The Theodore Roosevelt episode was no isolated incident, but a portent of worse to come.

[elleng]

The firing of Capt. Brett Crozier as CO of the Theodore Roosevelt is a bad omen for civilian-military relations says the author of this opinion piece. (MC2 Jordan KirkJohnson/Navy)

'The recent imbroglio involving the firing of the Captain of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and the subsequent resignation by Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, has provided a spectacle of theater to rival the Tiger King in capturing the attention of a quarantine weary country.

The incident began when the Roosevelt’s commanding officer, Captain Crozier, concerned about the pace of the Navy’s response to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard his ship, wrote an e-mail to colleagues that was subsequently leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Now it appears that Modly misrepresented the dissemination of Crozier’s e mail as being significantly more careless than the distribution list implied. It was addressed to Crozier’s commanding officer, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. John Aquilino, and Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, thus invalidating Modly’s claim that Crozier had bypassed his chain of command. Nevertheless, Modly relieved Crozier of his duties. . .

Unfortunately, this astonishing episode was no isolated incident, but rather another disturbing manifestation of the current administration’s drive to politicize the military. The skipper’s relief and the secretary’s self-immolation were interesting grist for the news cycle, but this dismal story points at a darker problem.

As several commentators have recently observed, the norms of civil military relations have over the last three years have steadily been eroded. When norms are continuously violated without anyone making a stand to defend them, they simply cease to be norms — the exceptions accrete into a new rule. That should be of concern, not just to the US military which has always prided itself on being apolitical, but to the country as a whole, whose democratic values depend in part on a healthy relationship between the military and its civilian leadership.'>>>

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/18/the-theodore-roosevelt-episode-was-no-isolated-incident-but-a-portent-of-worse-to-come/?


IMPORTANT, from the Military Times.

[guillaumeb]

1. An official in the Trump Administration lied?

I am shocked.

[ms liberty]

2. To the greatest. K&R. n/t

[Kitchari]

3. K&R n/t

[Sneederbunk]

4. Wondering about the submarines.

[rampartc]

5. if you have never sailed, these are not cruise ships

the crew of a warship live in very tight quarters. a submarine is even tighter.

[BComplex]

6. Politicizing the military is scarier than it looks. Once politicized, militaries are known to

take over countries.

[DURHAM D]

7. I consider the use of retired Colonel Birx as part

of the effort.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Remember "Seven Days in May"? This was not that. The movie, and the book, illustrated why...

we have civilian control of the military.

But, this Roosevelt affair illustrates how that can also go wrong. Fortunately, when the civilians fuck things up, fewer if any, people die. Civilians don't have direct battlefield command of forces.

(Even if some would like it.)

[Chainfire]

9. As long as the Commander in Chief is Trump

You can expect to see a breakdown of the normal chains of command. Trump thrives on chaos.

We have to know that all of the Captain Crozier canning had to originate in the Oval Office. It was a terrible miscalculation by a Commander In Chief, who never served, never respected the service or military leaders, and was, in fact, a draft dodger.

Hitler used an oddball system to control subordinates. With Hitler, the chains of command remained unclear by design. Hitler would place two men in very similar jobs, with similar responsibilities and give them no clear direction as to who had the final policy say. The leaders were always struggling for hegemony and were always afraid of losing the power struggle. Hitler was always willing to sacrifice the military careers of outstanding generals and civilian leaders to cover up his blunders. Hitler seemed to enjoy the battles among subordinates. He would constantly play one off the other, so that, in the end, they would always come to Hitler for decisions.

Trump and Hitler were both were under the impression that they both had infallible intuition, and that they alone could lead their nations to greatness. Hitler constantly underestimated his enemies abilities, and Trump constantly overvalues his intelligence. The main difference in Trump and Hitler was that Hitler (who had an incredible memory) may have been the caricature of evil genius, and Trump is just a goddamn clown.

[elleng]

10. Yes, and I'll state it somewhat differently: trump is/equals chaos.

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2020, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

trump = chaos, that is, trump equals chaos.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. K & R. Thanks for posting.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

12. Thank you, elleng.

There's more at the link.

It's an excellent description of what has happened to the military under this overblown ego administration. That the op-ed was published in "The Military Times" by a top USMC man is very revealing of how the higher commands feel around the globe.