Read on Twitter
<Thread> One of the primary defenses of SECNAV Mobly’s decision to remove CAPT Crozier is that he didn’t respect the chain of command.
But it’s notable that the MILITARY officers in the chain of command appear to have recommended AGAINST his removal. 1/ https://twitter.com/gregjaffe/status/1246587953704579073
But it’s notable that the MILITARY officers in the chain of command appear to have recommended AGAINST his removal. 1/ https://twitter.com/gregjaffe/status/1246587953704579073
As someone who wrote a dissertation on how partisan politics of general officer nominations & who has worked in both the White House and on the personal staff of a CJCS, I’m not naive about the role of politics in shaping the military officer corps. 2/
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9238414
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9238414
But what is remarkable in the Crozier removal is that an O-6 was PERSONALLY removed by a political appointee — in this case an acting secretary — without first conducting even a preliminary investigation. 3/
I should be clear that, if reports are accurate, the CNO & CJCS we’re right to allow the acting SECNAV to make the decision and to implement it. 4/
But it is notable the CNO did not express his personal SUPPORT for the decision.
The CNO said: “The Secretary of the Navy has lost confidence in the commanding officer” and “I was given the opportunity to provide my advice at every step of the process.” H/T @DoyleKHodges 5/ https://twitter.com/usnavycno/status/1245817097646678016
The CNO said: “The Secretary of the Navy has lost confidence in the commanding officer” and “I was given the opportunity to provide my advice at every step of the process.” H/T @DoyleKHodges 5/ https://twitter.com/usnavycno/status/1245817097646678016
It is a major reason why the decision smacks of politics rather than military discipline.
Previous SecDef’s, like Rumsfeld, or President’s, like Clinton, who were criticized for politicizing the officer corps typically only focused on influence at the 2/3-star level or above. 6/
Previous SecDef’s, like Rumsfeld, or President’s, like Clinton, who were criticized for politicizing the officer corps typically only focused on influence at the 2/3-star level or above. 6/
In rare cases, there might be political focus on a well-known officer’s promotion to general officer — as was the case for HR McMaster.
But these cases are memorable because they are rare. 7/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/07/16/h-r-mcmaster-gets-his-star/
But these cases are memorable because they are rare. 7/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/07/16/h-r-mcmaster-gets-his-star/
And sometimes the Senate will block or delay promotions to 1-star General for officers like they’ve done now for COL Bradley Moses, commander of 3rd Special Forces Group, during the 2017 Niger Raid. 8/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/world/africa/niger-ambush-promotion.html
But what is rare in this case, and in several other recent personnel actions — especially in the Navy — is the direct involvement of civilian political leaders in military personnel actions below the rank of flag officer. 9/ https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/march/was-former-secretary-navy-really-insubordinate
Even in high-profile firings like the removal of the commanding officer and XO of the USS Fitzgerald after a fatal crash, the military chain of command announced (and made) the decision to remove the officers involved. 10/ https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/17/navy-fires-3-leaders-uss-fitzgerald-wake-deadly-collision.html
And it is even rarer for a President to publicly comment on — or be involved in — these types of cases, as President a Trump has now (and on the Gallagher case). 11/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/04/trump-brett-crozier-letter-165020
I’ve argued before @aei that most civil-military norms had begun to break down several decades ago, even if the their decline has accelerated over the last few years. 12/
But civilian involvement like we saw in these 2 Navy cases is a recent development.
There is absolutely no doubt civilian leaders have the legal authority to take these actions, but they do raise real concerns about politicization & the health of the civ-mil relationship. 13/
There is absolutely no doubt civilian leaders have the legal authority to take these actions, but they do raise real concerns about politicization & the health of the civ-mil relationship. 13/
On one hand, it may show that current civilian leaders lack trust in the decisions of senior military leaders to handle the promotion, removal, and personnel action of mid-career military officers and service members. 14/
But, on the other hand, it could be representative of a broader trend to politicize personnel decisions in the military, even at lower ranks, for domestic or partisan reasons rather than for reasons of discipline or meritocracy. 15/
Some political involvement related to the selection of senior military leaders is necessary, but when partisan political considerations permeate all ranks of the military, it can damage military effectiveness and inject the military into domestic politics in dangerous ways. 16:
It will be vital to watch whether these trends continue, not just in this admin but in others as well. The high stakes involved in “party” control of a highly-respected military in a deeply-polarized environment creates incentives for civ leaders to politicize the military. 17/
The current trajectory of politicization of the military is not encouraging.
And, as harmful as public involvement can be, it is even more corrosive when military leaders start to “self-enforce” partisan issues because they’re afraid of potential punishment. 18/
And, as harmful as public involvement can be, it is even more corrosive when military leaders start to “self-enforce” partisan issues because they’re afraid of potential punishment. 18/
If this type of politicization continues and/or expands, it will constitute a danger to us all, both because our military will be weaker and because it could threaten domestic political accountability.
We’re not there yet, but cracks in the foundation are showing. 19/
We’re not there yet, but cracks in the foundation are showing. 19/
For more on the Crozier firing and what it means for the Navy, in particular, check out this piece from @lindsaypcohn @ahfdc & me in the @monkeycageblog. 20/20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/05/this-is-what-was-so-unusual-about-us-navy-making-captain-brett-crozier-step-down/
