The Navy was already weakened if the vessel had hundreds of cases without sufficient support. Let’s not blame the victim for yet another executive branch failure to act without the appropriate speed and magnitude.
If the chain of command fails you, you have no other choice but to go public when your crews’ well-being is threatened.
> “It creates the perception the Navy is not on the job; the government is not on the job. That's just not true."
I don’t believe anyone is confident the government is on the job, and this letter did nothing to change that perception. It simply confirms what the public already believes.
Generally if you're pleading for help, that means that there's insufficient support. I'm not sure what else you think is happening here, unless you're calling him an outright liar.
The final line of his letter was requesting more support explicitly. He wanted more lodging for his sailors so that proper quarantine measures could be put in place. The entire letter was a request for more resources and a change of strategy. That by definition means the current support is insufficient.
> Request all available resources to find NAVADMIN and CDC compliant quarntine rooms for my entire crew as soon as passible.
I read this as a new request for support for the "war free" plan outlined in the letter. Are you suggesting that he had already proposed this or another plan, but it was rejected or not completely fulfilled? If so, do you have a reference for this?
It would be useful if you could make it more clear what is your personal opinion/speculation vs publicly known. I'm trying to understand what happened.
> That by definition means the current support is insufficient.
In this context, that doesn't necesarily have to be true.
A security violation that would’ve been unnecessary had appropriate action been taken sooner. Sailors’ lives > a preventable “security violation” (scare quotes intended)
As if I needed yet another example to share with anyone even considering enlisting in the armed forces why you shouldn’t. As long as the optics make it worth it, you’re disposable, regardless of rank.
There's no evidence at all he is the one who leaked the memo. It may have been someone up the totem pole. Without knowing who leaked the memo, his being relieved of duty was premature and will only serve to damage morale. This was a very poor call by the acting Secretary.
Thanks. That's very interesting he sent it to more than 20 people, though I haven't seen that reported on with official sources claiming so yet, maybe I missed something.
Do you have proof the Captain was the one who leaked? If not, then you're speculating. He emailed it through Navy channels. And to think that the Chinese are unaware of how ships are or will be affected is naive. And the PRC has been expanding in the SCS for decades. They sure as hell didn't wait until Tuesday when this news broke to "seize up territorial claims" whatever that means.
What weakens the USN is a lack of leadership. Almost every officer and sailor I know supported this Captain's actions and hold him as a true leader compared to the Navy Secretary.
> They sure as hell didn't wait until Tuesday when this news broke to "seize up territorial claims" whatever that means.
Similarly, USA had no need to specially wait for provocation to back their allies in the region.
Countries in the region were looking with scepticism on US "security guarantee" for decades. And the last few years gave them even more reasons to move away from USA.
For example, both Philippines and Malaysia were at some moments seriously committed to conduct action on Spratleys, both times it was US who exerted extreme diplomatic pressure on them to not to do so.
They have all reasons to ask questions why do they have to spend diplomatic efforts on maintaining US security guarantee, if US is not willing to defend their land.
CPC's think tanks have long found that the best way to put pressure on countries in the region is through pressuring the US.
They make it look to US government that their relationship with a given country have "too high of a price," and raise risks, and stakes for the US.
Then they come to Washington, and say "hey, let's deescalate, and go back to making money. Just make one small concession on that island." Of course, in the end it will be not USA making concessions, but their vital allies.
I know most are assuming Cozier leaked the document, but there is literally no proof of that. Someone else leaked it. Maybe even Modly or Espers or at their direction.
If the chain of command fails you, you have no other choice but to go public when your crews’ well-being is threatened.
> “It creates the perception the Navy is not on the job; the government is not on the job. That's just not true."
I don’t believe anyone is confident the government is on the job, and this letter did nothing to change that perception. It simply confirms what the public already believes.