Navy throws captain overboard

This post was published in the Wilson Times April 11, 2020.

That brotherhood of military veterans, whether they served in combat or not, has detected an odor of unfairness in the removal of Navy Capt. Brett Crozier from command of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. Crozier’s relief (essentially firing) was the result of his persistent appeal to the Navy to get sailors with COVID-19 symptoms off the Roosevelt. Crozier sent an email to Navy brass, urging officials to let the Roosevelt dock, evacuate the infected sailors and decontaminate the ship. Instead of protecting the health of the ship’s crew (there is no way to practice social distancing aboard a warship), the Navy relieved Crozier of his command and effectively ended his career.

One can argue, as some critics have, that Crozier was not following the chain of command when he sent that email, which eventually ended up in a newspaper. Some went even further, to claim Crozier’s letter might give hostile powers key intelligence about the ship’s combat readiness.

I spent three years in the Coast Guard responding to letters from service members or their families who had written to members of Congress. The complaints were usually about duty assignments or discipline, along the lines of “My son joined the Coast Guard to guard the coast; so why is he in Greenland?” My job title was “congressional correspondent.” I replied to the members of Congress, explaining the Coast Guard’s circumstances, process or reasoning. Some veteran personnel didn’t like the idea of accepting complaints outside the chain of command, but we treated the letters as another information source that deserved our attention. Among the officers I served under, Crozier’s letter would have launched an informal inquiry, not a rebuke for working outside the chain of command. If Crozier’s letter can be categorized as outside the chain of command, it was written only after repeated efforts through official channels to alert senior staff to the crisis aboard the Roosevelt.

Criticism of Crozier looked more suspect after hundreds of crewmembers lined the decks to cheer Crozier as he left the Roosevelt for the last time. Crozier’s punishment began to look more severe or even ridiculous, and some high-ranking veterans defended Crozier.

Then Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly lashed out at Crozier this week in language that is entirely improper for any serious organization, least of all one that depends on group loyalty. Modly, whoå called Crozier “either naïve or stupid,” apparently feared getting “crossways with the president,” as his predecessor had, and being fired, so he did his best to emulate the commander-in-chief’s caustic language and disrespect for subordinates.

A Navy officer doesn’t get to command an aircraft carrier without years of vetting through annual fitness reports and promotion boards aimed at making sure only the finest officers are given the awesome responsibility of operating a multi-billion-dollar ship with nearly 5,000 crew members, thousands of lethal weapons, ranging from sidearms to aircraft, missiles and nuclear weapons.

Modly, who later apologized for his speech to Roosevelt sailors on Guam and has since resigned, did not behave like a senior member of the chain of command. Rather, he sounded like a petulant child, using profanity and claiming Crozier’s actions were a “betrayal.” That word shows his criticism was not about military matters but about public relations or politics. In military terms, “betrayal” is a criminal offense, so it’s not a word to use haphazardly.

The president has preferred “treason” — a word the Constitution limits to “levying war against” the United States — as his go-to invective.