how do you ironically kidnap a homeless person tho

Perhaps like this:

This man sacrificed his career for the men and women under his command, and they know it.

https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1246067852370751488

The cdc expert thing i read about in news headlines in previous weeks, the rest of the stuff in that video was new to me (playbook etc)

Is that youtube? I thought it was another video hosting site fender linked as i didn't see the YouTube overlays

the twitterverse thinking its some terrible crime that he's being fired for his political leaking is nutty as all can be
Maybe the captain made the right call in sacrificing his career, maybe he didn't. But they sure as hell can't let captains go rogue and play politics and jeopardize national security
if the danger is real and his potential to address it politically is there, then the benefit should outweigh the consequences. But without consequences, you have no chain of command, no discipline, no structure
Will the sailors who served under him be any better off by turning this into a political football than if he brought his requests to superiors through the chain of command?

I think the frustrating thing here is that it's gotten political. If we ignore the political ramifications for a second, we need to answer the following:
1. Did the chain of command fail him? If so, why?
2. Why did he inform 20-30 individuals and is that unusual given the circumstances?
3. Is he being relieved strictly for his actions or are there other factors?

It really bothers me when these things become partisan because finding the truth becomes insanely difficult.

the part that bothers me is: If he was willing to sacrifice his career and make a political football out of the issue and indeed had noble intentions, why did he pull such a weak ass-covering move as CC'ing a ton of people on the email to keep his hands off the leak instead of doing it directly? Anyone can recognize a clear violation of need-to-know and loose lips, I mean he's explicitly making a political call to arms. That's no troublesome priest scenario, thats like if the king summoned a dozen assassins, told them all he wanted a priest's head lopped off and gave them his address. I mean to say, there's no mistaking the intent here, he was leaking this, but doing so with a thin veneer of plausible deniability.

Its harder to give benefit of the doubt to whether his actions are justified when he won't take responsibility for them. And even a 'political solution' proves necessary, the fact he didn't own up to this means we can't absolve him of responsibility either.

lol at thinking chain of command generally applies to an unprecedented event. sure it could have been political, but lets not act like all of a sudden this would do anything to the chain of command generally. thats dumb af.

I'm not convinced that those are his intentions. The answer to your question though is that a lot of people in the military aren't political animals like yourself. Often times, members of the military are pretty ignorant to political ramifications and they are solely focused on the issues at hand. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I think you expect too much from mid-ranking individuals.

I didnt follow the Crozier story in detail, perhaps you can fill me in: do we actually know if Crozier tried addressing the situation via the proper chain of command?

Perhaps he tried the good way, got told by his command to fuck off and carry on, and only then decided that he wasnt gonna take that and sacrificed his career for his men?

IF he really didnt follow the proper chain of command and brought the issue to the public (and thus political) sphere, then I'm with Goom and he deserved to be fired. But if he did follow protocol, then it's outrageous to fire him because he wasnt willing to sacrifice his men. It would, in fact, be outrageous to give him this order in the first place.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 3 2020 02:31pm