Posted on Jan 8, 2022
Officer blames bad information for 2020 sinking that killed 9 Marines
1.11K
11
4
7
7
0
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/08/ [login to see] /officer-blames-bad-information-for-2020-sinking-that-killed-9-marines
A Marine Corps battalion commander testified Friday that in retrospect he would have halted the exercise that killed nine of his Marines whose amphibious assault vehicle sank off the Southern California coast but at the time he did not have accurate information to make such a decision.
Lt. Col. Michael J. Regner said his decisions were based in part on what other commanders told him, including that all the Marines had completed their swim certifications and that the aging vehicles they were in had been fixed and were ready for the mission.
He said he was also unaware that the Navy had changed plans that day and did not launch a safety boat.
A Marine Corps battalion commander testified Friday that in retrospect he would have halted the exercise that killed nine of his Marines whose amphibious assault vehicle sank off the Southern California coast but at the time he did not have accurate information to make such a decision.
Lt. Col. Michael J. Regner said his decisions were based in part on what other commanders told him, including that all the Marines had completed their swim certifications and that the aging vehicles they were in had been fixed and were ready for the mission.
He said he was also unaware that the Navy had changed plans that day and did not launch a safety boat.
Officer blames bad information for 2020 sinking that killed 9 Marines
Posted from npr.org
Camp Pendleton
Marines
Safety
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 1
2
2
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Lt Col Charlie Brown Always the Last and Lamest Excuse, "I Didn't Have All the Information" "Nobody Splained it To Me" "Bad Intelligence". I Remember My Time off San Clemente Island, If Anything was "Off" We Stopped Everything until We Resolved the Safety Issue.
(1)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Which part are you doubting? Are you doubting that he would have cancelled the exercise if he had good data? Or are you doubting that his company commanders lied about everything being ready?
Or perhaps you are doubting whether he actually asked the right questions in sufficient detail to get the right answers?
Perhaps things are different in your job, but across the combat arms there is what's known as a "Can Do" attitude were people are expected to find a way to accomplish "the mission" not to nitpick reasons why they can't. Everyone in the military knows that everything we do (and everything we tell subordinates to do) involves some risks. We have programs and standards in place to mitigate those risks. We can never completely eliminate all the risks, but some risks are accepted, some risks are specifically prohibited, and most risks are left to the commander's judgement -- but that judgement can only be as good as the information they get from their subordinates.
It is trivially easy for a board of inquiry to decide that a commander should have cancelled an exercise where safety standards were not completely met and where people died due to a combination of those unmet standards. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Suppose for just a moment that Lt Col Regner had cancelled the exercise. Do you suppose his superiors would have given him a medal for saving those lives? Do you suppose he would have been commended on his next appraisal for his "outstanding attention to safety"? Or is it much more likely that he would have been relieved or at least received a career-ending report for "wasting millions of dollars and months of training by squandering a limited training opportunity due to failure of his unit to meet standards" or some similar language?
Or perhaps you are doubting whether he actually asked the right questions in sufficient detail to get the right answers?
Perhaps things are different in your job, but across the combat arms there is what's known as a "Can Do" attitude were people are expected to find a way to accomplish "the mission" not to nitpick reasons why they can't. Everyone in the military knows that everything we do (and everything we tell subordinates to do) involves some risks. We have programs and standards in place to mitigate those risks. We can never completely eliminate all the risks, but some risks are accepted, some risks are specifically prohibited, and most risks are left to the commander's judgement -- but that judgement can only be as good as the information they get from their subordinates.
It is trivially easy for a board of inquiry to decide that a commander should have cancelled an exercise where safety standards were not completely met and where people died due to a combination of those unmet standards. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Suppose for just a moment that Lt Col Regner had cancelled the exercise. Do you suppose his superiors would have given him a medal for saving those lives? Do you suppose he would have been commended on his next appraisal for his "outstanding attention to safety"? Or is it much more likely that he would have been relieved or at least received a career-ending report for "wasting millions of dollars and months of training by squandering a limited training opportunity due to failure of his unit to meet standards" or some similar language?
(1)
(0)
LTC John Mohor
I still recall that earliest of sayings “the maximum effective range of an excuse was zero”
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google