Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For Captain Crozier, Loyalty Is a Two-Way Street
“There’s a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and is much less prevalent. One of the most frequently noted characteristics of great men who have remained great is loyalty to their subordinates.” — General George S. Patton
As a career Noncommissioned Officer and a veteran of 20 years military service, I wonder if Navy brass — or if the senior ranks in any branch of America’s armed forces for that matter — understand what they are witnessing when they see that great throng of crew members aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt cheering in support of Captain Brett Crozier, who risked his career to save their lives? A Navy veteran on Twitter commented that:
I love that ppl from across the country are seeing this. But only Sailors are truly going to understand how monumental & rare a sendoff like this is. Once in your career if you’re extremely lucky will you see a CO like this. And if you’re Lotto-lucky, you get to serve with them.
During my time on active duty, I worked directly for over 30 senior and flag rank officers. Of those commanders, there are precisely two for whom I would gladly storm the very gates of hell if asked. That’s not to disparage the remainder, but merely to point out the relatively few, in my experience, whose loyalty to their people ranked higher than their career aspirations.
“Take care of your people,” we NCOs were told, “and they will take care of the mission.” It seemed more of a motto at times — a catchy phrase if you will — than a dogmatic and foundational conviction. Of course, that depended on the mission itself, which too often appeared to be one of getting the boss that next star.
One of the more enduring lessons embedded deep into the mind of anyone who has been in the military for at least a day is the abiding importance of the chain of command. That is the vehicle through which orders and procedures are dispatched downward and carried out. It is also the means through which concerns, ideas, and requests are carried up to the appropriate level for decisions and action. In those instances in which the chain of command is unresponsive, or the concern is a direct result of people in that chain, then other avenues are provided, e.g., the Inspector General’s office, congressional offices, etc.
To go outside of that chain is to risk a great deal, as military law expert, Gary Solis explained in an article at Quartz, emphasizing that, “there’s no room for failing to follow accepted and long-respected chain-of-command obligations.” Indeed. Which makes Capt Crozier’s actions even more intriguing since he never would have risen through the ranks to command the USS Theodore Roosevelt had he been the reckless sort who made a habit of stepping outside accepted channels, no?
Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to wonder whether Captain Crozier — who undoubtedly was well versed in the centrality of the chain of command to military order, discipline, and mission effectiveness — had found his chain of command’s response wanting in the level of urgency and decisiveness required to preserve the lives of the people who had been entrusted to his command. No one goes into the military believing they are indispensable, but the acceptable level of risk to human life in wartime conditions quite rightly differs from that of peacetime conditions, a point Capt Crozier felt necessary to underscore repeatedly in his letter.
Commenting on that letter, Navy Secretary Thomas Modly concluded that Capt Crozier had, “…unnecessarily raised alarms with the families of our Sailors and Marines with no plan to address those concerns.” On the contrary, if those concerns revolve around the safety of the Sailors and Marines onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Captain Crozier’s letter provided specific courses of action to address those concerns. As for unnecessarily raising alarms, the latest reports show that 44 percent of the crew have been tested, with 155 personnel having tested positive for COVID-19 thus far. Given how rapidly this virus seems to spread, the idea that alarms were unnecessarily raised appears dubious.
To this observer, it seems that when a commander of Captain Crozier’s caliber goes outside the chain of command, that commander is making a vote of no confidence in the responsiveness of those who constitute that chain. Secretary Modly would do himself and the Navy a favor if he would but pause a moment and consider why an officer of Captain Crozier’s caliber felt his chain of command was inadequate to the needs of his sailors.
Oh, and whatever became of the two commanders for whom I would have gladly stormed the gates of hell? They both commanded the fierce loyalty of their troops, and they both retired prematurely.
Published in General
100% correct. Frankly, the General that dressed down the private does so as well.
Negative. Leadership is defined by getting people what they need to do. If what they need to do and what you want them to do coincide, and you use poor leadership tactics to do it it, you are a poor leader, even though got done what needs doing.
Interesting take on leadership. Getting people to do what they need to do? I’m not seeing it. That’s kind of assuming that the leader has his followers interests in mind. That’s not a requirement and usually isn’t true. Most leaders only care about their own needs, and this has been true for the duration of our species’ time on Earth.
Had a CO at work get fired a few years ago. He basically got a call at home telling him his plane ticket to HQ was purchased for early the following morning. The organization deputy flew out and assumed command. The XO packed up the old CO’s belongings from the office and mailed them to him. Other than a picture on the row of COs it was as if the guy had never been there. This was done properly.
I didn’t say “what their followers need”. I said “what they need to do.” If I’m a soldier and the mission is to take the hill, I may need to man the radio, charge up the hill, lay down suppressing fire, tend to the wounded. A good leader gets those under his command and care to do the things they need to do. Not what he wants them to do.
But three lefts do.
I consider this a carved-in-stone law, and learned this lesson many, many years ago. I have told others this was universally true, and they never believe it until they see it in action for themselves.