[ATTW-L] Context Captain Crozier's letter

Fri Apr 10 07:29:11 UTC 2020

Hi all:

As someone who has served as an officer in two military organizations, I am missing important context in the Crozier story. His letter is well written, and it clearly and succinctly presents the situation, the alternatives, and his recommendation. But was it sent to the right address, i.e. to the correct person who could make the requisite decisions and implement them?

Officers are indoctrinated that they have two overarching responsibilities: to accomplish their mission, and to provide for the welfare of those under their command (in that order). They are also instructed to follow the chain of command, but there are exceptions. Crozier should have been in close contact with his immediate boss. The formation commander typically resides on the biggest ship in his command, usually an aircraft carrier, so possibly and even likely they were “shipmates”. Regardless of proximity,  I would have expected Crozier to have been appraising him of the situation 3 times a day. And if not, I would have expected his commander to be asking for updates from Crozier 3 times a day. Furthermore, I would expect this squadron commander to be in contact with his boss on a daily basis (or more), and so forth right up the Navy chain of command. Having a deadly epidemic on an aircraft carrier should have been considered by the Navy management as an extremely dangerous event, that should have demanded their full attention. The context that I am missing is whether in fact Crozier was appraising his boss (I can’t believe that he wasn’t), and what response he obtained from him, and the chain of command above him. Given the severity of the situation, I would have expected the Navy management to make a decision in principle very promptly, but the logistical implementation might take time. Finding suitable isolated or quarantine berths for thousands of men in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is not trivial. Jumping the chain of command would be justified if and only if the chain of command above Crozier was not making a decision, or not implementing it as fast as possible.

Best wishes for good health to the Roosevelt crew, and to all of our colleagues…

Ray

From the home of
Prof. Emeritus Raymond (Reuven) Boxman
School of Electrical Engineering
Tel Aviv University
Cell:      +972 544 634 217
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~boxman/index.html
CEO Clear Wave Ltd.                http://clrwave.com<http://clrwave.com/>
Scientific Writing Courses:         http://communicating-science.com<http://communicating-science.com/>

From: ATTW-L <attw-l-bounces at attw.org> On Behalf Of Alisha Karabinus
Sent: יום ה 09 אפריל 2020 04:20
To: Jessica Lauer <jlauer at mtu.edu>; attw-l at attw.org
Subject: Re: [ATTW-L] Context Captain Crozier's letter

I have a friend who just got off the ship (he was negative, but many of his “immediate shipmates” - his words - were not) and from everything he’s said, I think he would agree with your student. He certainly supported Crozier here.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jessica Lauer <jlauer at mtu.edu<mailto:jlauer at mtu.edu>> wrote:
Hello all,

This was a really interesting example, and I also wanted some additional context so I could understand the ethical complexity and chain-of-command more deeply. One of my students who is a veteran was kind enough to share their thoughts on Captain Crozier's actions, and it provided me with some context I would have never realized on my own.  The student gave me permission to forward his response to this list, in case the additional context and perspective is valuable to anyone else on this list-serv.

Student response below:

I'm a 20+ year veteran of the Army National Guard including an infantry combat tour back in 05-06.  I've been a grunt or in a grunt unit my entire career.  I have also worked as a civilian for the Army, Navy and Air Force at various points in my professional career.

We need to first address one key component that those who never serve need to understand.  Each branch is organized in a manner that supports either the "person" or the "equipment.  For example, the Navy and Air Force rely heavily on the readiness of their equipment.  Without functioning airplanes, the Air Force is ineffective.  Without functioning boats, the Navy is ineffective.  The Army and Marines on the other hand, their key mission is the boots on the ground.  It's the tank, the truck, etc that gets the soldier/marine to their destination to fight or support the war fighter.

Understanding this now, the focus is much different.  Losing a ship or aircraft is a lot of money and psychologically demoralizing event as well as a PR nightmare for the Navy and Air Force.  Losing a soldier or the crew of a tank or truck is psychologically demoralizing to the Army or Marines.  There is a different sense of identity between these different sets of branches of the military.  When you talk to Navy or Air Force personnel or veterans, they identify by which Fleet/Tour/Boat(s) they were on or the base/aircraft they supported.  Soldiers and Marines identify to a unit typically no larger than a Division size (approx 10K personnel ) but usually down to a Company size (120ish) or even a platoon they were in (30ish).

Now that this has been explained, the sense of connection is different and each branch understands this.  The letter and circumstances regarding Crozier is much like the ending of the movie Behind Enemy Lines (fictional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0MrFxZM188<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0MrFxZM188%E2%80%8B>).  Capt. Crozier violated chain-of-command, but he did it in the spirit of being there for his sailors (something the Navy struggles with immensely).  It is not uncommon for the Navy to have two policies on the same topic that contradict each other, then decide on conveniently which they chose to abide by.  Capt Crozier brought to light the vary policies the Navy and CDC were instructing them to do, yet he was forced to violate them because of the "mission first" mentality.  Another very simple example of this is the "backwards" US Flag on Army uniforms https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/heres-why-us-flag-sometimes-appears-backwards.  "We are always advancing, never retreating."  All branches suffer at times from this, but it is most evident with the Navy.

In a nutshell, the Captain sacrificed his career to bring light to the Navy's failings (which is frequent).  The Navy is one of the most lax branches regarding it's security and safety protocols (Example:  USS Cole, Washington Navy Yard Shooting, Pensacola NAS Shooting, TR COVID protocols, etc.).  The list is endless by comparison to other branches.  Ethically and Morally, the Captain was right.  Procedurally, he was wrong.

Jessica Lauer, PhD
-----

Michigan Technological University is located within Ojibwa (Chippewa) homelands and ceded-territory established by the Treaty of 1842, the territory of Native American nations in Gakiiwe’onaning (Keweenaw Bay), Gete-gitgaaning (Lac Vieux Desert), Mashkii-ziibing (Bad River), Odaawaa-zaaga’iganing (Lac Courte Oreilles), Waaswaaganing (Lac Du Flambeau), Miskwaabikong (Red Cliff), Wezaawaagami-ziibiing (St. Croix), and Zaka’aaganing (Sokaogon Mole Lake).

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:55 AM Lettner-Rust, Heather <lettnerrusthg at longwood.edu<mailto:lettnerrusthg at longwood.edu>> wrote:
This letter is indeed another contemporary example for the classroom. I typically use our university admin letters if they are explaining some exigency.

For national examples, I can think of Brown's FEMA memo during Katrina and the whistleblower's letter of Trump's call to Ukraine, as ones I've used. But more often than not, I find myself needing to wait til the dust settles and more documents or details are out before I send students on a rhetorical analysis--am I alone in that? Perhaps, others are able to do the deep analysis quickly, but I stumble.

The best I am able to do is to ask them what questions these letters raise; otherwise, I fear having them use rhetoric irresponsibly by doing rhet analysis that elides so much necessary context.

I am thankful for the points already made on this thread about the letter's style, the military context, and Crozier's possible intentions.

Heather

Heather G. Lettner-Rust, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Civitae Writing Coordinator
CAFE Writing Consultant
434.395.2162

Longwood University
Dept. of English & Modern Languages
Grainger G10
201 High Street
Farmville, VA  23909

________________________________________
From: ATTW-L <attw-l-bounces at attw.org<mailto:attw-l-bounces at attw.org>> on behalf of Duncan, Michael <duncanm at uhd.edu<mailto:duncanm at uhd.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2020 11:03 PM
To: attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>
Subject: Re: [ATTW-L] {ATTW-L] Captain Crozier's letter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It’s an interesting ethical case. That said, the Navy doesn’t hand carriers to officers without deep respect for the chain of command, making his letter a symptom of considerable high jingo above him. Until that all comes forward, it’s difficult to analyze the text without more context, particularly regarding avenues Crozier may or may not have pursued before writing it and distributing it widely.

The Post has an interesting article outlining the byplay between Mobly, Esper, Trump, and Navy leadership that led up to the removal - especially given the circumstances of the firing of Mobly’s predecessor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/04/trump-wants-him-fired-inside-ouster-capt-brett-crozier/

Mike Duncan
University of Houston-Downtown

> On Apr 5, 2020, at 4:27 PM, "attw-l-request at attw.org<mailto:attw-l-request at attw.org>" <attw-l-request at attw.org<mailto:attw-l-request at attw.org>> wrote:
>
> Send ATTW-L mailing list submissions to
>   attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   attw-l-request at attw.org<mailto:attw-l-request at attw.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   attw-l-owner at attw.org<mailto:attw-l-owner at attw.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ATTW-L digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>  1. Captain Crozier's letter (Dragga, Sam)
>  2. Re: Captain Crozier's letter (Tebeaux, Elizabeth D)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 19:25:46 +0000
> From: "Dragga, Sam" <Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu>>
> To: "attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>" <attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>>
> Subject: [ATTW-L] Captain Crozier's letter
> Message-ID: <13035926-5409-4827-9672-C387E38733D6 at ttu.edu<mailto:13035926-5409-4827-9672-C387E38733D6 at ttu.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Again, as you are teaching your online classes, a timely example for class discussion is the letter written by Captain Brett Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt to US Navy officials soliciting resources to mitigate coronavirus infection on the 5000-sailor aircraft carrier.  Captain Crozier was fired following news coverage of this letter but was cheered by sailors as he exited the ship.  The 4-page letter uses numbered headings, lists, short sentences, and plain language.  It is available at
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6821571/TR-COVID-19-Assistance-Request.pdf.
>
> Ironically, as several military new sources are reporting, Theodore Roosevelt himself is responsible for a similar letter circulated to the Associated Press during the 1898 Spanish-American War, as he explains in the 1899 autobiography, The Rough Riders.  The ?round-robin letter? is at https://books.google.com/books?id=zmR_ltzDGwEC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=APPENDIX+C+THE+%22ROUND+ROBIN%22+LETTER.
>
> I think the two letters could make for interesting comparative analyses from historical, rhetorical, and ethical perspectives.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam Dragga
> Professor Emeritus, Texas Tech University
> Editor, Technical Communication
> sam.dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:sam.dragga at ttu.edu>
> 1-806-543-6099
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20200405/c1f89502/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 21:25:48 +0000
> From: "Tebeaux, Elizabeth D" <e-tebeaux at tamu.edu<mailto:e-tebeaux at tamu.edu>>
> To: "Dragga, Sam" <Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu>>
> Cc: "attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>" <attw-l at attw.org<mailto:attw-l at attw.org>>
> Subject: Re: [ATTW-L] Captain Crozier's letter
> Message-ID: <F2D7E6D3-7617-4DE2-A3D4-59EE7562D752 at tamu.edu<mailto:F2D7E6D3-7617-4DE2-A3D4-59EE7562D752 at tamu.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As I just responded to Sam, following chain of command is critical.  The military cannot allow wildcatters.  Roosevelt responded as President, not as a military officer.  General Jack Kemp said he thought the decision should been made by a lower level admiral who would have identified more closely with the commander, but the head of the defense department had the authority to do what he did.  Again another perspective.
>
> Unless you have served in the military, you may have difficulty understanding the military perspective.  I do, as my father served in WAII.
>
> Again, this is a good study in rhetoric.  Had the captain thought carefully about who else might read his letter, he might have saved his job and sent fewer copies.  Perhaps he was also feeling ill.
>
> Elizabeth Tebeaux
> Professor Et
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 5, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Dragga, Sam <Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu><mailto:Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:Sam.Dragga at ttu.edu>>> wrote:
>
> Again, as you are teaching your online classes, a timely example for class discussion is the letter written by Captain Brett Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt to US Navy officials soliciting resources to mitigate coronavirus infection on the 5000-sailor aircraft carrier.  Captain Crozier was fired following news coverage of this letter but was cheered by sailors as he exited the ship.  The 4-page letter uses numbered headings, lists, short sentences, and plain language.  It is available at
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6821571/TR-COVID-19-Assistance-Request.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__assets.documentcloud.org_documents_6821571_TR-2DCOVID-2D19-2DAssistance-2DRequest.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=u6LDEWzohnDQ01ySGnxMzg&r=swYNluFs0a1sUtl6MwAUWcaQenK5NHFz1yTvxsYzlVA&m=mLKCZ0oPYe3y6cKZOSissygZk2CUFNZKEzdB6C5mXlw&s=-hlCsbkLIZf6NkVN0NO-b3vUDirLC5Q3bnPVjOQMlXU&e=>.
>
> Ironically, as several military new sources are reporting, Theodore Roosevelt himself is responsible for a similar letter circulated to the Associated Press during the 1898 Spanish-American War, as he explains in the 1899 autobiography, The Rough Riders.  The ?round-robin letter? is at https://books.google.com/books?id=zmR_ltzDGwEC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=APPENDIX+C+THE+%22ROUND+ROBIN%22+LETTER<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__books.google.com_books-3Fid-3DzmR-5FltzDGwEC-26pg-3DPA295-26lpg-3DPA295-26dq-3DAPPENDIX-2BC-2BTHE-2B-2522ROUND-2BROBIN-2522-2BLETTER&d=DwMGaQ&c=u6LDEWzohnDQ01ySGnxMzg&r=swYNluFs0a1sUtl6MwAUWcaQenK5NHFz1yTvxsYzlVA&m=mLKCZ0oPYe3y6cKZOSissygZk2CUFNZKEzdB6C5mXlw&s=QA8JN3s1slWmEd5Q7ZPI15petzdgUVnvOAPfQBNONMo&e=>.
>
> I think the two letters could make for interesting comparative analyses from historical, rhetorical, and ethical perspectives.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam Dragga
> Professor Emeritus, Texas Tech University
> Editor, Technical Communication
> sam.dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:sam.dragga at ttu.edu><mailto:sam.dragga at ttu.edu<mailto:sam.dragga at ttu.edu>>
> 1-806-543-6099
>
> *************************************
_______________________________________________
ATTW-L mailing list
ATTW-L at attw.org<mailto:ATTW-L at attw.org>
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
_______________________________________________
ATTW-L mailing list
ATTW-L at attw.org<mailto:ATTW-L at attw.org>
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
_______________________________________________
ATTW-L mailing list
ATTW-L at attw.org<mailto:ATTW-L at attw.org>
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
--

Alisha Karabinus
Bilsland Fellow 2019-2020
PhD Candidate, Rhetoric & Composition
Purdue University
pronouns: she/her
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20200410/5512de5a/attachment-0002.htm>