake, the man wasn't "screaming and crying", he was taking command of his ship and demanding something be done in the face of inaction, namely from the handpicked and unqualified cronies that occupy the Defense Dept. top leadership.
The reaction from the Defense Dept. mirrors the reaction Trump had when informed that a pandemic was soon to arrive in the United States: Denial, dismissal, and inaction.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Nonsense.
First of all, Guam was seriously built up after we lost our bases in Vietnam and the Philippines.
Second is that Guam was always built to accommodate transient ships.
That is the whole point.
Otherwise you don't put ships into the Pacific at all, if you do not have land capacity for their crews.
This is that camping out is NOT cramming, but separating instead.
There is plenty of room on Guam, in places like stadiums and parks.
Way more room than they have hot bunking on a carrier.
The area of a carrier is tiny compared to the parks and recreation spaces of the whole Islam of Guam.
Guam has a population of 170,000.
It is huge compared to a carrier.
It is 30 miles long and 8.5 miles wide.
Mushroom
Gold Member
And what exactly changed from before that letter, and afterwards? We are 3 weeks later, and there are still almost 1,000 sailors still on the ship.
No, "taking command" means you give solutions, not just scream and yell. Especially when the Navy and base were already doing all they could.
So tell me, should the Commander of the US Naval Base Guam be relieved because he did not do enough?
You go on and on about "inaction", yet you can not offer a single suggestion as to how things should have been done. Well, now is your turn. What should-could have been done differently? Give us all a solution to the problem.
Mushroom
Gold Member
And as always, a load of coprolite and not a single reference.
And yes, I said it was built up. There was once a shipyard there. It was closed in 1995. The Naval Air Station was also closed, in 1995. Half of the Naval Station Guam was taken away and converted to a civilian harbor in 1995. Those 3 wings of bombers that used to be stationed at Anderson? They were relocated back in the 1990s and half of the base was torn down.
And even at it's height, there was no extra facilities for removing 5,000 personnel and putting them on-shore. Other than the home port of the ship that is.
As always, you are just making things up as you go along. So tell me, would you support spending the billions of dollars needed to put up enough housing for 5,000+ sailors all over the globe? And apparently you believe that housing 5,000 sailors in tents is an acceptable solution.
Showers? Toilets? How are you going to feed them? What, do you expect them to dig cat holes and crap in the park?
And finally NOBODY HOT BUNKS ON A CARRIER! Hell, the only place I have heard of "hot bunking" is on early Cold War era submarines. Not even the subs we have used since the 1980's have required "hot bunking". With the exception that each sub had 2 crews, one which was ashore while the other went out to sea. Now that technically is "hot bunking", because you share your berthing with somebody else. But not at the same time, one uses it while the other is ashore.
You really have to stop making things up like this. You are embarrassing yourself.
- Thread starter
- #38
Who do you think I am going to listen to? The dismissed (acting) Sec. of the Navy? Or Capt. Crozier?
Clearly, solutions were not easy to find, or the Capt. would not have been fired for speaking out in trying to find them. Neglect is not a solution to the problem of a outbreak sweeping across this carrier. As far as to who leaked this letter to the Chronicle, it has never been confirmed that it was Crozier, to my knowledge. Apparently the only solution you could come up with was supporting Modley and dismissing the captain of this ship. If silencing the captain is your only solution, then you don't have one.
Mushroom
Gold Member
And I notice not a single suggestion as to what could have been done better. In fact, not a single condemnation of those on Guam and how they handled this, or any proof that those on board were being neglected.
And the simple fact is, this letter should never have been sent in a way where it could have been leaked. At a minimum, this should have been classified as "Secret", and never been sent in the open across unsecured lines. That alone has seen people put in jail.
This is how I look at it. I ignore all politics, that is irrelevant to the actual issue. Was the attention given to the crew the best that the Navy could do under the circumstances? Either it was, or it was not. And the lack of any apparent care over the treatment before or since this letter shows me that nobody gives a damn about that, they only care about the politics.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
You have it totally backwards.
The facilities at Guam were built up in the 1970s, 1980's, and 1990's.
No facilities there were ever torn down.
The fact the carriers, subs, and bombers are not there now means there is an excess of unused housing.
But yes, it is also easy to tent up on Guam for that small of a crew.
When there are sporting events, they easily provide things like portapoties.
Showers and mess halls are what the US military is supposed to be good at providing.
But with all the canceled cruise lines, they could just have diverted 1 or 2 to Guam.
But if Guam was not desirable, then the USS Roosevelt should have been sent somewhere else.
Anywhere they could have spread out from confinement.
And you also are wrong about hot racking.
US submarine crews always have and always will have shared bunks.
I assumed that the USS Roosevelt did as well since it had such a large crew, but it does not really matter.
It still is way too crowded for social distancing.
There are lots of empty facilities there now.
For ships and planes to be able to use Guam, this excess living space was already created for them.
The 4000 from the USS Roosevelt would be trivial to house on land.
That was the whole point of having a naval base there, to be able to allow ship loads of crew get shore leave.
Do you think the crew of the USS Roosevelt would prefer to be kept on board or to camp out on land in Guam?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Apr 1948: Fawzi el Quakji, Nazi Wermacht Colonel loses Mishmar Ha'emek
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Silver lining. Always trust the IDF over "activists" or Hamas/Qatar/Iran linked "reporting"
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
Latest Discussions
-
Recommend a special section on board for the TDS affected- Latest: Rambunctious
-
-
