The Acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas B. Modly, resigned today after public outrage ensued from remarks he gave on the USS Theodore Roosevelt in which he called the ship’s former commanding officer, Brett Crozier, “too naïve or too stupid” to be in charge of an aircraft carrier.
As we reported here at ResCon1 Saturday, Modly relieved Crozier of his command because of a letter Crozier had written detailing the dire situation on the Roosevelt and pleading with the Navy to remove his men from the ship.
Sailors there had become infected with the coronavirus, which, given the close quarters on the ship, risked rapidly spreading throughout the ranks. Crozier’s letter was not classified; more than 20 people were on the receipt line; and it found its way into the San Francisco Chronicle.
There’s a lot to be said about this entire affair. For now, let me make just two observations:
First, I have no doubt that Modly spoke from the heart Monday when he explained to the crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt why he had relieved their beloved skipper, Captain Brett Crozier, of his command.
Moldy’s remarks are salty, but sincere and genuine; and they should not be discounted simply because he spoke in blunt and earthy terms.
Indeed, calling Crozier “stupid,” or “naïve,” and guilty of “betrayal,” as Modly did, is hardly grounds for outrage if, in fact, Crozier did something that warrants such a description.
Second, while Moldy’s language hardly warrants condemnation, the sum and substance of his criticism of Crozier is wrong and needs to be refuted.
Most informed observers seem to disagree with me and say the exact opposite: They criticize Modly for his sharp and abrasive attacks on Crozier, and for preempting the Navy’s uniformed leadership, which already had pledged to investigate the matter.
However, they accept Modly’s essential argument, which is that what Crozier did was fundamentally wrong and a bad mistake at best.
I could not disagree more. I think that what Crozier did by writing and releasing his letter was wise, prescient, and in accordance with the finest traditions of the U.S. military.
Let me explain why.
Modly’s most serious charge is that Crozier’s letter emboldened our enemies and compromised the war fighting capabilities of the Roosevelt. As Modly put it, Crozier’s letter
raised concerns about the operational capabilities and operational security of the ship that could have emboldened our adversaries to seek advantage.
This is, obviously, a very legitimate concern, but one we should reject, and for three reasons:
First, it is no secret that U.S. military personnel serving on ships that routinely dock in foreign ports are at heightened risk of contracting the coronavirus, given their intimate living quarters. So questions were bound to be raised and asked about this.
And in fact, questions were raised about this in the media more than a month ago, in late February and early March 2020.
We live, moreover, in a free and democratic country, where the families of U.S. military personnel rightly demand to know about the health and safety of their deployed service men and women—volunteers all.
The idea that you can keep this information secret in the 21st Century—an age in which everyone has worldwide, instantaneous communication at their fingertips—is ludicrous and unworkable.
Our enemies know that the coronavirus is affecting our military personnel, just as they know it is affecting them and everyone else. A pandemic, after all, is, by definition, an international problem. There are no secrets here to hide or conceal.
Second, our enemies and adversaries—including China, Russia, Iran, al-Qaeda, and ISIS—all have their hands full right now with the coronavirus.
Thus they are in no way ready or prepared to try and exploit this international public health crisis by attacking the awesome power and capability of the United States Navy and Marine Corps.
Third, as Capt. Crozier explained throughout his letter, in very clear and explicit detail, the ship’s war-fighting mission must and always does take precedence over the health and safety of its sailors.
“If required,” he wrote
the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT would embark all assigned Sailors, set sail, and be ready to fight and beat any adversary that dares challenge the U.S. or our allies. The virus would certainly have an impact, but in combat we are willing to take certain risks that are not acceptable in peacetime.
However, we are not at war, and therefore cannot allow a single Sailor to perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily. Decisive action is required now in order to comply with the CDC and NAVADMIN 083/20 guidance and prevent traffic outcomes…
“During wartime,” he explained, we
maximize war fighting readiness and capacity as quickly as possible. No timeline necessary. We go to war with the forces we have and fight sick. We never achieve a COVID-free TR. There will be losses to the virus.
In fact, as Crozier pointed out, decisive action was required precisely stop the virus from infecting the entire crew and thereby crippling the Roosevelt’s war-fighting capability. But since “war is not imminent, we recommend pursuing the peacetime end state [emphasis added].
Thus, far from being emboldened to attack because of Crozier’s letter, our enemies instead are deterred: because they know that this commanding officer states explicitly that the ship’s warfighting mission is paramount and will always be pursued regardless of the health of his crew.
In other words, if attacked or called upon, we will fight and go to war come hell or high coronavirus.
The bigger issue here, though, is whether openness and transparency about the state of our military is an operational weakness or strength. I believe that it is a strength because it allows us to quickly identify problems and correct deficiencies.
Modly doesn’t disagree. He just thinks that the review process has to be done quietly and discreetly behind a veil of secrecy. But history proves this just isn’t the case, and that the opposite is true. Without public exposure and debate, bureaucracies grow hidebound and resistant to change.
We saw this problem in an extreme form in the former Soviet Union, which, for 70 years habitually lied to itself to maintain its power structure, despite obvious and manifest failures that immiserated the country for decades.
The United States, thankfully, has not suffered a similar fate; but that is not because our bureaucracy is necessarily any better. Instead, it is because we live in a free and open country, in which bureaucratic decisions—including bureaucratic-military decisions—are routinely subject to scrutiny, criticism and debate.
The media are an integral part of this self-correction and improvement process.
Washington Post reporter Greg Jaffee notes, for instance, that, in 2007, at the height of the Iraq War, the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, thanked USA Today for stories that exposed problems with armored vehicles in Iraq. Gates appreciated USA Today’s reporting because it prodded the Pentagon to make more timely vehicular improvements, which saved American lives.
“Gates, likewise, praised [Washington Post reporters] Dana Priest and Anne Hull for their series exposing problems at Walter Reed,” notes New York Times reporter Peter Baker.
“I would say when there is an article critical of us, don’t go into a defensive crouch. Maybe you’ve just been handed a gift to solve a problem [that] you didn’t know existed,” Gates then said.
Sure, in the heat of battle and the fog of war, secrecy may be paramount and justified. Of course. But aside from those rare moments of actual conflict, secrecy is a big mistake and a weak rationalization that bureaucrats like Modly use to hide their failures and conceal their mistakes.
In truth, the United States, and the U.S. military in particular, benefit from being so open and transparent about our issues and challenges. That is not a weakness; it is a comparative advantage—and it is a big reason we retain a decided edge over our enemies.
Yet, incredibly, Modly told sailors and Marines in Guam that “there is no, no situation where you go to the media: because the media has an agenda.”
A Soviet commissar could not have put it any better. But this bureaucratic edict was bad in the original Russian, and it’s no better in English.
In truth, the media have an important role to play. And a military that has nothing to hide, and which understands the necessity and importance of outside input and review, should encourage, not shun, media scrutiny. Bring it on. Now more than ever.
Feature photo credit: Thomas B. Modly via Newport Buzz.
