Captain Honors Morale booster or grounds for court martial.

[RonBoyd]

I voted "Other" but I have, now, come down on the side of Captain Honors. I do that by putting things in context (in my mind anyway). His job was to motivate very young people to put themselves in harm's way. Those who have worked with teenager/young 20's know that you have to "be like them." I joke about "old fogies" but for that age group it is a very derogatory term and has nothing to do with age but a state of mind. I notice that the 1,400 (or so) formerly under his command were (and still are) fully on board with his subject actions and count it amongst the things that made their service tolerable (my word not theirs). I, also, note that every one of those condemning him have lots of gray in their hair. I know that group also -- "Sure I did that at your age but now see the error of my ways and knowing how wrong I was, by God, you're not going to get away with it."

I, also, will have "nightmares," because of the "gray-hair" action taken, about the Combat Readiness (technical and morale-wise) of this major component of our military -- not to mention the safety of all those young volunteers onboard fighting our battle. (Yeah, I know we are bigger than that but... )

And this comes on the same day that Texas admits to wrongly imprisoning a person for thirty years with a (in the Judge's words), "You are free to go. Thank you very much." ... "Thank you"!!! Thirty years!!! Wow.

What a sad day this has been.

 

[haha]

In my view, it is quite possible to be a "lean mean fighting machine" without also being lewd and juvenile.

It worked for Ghengis Kahn.

 

[M Paquette]

Incidentally, as a Navy courier I flew aboard the USS Enterprise in 1971 when she was on Yankee Station off the coast of Vietnam. The arrested landing coming aboard is exciting but the cat shot or catapulting the aircraft off the ship is VERY exciting. I was told she had eight nuclear reactors and could reach speeds approaching forty knots.

Yup. Eight reactors at that time. Water skiing off the fantail was discouraged. What was really fun was that for catapult operations, one reactor could have it's output redirected to the catapult. (Each reactor makes heat, which drives a steam generator. Steam can go to propulsion and electrical turbines, or to the catapult.) A cat shot was exciting for the aviators, of course, but also for the reactor operator who had to compensate by hand for the massive changes in steam/power demand from the catapult. Another one of them there special issues, I suppose...

There are good reasons why the CO has to get through the Aviator/XO path and then through nuke school and whatnot to make CO. He's responsible not only for a floating airport, but for a set of seagoing nuclear power plants running a floating city. I had the honor to be assigned as the trainer for a CO candidate for his nuclear prototype training period. I never worked with anyone so focused before or since. 12 hour days, for months on end, and he flat out KNEW the operation of that plant after about four months, sat his board, and was off. The standard time through that school was 6 months, but word from on high was to get the Captain through ASAP.

 

[TromboneAl]

Any? Judgment is not an all or nothing characteristic.

I see your point, and agree with it. Also, those who know my posts know I can be a bit crude, and I like to post irreverent things (remember the Chicken dance video?). I'm not at all offended by this stuff.

But anyone who cannot stop and think for a second -- "Hey, wait a minute" before publishing a video with this kind of stuff, doesn't have good enough judgment to have his finger on the trigger.

​

 

[REWahoo]

I voted "Other" but I have, now, come down on the side of Captain Honors. I do that by putting things in context (in my mind anyway). His job was to motivate very young people to put themselves in harm's way. Those who have worked with teenager/young 20's know that you have to "be like them."

I disagree. Attempting to "be like them" was a huge error in judgment and demonstrates this guy doesn't have a clue about what it takes to be a real leader. Anyone recall a highly-regarded military leader who was "just one of the boys/girls"? I can't either...

Capt Honors, along with the Admirals who failed to take action when they first gained knowledge of this 'performance', should be relieved of their commands and strongly encouraged to retire.

Wonder if any of them will show up here?

 

[RonBoyd]

I disagree. Attempting to "be like them" was a huge error in judgment and demonstrates this guy doesn't have a clue about what it takes to be a real leader. Anyone recall a highly-regarded military leader who was "just one of the boys/girls"? I can't either...

I knew as soon as I posted that, that I had phrased it poorly. I don't mean "be like them" in the manner of the 40 year-old mother supplying alcohol to her 16-year old's house party to prove she is still "Cool." The group I am referring to can see through that in a heart beat (so can the 16-year olds, for that matter) and have absolutely no respect for that kind of behavior. I meant "be like them" in the "comrade-in-arms" sense. Captain Honors was (according to them) someone that was respected by his charges and his actions (knowing how to relieve the tension) magnified that. Not an error in judgement but a calculated tactical manuever to assembly a top-notch, highly motivated fighting corp, I suspect. Now that may have been a mistake but it wasn't from lack of maturity or lack of leadership ability... in my opinion. It would be wonderful if we could hold everyone in the military command to a no-mistake standard but so far no one has ever met that criteria.

Now, having said all that, I fully understand the need for "scape goats" - both in this case and the one in Texas. They make us feel so much better about ourselves.

 

[REWahoo]

Ron, I respect your opinion but I think it really odd you're tying in the wrongly-imprisoned guy in Texas with an apalling lack of judgment by a senior military officer. I see absolutely no connection between the two situations.

 

[clifp]

Has anyone noticed that we stopped winning wars about when we started cleaning everything up?

Correlation?

Causation?

Who needs to win wars as long as we are PC?

Those of you who think the military has been hampered since Vietnam have clearly never experienced the transition from conscription to volunteer forces. Even in 1979 we were dealing with the overhang of the Vietnam "hollow force", and its drug culture persisted well into the 1980s. I don't know any military servicemembers or veterans with a few gray hairs who would want to go back to the "good ol' days"...

I am going to side with Nords here. Don't mistake our kinder, gentler, more PC volunteer military of today, for being less effective than the rougher, more brutal, draftee army of yesteryear.

We've fought 3 long counter-insurgency wars in the last 50 years, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. We also fought 1/2 dozen more conventional wars, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Kosovo, and the beginning stages of the Afghanistan, and Iraq. (I am not counting the 'peaceful' missions in Somalia, Lebanon, Dominican Republic etc.).

By virtually any measurement, accomplishing the objectives, number of causalities sustained, ratio of casualties inflicted to sustained, minimizing civilian causalities, number of troops required, the wars in 1990 and 2000 were fought much more effectively than those in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Given the size of our military budget winning a conventional war isn't a challenge, but clearly taking out the Taliban in few weeks with small number of special forces is much more impressive than taking over Grenada or Panama.

Obviously there are lot of difference between Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, there are also some important similarities. In all 3 countries it the US was trying to prevent one (admittedly pretty bad) government, from being replace by another far worse group. All three countries had a population of roughly 20 million people (South Vietnam population was 19 million in the 1970s). Most importantly all three were classic counter-insurgency wars, that like all counter-insurgencies require years and often more than decade to decide. It appears we were successful in Iraq and we did it with roughly ~1/3 the troops than were used Vietnam. Our losses were 14x higher in Vietnam and civilian casualties although tragically high in Iraq were a fraction of those in Vietnam.

The jury is still out on Afghanistan. But I think it is worth looking at another counter-insurgency war. According Wikipedia the 2nd Cheyna war started in 1999 and major counter insurgency operations ended in 2009. During that time the Russia lost around 8,000-11,000 troops (out of 100,000-150,000 in the area) and killed 50,000 civilian and at least 15,000 Cheyna insurgents. The troop size, and length of Russia's war is similar to Afghanistan and Iraq and in all cases the enemies are Islamist who employ similar tactics (e.g. suicide bombs, IEDs)

However, there are two important differences. First Cheyna is tiny, about the size of Connecticut and has a population of 1.2 million. Second nobody would accuse Putin's army of being kinder, gentle or certainly political correct. The Russia army in many ways is similar to US Army of Vietnam days, when you run into opposition call in the artillery and blow it up.

Reading what Nords and Gumby wrote, I came to see Captain Honors as an old style warrior. Now, if old style warrior can get the job done in the 21st century, then I don't care who gets offended in the civilian world. But I suspect that what we really need is more General Petraus who recognize that tact, diplomacy, and even sensitive at times is a better way of winning wars.

 

[Texas Proud]

Any? Judgment is not an all or nothing characteristic. I know people who were excellent naval officers, with whom I would -- and did -- entrust my life. They were sober, diligent, insightful and very good at their job. But some of them had the crappiest judgment in personal relationships. Others had execrable judgment with respect to investing or anything beyond the most rudimentary of financial matters. Both were types of bad judgment, but neither one was a disqualification for serving as a naval officer. These videos were much closer to the type of misjudgment that would disqualify someone from command, but in my mind, at least, did not render Capt. Honors irredeemable. But that's just me. Others would say "why take a chance that his tactical judgment is not the same?" or "why take the chance that the crew will not respect him?", and they would be legitimate concerns. Recognize, however, that people qualified to command aircraft carriers do not grow on trees, so we need to be very careful about who we throw over the side.

One of the problems with judgment is that a youthful indiscretion CAN hurt you in the future... as an example... I was trying to hire an employee... I had a recommendation for someone that I knew was good.. would have made a great employee... but when we did a background check he had a DWI (DUI) when he was in his late teens... our CEO says 'no way'...

Also, we have had employees with bad credit ratings that we would not hire... would it have affected their jobs I do not know... but as a company we can not take the luxury to try them out...

Our company has a social media policy.... and what you put on your web site that can be attributed to you CAN hurt you.... like this video...

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

Having been on Big E while O.P. Honors was the XO, I can tell you that there were several of these videos made, with lots of help from the ship's public affairs officer, and they were put on every Saturday during the cruise, at 8pm just before the actual "XO's movie," which was usually something like Animal House, Superbad, or some other funny movie. Nobody was forced to watch it, but it sure did a lot for morale. O.P. did a lot for the crew during his time as XO, but obviously crossed the line and got in trouble for it.

My Sailors came up to me one Saturday night, asked if I had seen his video, and then said "The XO is crazy!" However, everyone looked forward to his videos, and I don't think anyone is surprised that he got himself into trouble. What IS surprising is that the CO and CSG Admiral let him make so many movies like this, and there were no repercussions. The ship's Reactor Officer, another O-6, even appears on the film that everyone sees in the press, as does the Supply Officer, a senior O-5. The CO got a star, and the XO pinned on O-6 during his tour and was selected to be a CVN CO.

It's obvious to me that someone was out to get him.

 

[REWahoo]

The ship's Reactor Officer, another O-6, even appears on the film that everyone sees in the press, as does the Supply Officer, a senior O-5. The CO got a star, and the XO pinned on O-6 during his tour and was selected to be a CVN CO.

What are the odds this isn't going to splatter all over them as well?

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

What are the odds this isn't going to splatter all over them as well?

Heck, I hope I don't have the IG coming to ask me questions!

 

[Nords]

Heck, I hope I don't have the IG coming to ask me questions!

Ask any officer from the Tailhook era about what happened if you were up for promotion during that timeframe...

 

[BLS53]

He probably has lost his career due to his lack of judgment. Regardless of how funny the video is to some, he should not have been involved with it.

Not only involved, but produced them. And used Navy equipment and his subordinates as a supporting cast to boot.

 

[BLS53]

I voted "Other," also -- for the same reason. I am, at this point, influenced by the 1,400(plus?) folks, who have come forward and who served under him, that consider him to have been a very good officer... if not the best.

Typical age of a shipmate is 18-25, with few over 35, except for Chiefs and senior officers. They've been raised in a YouTube culture, where this type entertainment is the norm. Junior personnel without career intentions, just want to survive their active duty years. They will like any leader who makes their life easier, regardless if it is to the detriment of good order and discipline.

There is a fine line between being a "people person" style leader, and being everybody's bud. This guy crossed it.

 

[kumquat]

Everyone is human. Some of us have faults. We still need the best guys available to command troops on the ground, run ships and fly airplanes if we are in combat.

I didn't vote. I'm not a US citizen or resident and I have never served in the military. I can show you two examples from the Canadian military and ask you which person you'd rather have in a position of command.

• Russell Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan relieved of duty - The Globe and Mail

In my mega-corp days I [-]commanded[/-] led a group of about 50 people. Political correctness was not high on our list of priorities. Respecting each other [-]but not necessarily everyone in mega-corp or the world[/-] was. Juvenile humour was tolerated as long as it didn't get nasty or target one of "us". I'm sure there is a line, I think I knew if it had been crossed but I'm not sure I was willing to draw it before the fact.

Yes, in today's world the XO did something dumb. He's not running for office, he's supposed to run one of the most potentially destructive things on the planet. Is he Jack D. Ripper?

 

[clifp]

Everyone is human. Some of us have faults. We still need the best guys available to command troops on the ground, run ships and fly airplanes if we are in combat.

I didn't vote. I'm not a US citizen or resident and I have never served in the military. I can show you two examples from the Canadian military and ask you which person you'd rather have in a position of command.

• Russell Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan relieved of duty - The Globe and Mail

?

The answer I think is that neither of these guys is fit to led. In the case of General Menard, military blogger/journalist Micheal Yon had been trying to get General Menard fired for what Mr. You believes was some horribly bad decisions which led to the deaths of NATO troops in Afghanistan. Yon is an opinionated guy but his allegations coupled with the sex scandal seem like NATO and Canada are better off not having this guy command troops in harms way.

 

[vicente solano]

I don't think a "more PC military" is a reason why there's been less decisive butt-kickings in military endeavors since Vietnam, but I think it's a related issue to what I think is the cause. We seem to think "being nice" to the enemy will make them like us and stop doing globally unacceptable things. We seem to think that if "the enemy" are people of color, that there is a racist motive. We're becoming a society that doesn't accept that there are winners and losers, whether in war, in life, in Little League. Total war requires a winner and a loser.

In short, I think we've waged war with one hand tied behind the military's back since the 1960s. I don't think they are allowed to do what might need to be done to ensure total, decisive victory. I don't think the military becoming "kinder and gentler" is the direct reason for that, but is a side-effect of societal attitude shifts in general. We are in some ways being "wussified" as a society into thinking that conflict is always avoidable, and it is spilling over into all aspects of our society and culture, including the armed forces.

Plus, how we define "PC" changes over time with cultural values. At one point in history, Truman's order to desegregate the military could have been seen this way, but few today would suggest this was a bad idea that was caving into well-intentioned but misguided desire for social progress in the civilian world.

+3!!

 

[Westernskies]

What are the odds this isn't going to splatter all over them as well?

I hear they're all retiring with honors...

 

[calmloki]

Orwell on Kipling: the latter's "grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." (1942)

 

[Orchidflower]

What bothers me more than the video (which, rightly or wrongly, was done with the consent of his CO to boost the morale of the troops and seemed to have the desired effect for the majority them, by all accounts) is that "someone" with an axe to grind waited four years for him to get his command to bring this up again..Did Captain Honors screw up in 2006? Probably. Is he getting screwed in 2011? Royally, IMO.

My thought exactly: 4 years? Puh-lease.

I voted slap him on the wrist and slap his higher ups, too. He did sound like a good officer, and, heaven knows, we need those.

 

[Nords]

For those of you concerned about axe-grinders and long delays, let me say it again with an [edit]:

In another 1990s case, a senior O-6 had sexually harassed one of his staff. Following the approved practice of the times, she reported his behavior and negotiated an appropriate private resolution. But then [several years later] he was selected for flag officer, [even though at the time] she had been given the impression that his career was over. The resulting issue was tried all over again in the court of public opinion, and the Navy suffered for the impression of trying to sweep it under the rug the first time.

I suspect that when Honors pulled these stunts in 2006-07, someone did complain vigorously enough to have the matter investigated. Honors probably got a wrist-slap, maybe an unofficial oral reprimand, and was told to go forth & sin no more. Meanwhile those who originally complained about his behavior were probably told that "the matter has been addressed". When those people saw that he'd returned to the carrier as CO, they probably felt that the matter had not been adequately addressed and decided to go to the media.

... and I'll give you another example.

In the mid-1990s a submarine admiral fraternized with one of his subordinates. The affair later turned coercive and she filed a complaint that quickly deteriorated into a he-said-she-said drama. It was the latest of a series of senior-officer sexual-harassment incidents that was regarded by the CNO, Admiral Boorda, as the "last straw". The admiral was literally taken to mast and "awarded" restriction to quarters before being retired at a lower rank.

The Navy holds annual meetings of all its flag officers, and at one point during the next "convention" ADM Boorda put on a small piece of theater for its senior attendees. He pretended that the submarine admiral (who by this time was on restriction at another naval base) was sitting in a chair at the conference table, and then the CNO lectured that empty chair as if he was speaking personally to the admiral. Apparently he went on about morals and fidelity and adultery at some length. He then lectured the room on what would happen to the next flag officer who was associated with even a whiff of sexual scandal.

Any roomful of admirals includes a number of people who have known each other for several decades, including shipmates who've spent a lot of time on liberty doing stupid things together. Years previous to this conference, when Boorda was the admiral of a carrier battle group, he was rumored to have suffered a notorious case of "defective zipper syndrome". Scuttlebutt was that he was given the typical (for those times) counseling wrist-slap and told to sin no more. Several of the admirals in that room were aware of this history and were surprised, to put it mildly, at Boorda's newfound evangelical zeal and his "audacity" at lecturing them on proper morals & ethical behavior. It's been rumored that after this conference, one of those officers quietly leaked the lecture-story plus Boorda's previous behavior to the media. This is one of three incidents thought to have pushed Boorda to suicide.

Axe to grind? Perhaps. But if they really wanted to avenge themselves then they could have leaked the story to the media when it happened-- instead of waiting for years. It's far more likely that, at the time, they considered justice to have been served on someone who otherwise seemed to be a "good guy". However years later when Boorda changed his attitude (or at least appeared to be somewhat hypocritical), people may have been concerned that he'd become overconfident at "getting away with it" and needed to be reined back in. Or maybe they were concerned that the system hadn't worked and that this guy was now in a position to do even more damage.

Everyone wants to work with their chain of command, not fight with it. Everyone wants to be part of a great team, not to destroy their teammates for personal vengeance. I think that the Honors story broke to the media because a number of people felt that Honors had become even more of a problem as a CO than as an XO. If he had truly changed his behavior (let alone made amends) then people would have been inclined to forgive & forget while agreeing to work with a guy who could clearly get things done and was going places. I bet that he returned to ENT with even more of an ego/attitude than when he left, and people decided that they weren't going to put up with still yet even more of his crap.

There's no statute of limitations on stupid. Certain parts of the press (and some shipmates) may be trying to make Honors sound like a good officer, and in many respects he probably is a good officer. However for every Honors there are dozens of other officers who are equally as good at their jobs and who didn't need to "raise crew morale" with such outrageous behavior. We don't read about them in the press because they're doing their jobs and letting their personal behavior examples speak for them. They don't need to be defended by shipmates and the media because nobody questions their honor in the first place.

I don't care if Honors was the reincarnation of Nimitz & Halsey. His behavior harmed more than it helped and his trend was apparently not improving. No one is indispensable or irreplaceable, and the Navy is better off having set an example of how this type of behavior will play out.

I think the other O-5s and O-6s around Honors' video efforts should also be hunted down and invited to retire. I think that Honors' command master chief should also be shown the exit. I just hope that the witch hunt doesn't extend to the more junior participants, who may have known better but who could not be expected to have the leadership skills to speak up and "redirect" his efforts without rightfully fearing reprisals.

Maybe I talk pretty harshly for someone who never did an XO or CO tour and retired after failing to promote to O-5. But, dammit, I wanted to be led by people whom I respected and admired-- not by outrageous personalities. There are way too many leaders who mask their insecurity, their flaws, and their failures by this over-the-top egotistical attitude. They push their crews into ever-worsening spirals of disregard for the standards, the safety, and the lives of those they're supposed to be taking care of. For every Honors in the fleet, there are a half-dozen wannabes who use his behavior as an excuse for even more outrageous stunts. I'm sorry that it took so long for justice to happen, but at least the system finally worked before he took the ship on a combat deployment and caused some real trouble.

 

[REWahoo]

Nords, one of these days I hope you will feel comfortable enough to tell us how you really feel about the Honors incident.

On a more serious note, I think this statement is particularly accurate when I look back on my years in the military:

... I wanted to be led by people whom I respected and admired-- not by outrageous personalities.

Had I been a junior officer serving under Honors I would have followed his orders and I might have considered him a good comedian, but he would have never had my respect.

 

[Westernskies]

Had I been a junior officer serving under Honors I would have followed his orders and I might have considered him a good comedian, but he would have never had my respect.

Was his behavior in 2010 when he was assigned this command the same as it was in 2006 when the videos were made?

People do learn, mature and evolve. Leadership is developed over time, not captured in a static snapshot. Being promoted to CO in the highly competive naval officer corps would indicate to me that he had apparently been evaluated eight ways to Sunday by the senior brass and deemed to have developed sufficiently as a leader by 2010 to earn this plum assignment.

The failure of leadership in this incident occured way above Captain Honors pay grade, IMO.

 

[REWahoo]

People do learn, mature and evolve. Leadership is developed over time, not captured in a static snapshot.

True.

However, Capt Honors graduated from the Naval Academy in 1983. He'd been honing his leadership skills for almost 25 years when these videos were made. It cannot buy into the theory that his judgment and leadership abilities have matured and evolved enough in the succeeding three or four years to give him a pass/promotion.

The failure of leadership in this incident occurred way above Captain Honors pay grade, IMO.

Agreed. I think I read that the investigation wasn't stopping with Honors.