US Navy SEAL leaders suspended over alleged sexual misconduct

CPO (Join to see) - In '88 SEALs came to boot to see if any of us were interested. I failed the pull-ups (passed the swim, run, and push-ups though!), and I don't remember anyone else from my company passing, so I don't know if the intent there was to take someone that passed from boot after graduation, or if they were merely trying to inspire interest. But as far back as that they were at least approaching booters. That said, I completely agree with you: millennial SEALs are still millennials.

SN Greg Wright - They have always taken from Boot, not that many, they have Company's now that is my point. They mostly took from fleet and it worked well back then, we had guys always putting in packages, both NSW and our Dive team packages, I had two put in, and new how it worked back then. If you take a couple that have no fleet mix okay but a whole company, could have problems that will not be felt, well until now. The Navy has done same thing to MA's back after 911, in 2003 opened up and brought all brand new boots in, that caused problems also, because before that you had to run a Package be an E-5 to become an MA. I have worked around SEAL's and supported them since I joined in 89, We have a large component of Seabees and that Number doubled after 911 and is still increasing, also in SOF support period.

SN Greg Wright - This is what I am talking about things changed in 2006 when SO rating became a rate, before that you had to have an A-School in one of 8 ratings meaning pre fleet. This was better as you would hope they would not forget where they came from and discipline problems were less back then, because they had to give something up to get something, so they new if they screwed up back to the fleet. http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=34922

LT Brad McInnis - I agree, but as time moves on people forget that most had rates before they crossed over to SEAL and it was qualification not a RATE. The problem with boot company thing is that is all they know, so when they get to teams, they don't know what it is to be fleet or any rate in the fleet, so you can't use the we will send you back to the fleet, that's what we used as Seabees, you will go back to or go to the fleet.

I'm not gonna try to whup a SEAL! I know better.

LT Brad McInnis - There humans Sir, not supper, and we use to fight them all the time, yes we won and they won. We had them come into our club on our camp in Porto Rico, and these were the young new SDV guys, there camp was next to ours connected called green side SEAL's and Seabees. They were told to stay away, but from time to time things happened and we mixed it up. They were outnumbered as it was our main body deployment site.

CPO (Join to see) - My room mate at school became a SEAL, and we got into some pretty knock down drag out fights... I only ever won if I got him really drunk before hand!

For the record, no SEALs were involved in the Fat Leonard thing. That was almost exclusively senior SWO's and SUPPO's.

Yes, but it was the Navy. Same service. And, I assume that senior people in the Navy's Special Warfare world hold substantial clearances. I'm looking at the whole thing, the collisions of ships, the Fat Leonard thing, the murder.
Sex scandals across society are a dime a dozen. But sex scandals among leaders with substantial clearances are more concerning than other sex scandals.
The Fat Leonard thing concerns me because 1.) it involves leaders who were immediately in a compromised position the moment they entered into impropriety, 2.) it appears to a layperson like my self, that it involves a commercial enterprise with obvious ethical issues accessing American warships, 3.) it happened in Southeast Asia, just around the corner and down the block from the South China Sea so it doesn't take me much imagination to come up with plausible scenarios for how Fat Leonard may have involved more than just the greed of some corrupt individuals.
The murder is one of many that occur in the military (or any medium sized city) but this one is alleged to have happened on deployment to another American servicemember and is alleged to have been committed by servicemembers who are called upon to carry out missions of national significance.
The collisions concern me because 1.) From my layperson's perspective, it seems to me that modern naval warfare fundamentally involves a.) detecting the enemy and getting a good fix on his location, b.) shooting him out of the water with missiles or torpedoes from a significant distance; 2.) warships are expensive and have relatively large numbers of American servicemembers on board so I would expect the Navy to be fairly strict about who gets to operate them and how they go about doing that. When there is a spate of collisions, (and then especially when I read an article about how a warship was known for its faulty radar), I wonder how on earth we're going to win a war at sea.
Finally, the Navy is responsible for much more than just winning a war at sea. It operates the most important part of our nuclear deterrent. If our adversaries even -think- that our deterrent is less than reliable, then we get closer to the possibility of nuclear war. Because of that, as an American, I really don't want any systemic issues arising or continuing in the Navy. I don't know if there are any, but that's why I posted the comment/response that I did - is there something going on? If so, it needs to get straightened out fast.