Gimme a break. This isn’t even worthy of a comment.</p>
<p>
I wish people would read my posts. I have never avowed her innocence. Actually my last comment on the subject:
I think the WP statements says it all. No worse than many others. The real story is that the crew mutinied. THe story isn’t over yet. Right now I would not want to be a JO in Cowpens.</p>
<p>We all know many many instances that, had the IG been involved, would have resulted in ruined careers, some justifiably, some not. Once it has gone to the IG, as any physical assault charge would, everything is going to come out. I think Seventh Fleet coming to the Cowpens on Captain Graf’s last day and telling the crew what a great job she had done, speaks volumes.</p>
<p>And the question remains, even if she did deserve to be relieved, why is this event drawing so much more attention than the other five captains and the roughly one per month average for the last many years? In short, I feel that it is newsworthy because she is a woman.</p>
<p>Luigi, you nailed it. This alum, who has gone further and further down the drain, will be a nuisance on this board til the day he dies, only to be reincarnated again as a new person to continue the cycle. I wonder why the CC community allows this. We need to contact the correct authorities AGAIN to see if it can be resolved.</p>
xchef, help me here. I am not following your logic. I have been in the Navy. I have been in command. I have spent many many watch hours on the bridge of a Navy combatant. I have both observed and served under abusive skippers. I have both observed and served under ‘push-over’ skippers. Both categories, good and bad. I have served under skippers who have inherited great commands. I have served under skippers who inherited a disaster. I think I learned something from all my experiences and have thusly posted my opinions. My audience, for the most part, has never been in the Navy, never been on a ship, never stood bridge watches, and, most definitely, never been in command. They cannot even begin to imagine the uniqueness of command at sea. Why are my comments a nuisance?</p>
Again, do you bother reading my posts. I don’t think I have mentioned honor, truth, or honesty. And my only mention of integrity was that sometimes it can be at the expense of loyalty. Loyalty, in fact, sometimes does force a compromise of one’s truth and honesty.</p>
<p>mombee said…
"Again, do you bother reading my posts. I don’t think I have mentioned honor, truth, or honesty. And my only mention of integrity was that sometimes it can be at the expense of loyalty. Loyalty, in fact, sometimes does force a compromise of one’s truth and honesty. "</p>
<p>So does that mean you are neither truthful nor honest if the end justifies the means? If it promotes your agenda, do you therefore abandon honor? Does this embody who we want our future officers to look for guidance. You state you are or were a BGO, however you blatantly disregard rules when it justifies your agenda. Great example for your students that you are guiding. You have been banned at this site and the other. Yet you think that your message is SO important that you must be heard. The years of command, and service mean nothing if you give up the principles of which they stand for. You are an embodiment of the topic of this thread, “A perfect example of how NOT to be a leader”. I am sure you will report this post as a harassment. I will get a message from the CC leadership, and somehow you will be back here the next day or two, being the poor example of leadership we all have come to know. How can you be a person who has been banned form this board numerous times and keep flaunting the rules just to feel better about whatever is so important to you.</p>
<p>For those who think this thread has strayed, you are getting a perfect example of this thread’s subject.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to analyze, in the case of some, how many posts have NEW information compared to posts that simply criticize/degrade/analyze the posts of others.</p>
Actually I was thinking of a military version of “does this dress make me look fat?” The easiest example that I can think of where honesty may legitimately be compromised for the sake of loyalty and which does kind of apply to this post is the following:<br>
The skipper gives the most asinine order imagineable. Great skipper. Open door policy. But an extremely stupid, in the DivOs opinion, order. Not an order that is going to get anyone killed or ruin any careers. Perhaps an order that the DivO simply considers detrimental to morale and runs counter to what he is attempting to accomplish in his divcision. The DivO knocks on the skippers door. After an hour of screaming and yelling, cursing and hollering, the DivO emerges. He has presented his case. The skipper has presented his reasoning. Neither side has budged one inch. However, the DivO, being a good officer, gave a cheery aye, aye and implements the order exactly as per the skippers directive. The next day, Seaman Jones, a budding sea lawyer comes up to the Div O and casually mentions that the order was the most stupid thing he had ever heard and knowing that the DivO was a fair person and a great guy, was sure that it was not his idea, actually pretty much reciting the DIvOs reasoning the day before, word for word. So, does he forsake loyalty and agree with Seaman Jones which would be the truth or does he recite verbatim the entire skipper’s reasoning as his own opinion which would be the loyal thing to do and which meets the 1st principal of good leadership which is, when implementing a seniors directive to always embrace it as his own? The clock is running. I have hundreds more.</p>
<p>“Belittling subordinates in public, as Capt. Graf was apparently wont to do, is almost never an effective leadership tool. If a Commanding Officer is perceived as someone who belittles subordinates routinely, especially in public, it can only undermine her leadership and authority.”</p>
<p>“Other things I’ve read about this case certainly challenge the Navy to look into their process for selecting commanding officers of Surface Navy ships, when apparently there was ample evidence of what appears to be unstable or abusive behavior in her previous tours.”</p>
<p>“How and why was this ignored or covered up? Was it political correctness in unwillingness to confront an aggressive and hard-charging female officer?”</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s a doubt in anyone’s mind - at least not mine - that she was a bad apple.</p>
<p>But, I guess it’s a lot easier in hindsight to say, “Wow, how did this go on for so long without anyone doing anything about it? It’s as plain as the nose on your face.”</p>
<p>Yes, and no.</p>
<p>If she - or anyone else, irrespective of gender, color, race, creed or religion - is on the fast track, you’d better have some pretty big cojones AND pretty solid evidence to take her down, or you’ll just be another “roadkill” along the path of her career.</p>
<p>And that, my friends, is no different in the US Navy than any other service or Fortune 500 Company. Golden Boys and Golden Girls get groomed for bigger things early in their careers in every walk of corporate, military and government life. We’ve all seen examples where their poor behavior and performance has been whitewashed because they are more special than we are, and they, ladies and gentlemen, are “on the fast track”. </p>
<p>Once in a while, one of them stumbles and falls because they get found out for what they truly are, and everyone gasps and says, “How did we let this happen?” It’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to be obtuse, but what’s the point of the post? Are you trying to say that the Navy sacrificed substance for form to promote female officers beyond their abilities?</p>
<p>Evidently by quoting the latter part of Captain Shoultz’s column, Luigi thinks it is the most important. Even though, from his comments, it is obvious that the Captain was not a Surface Warfare Officer, I think he put the meat of his message in the beginning of the column. Highlights are mine:
In the Time follow-up article, an Admiral was quoted voicing his concerns about a “lynch mob” mentality. The world of “instant and ubiquitous communications” is eroding the“Naval tradition of autonomy of the commander at sea”. Captain Shoultz thinks that in some cases it can possibly be for the better. I think it might be like virginity, either you are or you ain’t, there is no half way and that it has to be nipped in the bud. Juniors owe their seniors loyalty. The last time I heard “If you want me to clean my room, you will have to ask me nicely” was from a seven year old. My inclination would be to treat anonymous calls the same way I treated the seven year old. To obey a lawful command or to report it anonymously because it was not presented correctly should not be an option at sea.</p>
<p>I repeat my earlier observation, the real and ongoing story here is the mutiny of the junior officers and how the Navy will treat these anonymous leaks in the future. In my opinion, they are most definitely contrary to good order and discipline.</p>
<p>Being a “screamer” camouflages at world of weaknesses. For some, the weaknesses override the strengths and they should fall by the wayside. For some, they do not and they will be retained and promoted. This decision should not be entirely in the hands of a subordinate.</p>
<p>I would also argue with Captain Shoultz in whether or not the military should be accountable to the public. I feel that it should only be accountable to its chain of command and congressional oversight as per present law.</p>
<p>It’s not my theory, but one that has been proffered by those with much more experience inside the United States Navy. </p>
<p>People going on record, using their full names and titles, have written how Capt Graf may have been promoted along the years by a politically correct feminist-centric wave. </p>
<p>This being a internet discussion board, I don’t see the reasoning for excluding their theories, do you?</p>
<p>mombee- the navy is accountable to the public via the congressional oversight. Many a person has written their congressional represenative requesting information with respect to an incident or a rumor or a number of other reasons. Each of these congressionals requires a response from the commanding officer of the unit involved. The subjects cover a wide range of topics and are usually a waste of time, but they must be answered.</p>
<p>No junior officer owes any loyalty to her after she spits in their face, physically assaults them, and then watches her make a Master Chief “stand in the corner” while she verbally berates him in front of many other crew members.</p>
<p>Instead of making excuses for her and further tarnishing the service you claim to have served, why not get rid of the trash and support the decision to do it?</p>
<p>Her fitness for command was in question long before she reported to Cowpens.</p>
<p>But having TWO flag officer siblings helps, I guess.</p>
That is what I meant to say by my following statement:
I think the accountability to which Captain Shoultz was referring was public opinion generated by the"world of instant and ubiquitous (anonymous) communications."</p>
<p>
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Another of my questions remain. Where was the XO while all this was happening? And, Luigi, I don’t think any of your charges in this last statement were substantiated.</p>
<p>Nope. Not at all. But, as you say, “This being an internet discussion board…” whose principal purpose is to advise candidates and their families about applying to and attending USNA, I don’t know how this thread furthers that mission.</p>
<p>You seem, in effect to be saying in this post and the whole Marcus Curry diatribe-filled thread, “Navy bad - other academies better, more honorable places.” I guess I just don’t understand why it needs to keep being rubbed in our faces.</p>
<p>I think a reasonable person would agree that her behavior was inconsistent with what we expect from a Naval Officer, that she needed to be removed from command - and it probably should have happened sooner in her career - mistakes were made and should be corrected going forward so this doesn’t happen again. What else is there to say, except to repeat the same themes over and over and over and over?</p>
<p>I completely agree with you that she forfeited her claim to any loyalty from JO’s, Senior Enlisted or her crew once she crossed the line. But after that, I’m afraid there’s “not much ‘there’ there” to this story that hasn’t been said to the point of maddening redundancy. </p>
<p>Insert dead horse being beaten even more to death here…</p>