Today's JG rants: Self sufficiency and the weight of command

Re: Bea Jonas letter “Interconnectedness evident in times of crisis” of Apr 18, 2020.

Jonas thinks that great thinkers who advocate for self-sufficiency are at the same time advocating for a social break down that leads to caveman-like every man for himself chaos.  It’s not surprising that lefty libs are left to construct such idiotic strawmen. They do so because they are so out of touch from reality that their own sham arguments are the only constructs that their foolish notions deprived of any semblance of logic are capable of knocking down.  

Jonas conveniently cherry picks blurbs from Herbert Hoover, Margret Thatcher, Ayn Rand and Adam Smith but leaves out any context of the ideas expressed.  She starts with Herbert Hoover advocating for "an individual totally self-reliant and independent from outside forces."  In context Hoover was warning of an over dependence on the federal government as he later notes -  "It is a question as to whether the American people on one hand will maintain the spirit of charity and mutual self help through voluntary giving and the responsibility of local government as distinguished on the other hand from appropriations out of the Federal Treasury for such purposes."

Then she offers half of a thought from Margret Thatcher, there are only “individual men, women and families, all looking out for themselves [first].”  Jonas doesn’t bother to tell us how Thatcher ended her thought, “It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." It makes sense in context.  How can one look after his neighbors if he and his family are homeless, naked and starving? 

She does the exact same thing with her quote from Ayn Rand leaving out Rand’s complex notion, which is also found in our own Declaration of Independence, that man is free to pursue his own happiness first.  Rand correctly notes that, “But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims.” 

Last, she cite Adam Smith’s accurate notion that "self-interest is human nature," but leaves out Smith’s warning to that opinion - which is, “…all for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” 

For her clever editing or outright ignorance of the context of the quotes she offers up, I’m sure Jonas would fit right in with any of the MSM’s extensive “fake news” divisions.   

Interconnectedness evident in times of crisis

As we grapple with the challenge of COVID-19, many long-held principles are being called into question.

Herbert Hoover's rugged individualism, for instance, which imagined an individual totally self-reliant and independent from all outside forces. What about Margaret Thatcher, who believed there was no such thing as society, only individual men, women and families, all looking out for themselves? Then there's Ayn Rand, who wrote that each man is an end to himself, with his own happiness as his highest moral purpose. Finally, there's Adam Smith, who believed that self-interest wasn't selfish at all, but simply human nature.

It's in times of crisis (war, disease, natural disaster) that the hollowness of such beliefs is finally revealed. The answer to the challenge we currently face isn't every man for himself, but we're all in this together. As the poet John Donne wrote, almost 400 years ago: “No man is an island, entire of itself, every man ... is a part of the main ... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. ...”

Or, in the more recent words of Jerry Seinfeld: “We're trying to have a civilization here!”

Bea Jonas

Fort Wayne

In his April 17, 2020 piece “Captain’s fate the antithesis of naval ideal” D’Jaun Wilcher makes a half-baked defense of disgraced Navy Captain Brett Crozier.  Here’s a different take.

On June 1, 1813, while laying mortally wounded aboard his ship USS Chesapeake, Captain James Lawrence issued his last command, “Don’t give up the ship.”  Lawrence died and his ship was captured by the British before her crew could scuttle her.  

Lawrence’s last command became the battle cry of the American fleet for the remainder of the War of 1812 and was emblazoned on Oliver Hazard Perry’s battle flag before Perry’s stunning victory over the British at the battle of Lake Erie.

Lawrence’s final command remain watchwords in the US Navy to this day.

But apparently not to all.  On March 30, 2020, Captain Brett Crozier, skipper of the forward deployed national strategic asset, the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, turned over 200 years of US Naval tradition on its head when he changed “Don’t give up the ship” into “Get us off the ship.”

Captain Crozier’s plea wasn’t the worst of it.  He compromised the ship’s and our nation’s strategic security by announcing to the world in an unsecured unclassified e-mail that he could not maintain the TR’s operational capabilities due to outbreak of the Wuhan Virus aboard the ship. 

When US Naval officers are asked, “Which takes precedence, the mission or the crew?”  99.9% answer, the mission.  Captain Crozier is an obvious outlier among his peers when performing the mission or the crew calculus.  For that, the Navy was absolutely correct in relieving him of his command.

If Captain Crozier was incapable of fighting his ship in calm waters during peacetime without violating basic operational security, it’s doubtful he would have held up under the stress of actual combat. Given his demonstrated hysteria and lack of discipline in this case, it’s difficult to imagine Captain Crozier ever risking ship and crew by issuing an Admiral Farragut like directive – “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” - in order to carry the day.

Wilcher goes on to note, Sen. John McCain, Adm. William “Bull” Halsey and Adm. Chester Nimitz all behaved similarly to Capt. Crozier.  Of course he fails to cite a single incident where any of them acted as recklessly as Crozier.  

It’s unlikely that Wilcher or anyone else will be able to turn up an example where any of these men flaunted Navy protocol or orders for the purpose of removing themselves and/or their command from harm’s way.  Conversely, I doubt Wilcher or anyone else can turn up an example where these men purposefully ignored operational security and put themselves and their commands in danger by doing so.  Crozier did both. The Navy was correct to sack him.

It’s obvious that neither Captain Crozier nor Wilcher have what it takes to command a Navy or any other warfighting asset.    

One of the most challenging jobs in the United States Navy is command at sea. This single officer orchestrates often thousands of crew members to work in concert and complete complex daily missions while under crisis to protect America’s national security.

Anyone in this position must possess exceptional leadership qualities, virtue and courage. As our nation faces unprecedented and frightening times, one would hope that these traits would be lauded by our nation’s leaders, but this honor was wrongly denied to Capt. Brett Crozier.

On April 1, Capt. Crozier was relieved of his duties for not following protocol when he penned a letter to senior military officials requesting permission to disembark his entire crew in Guam. Three officers on Crozier’s ship, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, had tested positive for COVID-19 two weeks after the ship made a stop in Vietnam. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the letter.

Anyone who has served on a ship knows that maintaining a 6-foot social distance is a physical impossibility. Predictably, the virus spread like wildfire. Soon, more than 100 sailors tested positive, and Crozier requested that the crew be allowed to quarantine on land.

It was reported that Crozier’s letter bypassed his chain of command and used an unclassified system to sound the alarm concerning the well-being of his crew — which he knew was in urgent danger.

Abiding by protocol is part of our culture in the Navy. It is drilled into our heads and expected from us on day one. But the true test of exceptional leadership is knowing when and how to divert from protocol, when that trusted protocol all of a sudden puts your crew in danger.

The U.S. services oath of office provides officers the latitude to apply judgment to the orders that they are to execute. Young naval officers are trained to believe that we have license to draw attention to important issues.

And it is our duty to ensure that our nation is operating at maximum effectiveness for war or other service. No factor determines effectiveness more than the state of a commander’s personnel.

To relieve Capt. Crozier of his duties for faithfully executing his oath of office, and to do so for a “loss of confidence,” is inconsistent with our values and could have a chilling effect on the trust that sailors have in leadership, and conversely, breed risk-averse officers. Faithful execution of the oath of office and career promotion potential should not be mutually exclusive.

Days after his dismissal, Capt. Crozier tested positive for the coronavirus, nearly 600 other sailors contracted the virus, and one of his crew members died.

Great naval heroes such as Sen. John McCain, Adm. William “Bull” Halsey and Adm. Chester Nimitz all behaved similarly to Capt. Crozier during parts of their career. Should we have fired them, too?

Although the Navy does not publicly ascribe to a zero-defect mentality, our culture has evolved to be exactly that. The unfortunate example of Capt. Crozier should force the Navy to decide what type of leaders it wishes to breed.

I am professionally disappointed, and frankly, I am embarrassed by the decision to relieve Capt. Crozier for his selfless action. The decision seemed shortsighted and could negatively impact recruiting.

In the book “Command at Sea,” Adm. James Stavridis wrote, “In each ship there is one man alone who in the hour of emergency or peril at sea can turn to no other man. There is one man alone who is ultimately responsible for the safe navigation, engineering performance, accurate gunfire and morale of his ship. He is the commanding officer; he is the ship.”

I was proud to see how Capt. Crozier’s crew supported him as he crossed the brow for the last time. Capt. Crozier gave a master class in what it means to be a servant leader.

D’Juan Wilcher is a U.S. Navy reservist and former naval surface warfare officer. He is a member of the Truman National Security Project and serves as a regional director at the Travis Manion Foundation. This op-ed was distributed by Tribune News Service.