Posted on Apr 7, 2020
SSG Product Manager
1.98K
105
38
9
9
0
Do these comments hurt or hinder the overall mission?

Full audio: https://soundcloud.com/user-31572041/thomas-modly-speech-on-theodore-roosevelt


UPDATE: Modly has offered his resignation to SECDEF
Posted in these groups: Leadership-abstract-007 LeadershipC8005900 Sailors
Avatar_feed
Responses: 16
SFC Observer   Controller/Trainer (Oc/T)
12
12
0
He was HIGHLY inappropriate... For a civilian political appointee to address a crowd of service members and shit talk a Commissioned Officer? It's low class at best.
(12)
Comment
(0)
SFC James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"
SFC James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"
1 mo
I am with SFC (Join to see) as well SSG (Join to see). I truly believe CAPT Crozier was acting in the best interests of his ship. I would further guess that he went outside of the Chain of Command on purpose because he either got a pathetic response or was blown off. As we all know in the world of leadership, sometimes doing the right thing by the reg and our Soldiers or whomever, well, sometimes, your reward for such, is being fired. Whatever. CAPT Crozier has my respect and my respek.
(5)
Reply
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson (Taz or Joe Retired Now in Contract Compliance)
LTC Joe Anderson (Taz or Joe Retired Now in Contract Compliance)
1 mo
Remember as a whole we the Military/DoD work for Civilians and Civilian appointees. SECNAV should have kept his comments to himself. But when the CAPT's letter went public, I knew he was getting fired soon. Right, wrong, or indifferent, he exercised poor judgment by over CCing in his Email. He knew all 20 of those copied were not in his chain and risked this information would get out to the public. An 06 with well over 20 years knows better than mishandling classified information and going around the/his chain of command.

On a Carrier like "The Roosevelt," he's the CAPT, but the Admiral works on board and is within walking distance. He either failed to talk to the Admiral or knew the Admiral wouldn't agree and went around him (My dad's retired Navy and during my 34-year career I worked Joint and I have an understanding of Carrier Ops). Maybe the Admiral wasn't on Board at the moment, but he should have reached out to him and only him first. He should have addressed it with the admiral for over headcover and a starting point as to why he disagreed with his chain (We would all talk to our Bosses on something like this before going around them or over their head).

His Email/letter not being sent VIA SIPR, JWICS, NSANet or other Classified system was highly inappropriate. Troop Movements, Battle Group/Carrier Movements, Fleet Operations... are ALL Classified (Most of us should remember when we deployed, Unit, Ship, Fleet... Deployments/Movements and Redeployment dates were Classified and not publish for OPSEC reasons (Somehow wives always find out our redeployment dates Haha). I agree. The CAPT (COL Equivalent) violated regulations, OPSEC, and exposed to the world the US has a Battle Group that is combat ineffective by sending an email to anyone who was not cleared for it, not on a secure network, and not in his direct chain of command. He may be the best Commander, Sailor, person ever, but he made a huge mistake by not sending his letter/email via classified networks and to people outside of his Chain of Command. In doing so, he put his Command, Ship, and crew at risk.

The America Public or the rest of the world should never, NEVER know one of our Battle or Carrier Groups is down and not combat/mission effective. Now our adversaries know there's a hole in our defense responsibilities until another carrier can replace the Roosevelt and the Crew is replaced or back to 90-100% operational strength. So, yes, he should have been fired for his carelessness and or momentary loss of judgment. But no, the SECNAV shouldn't have made the comments he made. He should have only addressed the OPSEC reasons and Mission Readiness reasons for dismissing the Carriers Commander. Had he done so he would not have been forced to resign.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SFC Patient Service Tech
10
10
0
The irony is not lost upon me. First, he fires the Captain because the letter went outside "normal, secure" channels, and then Modly makes comments that are derogative and done outside "normal, secure" channels, and now his head is being asked for.
(10)
Comment
(0)
SFC Observer   Controller/Trainer (Oc/T)
SFC (Join to see)
1 mo
I like how NIPR is suddenly not a "normal, secure" channel... Since when?
(3)
Reply
(0)
SFC Patient Service Tech
SFC (Join to see)
1 mo
SFC (Join to see) - Since they got egg on the face
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
8
8
0
No, they were not. Personally, I think Captain Crozier is the sort of officer who would likely fly his Hornet on one engine into the Valley of Death to drop ordnance and save lives... he's a good man. I still think what he did was technically wrong and worthy of censure, if not the firing he received. There are things you do, and things you don't do... and ways to fall on one's sword that minimize the collateral damage. What the acting SECNAV did after the fact may have been worse, however... much worse. The Sailors on the TR love Crozier for sticking his neck out for them... they should. There's not amount of "tough talk" that's likely to change that... nor should "Big Navy" try. Get the new Skipper on board, let him take the reigns, move on. Oh, and stand and deliver on the assistance that was indicated to be in the works at the time of the original incident. Do that, and the SECNAV "proves" the justification for Crozier's dismissal; do it not... and all you prove is that he may have had a point.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SGT Herbert Bollum
SGT Herbert Bollum
1 mo
Also he should know as does any leader that you PRAISE in public, CRITICIZE in private.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close