Posted on May 29, 2018
The Navy Dodged More Terrible Headlines With McCain Skipper’s Guilty Plea
2.64K
21
12
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
“This was a negotiated result favorable to both sides: The Navy saved face and the commander saved his retirement.” BUT I am not sure that is true. I know the Navy may have come out better without letting people look hard at all of the evidence, that is true. However, I think, Cmdr. Alfredo Sanchez, who commanded the ship at the time would have been found not guilty of the charges. Especially since the Navy was really complicit in many factors leading up to the collision and is working to correct them throughout the fleets.
If you really look at the article and understand how much was going wrong both with the ship and its personel in terms of manning, then you realize how much there was a lack of leadership from the higher levels of the Navy. No one was making sure that Commanding Officers had the people and equipment needed to complete their missions!
If you really look at the article and understand how much was going wrong both with the ship and its personel in terms of manning, then you realize how much there was a lack of leadership from the higher levels of the Navy. No one was making sure that Commanding Officers had the people and equipment needed to complete their missions!
(3)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
CPO Glenn Moss - I don't believe the act would have been futile. At a minimum, his sailors might still be alive. Granted, such an action would probably result in relief and an investigation at the Fleet level. Assuming command to be the ultimate objective of a line officer, such a decision would be attention getting if nothing else. If he did it correctly, he might retain his command and make a real contribution to overall readiness,
(1)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
LtCol Robert Quinter - There are a lot of things that we all find hard to believe, and certainly your stand is no less credible than any other.
We see people essentially threatened/placed in untenable positions all the time, and I'm sure you've seen your share...maybe even "been there, done that". I know I have.
I can remember, for example, after a LONG and hard period of training aboard one of my submarines how we were all "dragging *ss". I'm not talking about a long day...I'm talking about days of long days, with little (if any) rest for many people. A group of us were gathered as drill monitors in the Ward Room and one of the mechanics on the drill team brought up how exhausted everybody was. The Captain's response? "If you feel you can't do your job, we'll find somebody who will."
What's a Second Class Petty Officer to say/do about THAT? The complaint was REAL in this example...it wasn't some line of BS. When you're on an 18 hour day, three section watches, and 12 of those hours as a minimum are going to be spent running drills day after day, where is there time to get rest when even during the off time you have maintenance, repairs, and training to do, as well?
Every branch knows that there are times when it's "times are tough, suck it up". Life in the military is harsh, and rightfully so. It's not meant to be all rainbows and unicorn farts. But running a ship's crew until they're ragged, can't stand an alert watch, can't operate equipment properly, crewmembers falling asleep on watch, not being able to study/stay awake during training, etc. is almost always mismanagement at its finest.
And the plain fact is that this happens at much higher levels, as well, for a variety of reasons. Yes, a Commanding Officer CAN say "No" (and it is correct to say that it's part of his responsibility to do so, if need be). But at what cost? What is the HUMAN nature which drives the response?
The mechanic in my example didn't just "knuckle under", he TRULY WANTED TO DO HIS JOB and to have someone question his ability to do so totally went against his grain. There was more to it than just "fear of reprisal" from a superior.
I submit that many COs of ships, being just as human, also respond the way they do for similar reasons. They WANT to command...they WANT to do a good job...they WANT to succeed despite the challenges.
Such COs are still, of course, ultimately responsible for the safety of their ships and crews. HOWEVER...I thoroughly detest the superiors (including those civilians at the tops of each branch, all the way to our elected representatives) who are also culpable in setting up the circumstances which lead to these incidents.
We see people essentially threatened/placed in untenable positions all the time, and I'm sure you've seen your share...maybe even "been there, done that". I know I have.
I can remember, for example, after a LONG and hard period of training aboard one of my submarines how we were all "dragging *ss". I'm not talking about a long day...I'm talking about days of long days, with little (if any) rest for many people. A group of us were gathered as drill monitors in the Ward Room and one of the mechanics on the drill team brought up how exhausted everybody was. The Captain's response? "If you feel you can't do your job, we'll find somebody who will."
What's a Second Class Petty Officer to say/do about THAT? The complaint was REAL in this example...it wasn't some line of BS. When you're on an 18 hour day, three section watches, and 12 of those hours as a minimum are going to be spent running drills day after day, where is there time to get rest when even during the off time you have maintenance, repairs, and training to do, as well?
Every branch knows that there are times when it's "times are tough, suck it up". Life in the military is harsh, and rightfully so. It's not meant to be all rainbows and unicorn farts. But running a ship's crew until they're ragged, can't stand an alert watch, can't operate equipment properly, crewmembers falling asleep on watch, not being able to study/stay awake during training, etc. is almost always mismanagement at its finest.
And the plain fact is that this happens at much higher levels, as well, for a variety of reasons. Yes, a Commanding Officer CAN say "No" (and it is correct to say that it's part of his responsibility to do so, if need be). But at what cost? What is the HUMAN nature which drives the response?
The mechanic in my example didn't just "knuckle under", he TRULY WANTED TO DO HIS JOB and to have someone question his ability to do so totally went against his grain. There was more to it than just "fear of reprisal" from a superior.
I submit that many COs of ships, being just as human, also respond the way they do for similar reasons. They WANT to command...they WANT to do a good job...they WANT to succeed despite the challenges.
Such COs are still, of course, ultimately responsible for the safety of their ships and crews. HOWEVER...I thoroughly detest the superiors (including those civilians at the tops of each branch, all the way to our elected representatives) who are also culpable in setting up the circumstances which lead to these incidents.
(2)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
CPO Glenn Moss - Totally agree with your observation of pressing on under arduous and untenable circumstances and have seen many a mission accomplished on the back of the people, however, command includes being able to make the decision of how far can your people and equipment be pushed before it becomes deadly. Exposure to danger and working against the odds is part of difference between the military and civilians. Placing your people in harm's way is often necessary in war and urgent situations, but, as you guessed, there are times I have stood between my men and the desires of a senior because I felt the situation did not demand the danger I would have had to place my people under. It wasn't that I didn't want to perform the impossible, we did that often, but my loyalty to my people demanded I take appropriate action to protect them from the follies of others. It's not mathematical and you have to depend on your gut. Fortunately, my seniors always saw my logic and I gained stature in their eyes for my decision. Could have just as easily gone the other way, but that's why the CO makes the big bucks!
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
CPO Glenn Moss - I do get where you are coming form Shipmate, HOWEVER, we need to train as we fight. Sometimes, like in GITMO we will drive our crews to exhaustion and beyond to ensure that they can and will operate.
Driving them there and keeping them past a certain point does get counter productive, that is why we have relaxed states of GQ, so crew can be fed and even rotated out of needed. Any good CO knows what his crew is capable of and also listens to his CMC. I made sure I was doing whatever the crew was doing plus letting the CO know the state of the crew and ship! the Command Triumvirate needs to be on top of it totally all the time!
Driving them there and keeping them past a certain point does get counter productive, that is why we have relaxed states of GQ, so crew can be fed and even rotated out of needed. Any good CO knows what his crew is capable of and also listens to his CMC. I made sure I was doing whatever the crew was doing plus letting the CO know the state of the crew and ship! the Command Triumvirate needs to be on top of it totally all the time!
(0)
(0)
Talk about CYA for the Navy's flag officers. He takes the shaft, so the Navy brass doesn't have to answer for their roles in the deaths of these Sailors.
I wonder what the former Admirals would tell junior Sailors both E and O on leadership and integrity?
I wonder what the former Admirals would tell junior Sailors both E and O on leadership and integrity?
(2)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
He earned the shaft with or without a deal, This deal just let him off easier than otherwise would have happened and protected more senior officers from going down with him. Good for him and the brass bad for the Navy and the Nation
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
He got his punishment, but had he pushed farther within the law, he'd have to answer questions about how things are run in his fleet. The admirals above him set the tone, they mandate rest and recovery of crews plus they can override certain ship issues. The Navy (and any other branch for that matter), don't want their GO's testify that they weren't up to a task, knew there was a systemic failure that would've taken folks and equipment off the line, or brief their higher that they are not mission capable. It happens a lot in the Army. SPC Snuffy marks his trucks down during his PMCS. His platoon leader and PSG acknowledge it and try to mitigate it, but should they not be able to, it's reported to higher along with the rest of the equipment and manning briefs. No one wants to be "that guy" having to explain a lot of vehicles that are down, so you circle X it, and that piece is now on the road. It happens when units do rotations in NTC. You'll do damn near anything to get your unit "certified". So some commands cook the books, get favors to ensure they are good, and report to their higher they're good. No GO from the Army wants to hear one of his units are not fully manned and mission capable.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next