COVID-19 and military justice (USS Theodore Roosevelt)

There has already been a great deal of writing about the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) imbroglio, and certainly there is more to come, especially when the results of the two current investigations are made public.

The latest addition to the reading list is Amy Davidson Sorkin's worthwhile piece in The New Yorker. Here's an excerpt:

Most of all—most Trumpianly—[former acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B.] Modly told the crew that “there is no, no situation where you go to the media. Because the media has an agenda. And the agenda that they have depends on which side of the political aisle they sit.” It is good for the country that, in cases ranging from My Lai to Abu Ghraib, members of the military have believed otherwise. And one can go further back: in an opinion piece defending [Captain Brett E.] Crozier, which was published in the Times, Tweed Roosevelt, a great-grandson of the T.R.’s namesake, said that he often wondered, in a given situation, how his ancestor would have reacted. “In this case, though,” he wrote, “I know exactly what he would have done.” In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, [Col. Theodore] Roosevelt, one of the commanders of the Rough Riders volunteer cavalry, put his name on a letter that he and other officers who signed it meant to be leaked to the press, in order to draw attention to delays in evacuating troops from Cuba who were succumbing to yellow fever and malaria. (After they were brought back, many were quarantined in Montauk.) A military whose members do not believe that the media is a recourse in extraordinary circumstances has lost touch with American democracy.

(Those with long memories will recall the protest letter My Lai trial counsel sent President Richard M. Nixon 50 years ago this month. Copies went to six senators; one made its way to The New York Times.)

The Washington Examiner explores another aspect in this article:

Well, what's odd here is how quiet [Rear Admiral Stuart P.] Baker has been since Crozier's firing. We haven't heard that he's delivered any rallying speeches to the Theodore Roosevelt's crew, for example. Instead, Baker seems to have been focused on praising his Navy leadership. Note Baker's comments on Sunday expressing how he is "extremely thankful for the overwhelming support from the government of Guam and Naval Base Guam in the fight against COVID-19, even with such short notice, they were able to assist getting our Sailors moved off ship in a short period of time. Their support has been critical to our ability to remain mission ready."

Again, perhaps Crozier was receiving Baker's ardent support and simply overreacted without justification. Perhaps the Navy had already decided to give Crozier what he needed as hundreds of crew members faced infection. But Baker's choice of words and the disagreements prior to Crozier's email over how to handle the outbreak suggest another possibility. Namely, that Baker had his eyes more tightly focused on getting one of the Navy's few vice admiral billets and ignored Crozier's concerns in fear of aggravating Navy leaders.

In short, we need to know more. As far as is possible amid the coronavirus outbreak, congressional armed services committees should seek testimony from Baker, Crozier, Modly, and 7th Fleet commander [Vice Admiral William R.] Bill Merz. The Navy has had too many senior leadership failings in the past 12 months. Let's ensure accountability.