Tortuga CO, XO fired

[CommunityEditor]

SAN DIEGO — The top two officers of the Japan-based dock landing ship Tortuga were fired Thursday, according to a Navy statement.

Commanding officer Cmdr. John Zuhowski was fired by Rear Adm. Richard Landolt, commander of Amphibious Force 7th Fleet, because of “a loss of confidence in his ability to command,” the statement said. Landolt also fired Zuhowski’s executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Dennis Burke, the statement said, but no specific reason was provided for his relief.

“These actions are administrative in nature, not punitive,” the statement said. Both officers were relieved “based on their professional performance,” Lt. Denver Applehans, the Task Force 76 spokesman in Okinawa, Japan, said by telephone. “There was not any misconduct.”

Capt. Mark Weber, the deputy commodore of Amphibious Squadron 11 since August, has temporarily taken command of the Whidbey Island-class amphib, officials said. Weber’s assignments include command of dock landing ship Fort McHenry from 2003 to 2005.

Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Grant, who has been serving on the Task Force 76 command staff, has been temporarily assigned as Tortuga’s XO.

Zuhowski and Burke are being temporarily reassigned within Fleet Activities Sasebo, Applehans said. Zuhowski, a 1991 graduate of the Naval Academy, had commanded Tortuga for 10 months. He has commanded the patrol craft Shamal and served as executive officer of the dock landing ship Ashland.

Burke, who enlisted in the Navy in 1984, commanded the patrol crafts Tornado, Chinook, Typhoon and Whirlwind.


Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/navy_tortuga_fired_010909w/

[Boss Hog]

Seems to be a lotta dis Navy firin' stuff goin' on lately...WTF,O?

[Bruce]

Seems to be a lotta dis Navy firin' stuff goin' on lately...WTF,O?

I was about to make the same observation. I'm not sure if more skippers are being relieved now, or whether the Navy is just being more public about it. I've said before, and I still think its true, SECDEF sent a serious message to all military commands with his firing senior civilian and military leadership over such things as Walter Reed and the AF's handling of its nukes. Gates is taking no prisoners. The CNO's office has obviously gotten the message and is sending one of its own to all commanders that accountability is the "word of the day."

I wonder, though, would the Navy benefit more or get hurt if details about why COs were fired were made public? I suppose that if they are not using judicial discipline (and therefore not giving the COs a chance to rebut any allegations), a full public airing might create a risk of litigation. However, its probably not a bad idea for the Navy to draw a line in the sand and say "if you do this, you will be fired." What do you think?

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I was about to make the same observation. I'm not sure if more skippers are being relieved now, or whether the Navy is just being more public about it. I've said before, and I still think its true, SECDEF sent a serious message to all military commands with his firing senior civilian and military leadership over such things as Walter Reed and the AF's handling of its nukes. Gates is taking no prisoners. The CNO's office has obviously gotten the message and is sending one of its own to all commanders that accountability is the "word of the day."

I wonder, though, would the Navy benefit more or get hurt if details about why COs were fired were made public? I suppose that if they are not using judicial discipline (and therefore not giving the COs a chance to rebut any allegations), a full public airing might create a risk of litigation. However, its probably not a bad idea for the Navy to draw a line in the sand and say "if you do this, you will be fired." What do you think?

In any military organization, getting rid of the dead weight can be a good thing. However, too many firings and an one mistake military can also cause commanders to hesitant to do any independent action for fear of being fired. Hopefully, an even balance is being struck here.

[Bruce]

In any military organization, getting rid of the dead weight can be a good thing. However, too many firings and an one mistake military can also cause commanders to hesitant to do any independent action for fear of being fired. Hopefully, an even balance is being struck here.

You make a good point. While I firmly believe in accountability, I do not think that junior officers and enlisted men should be haunted by mistakes made early in their career. As a young officer, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was court martialed for his role in the grounding of his ship. In fact, he insisted that he be brought to trial. As I recall, he was vindicated by the court and went on to big things.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

You make a good point. While I firmly believe in accountability, I do not think that junior officers and enlisted men should be haunted by mistakes made early in their career. As a young officer, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was court martialed for his role in the grounding of his ship. In fact, he insisted that he be brought to trial. As I recall, he was vindicated by the court and went on to big things.


When I was at ACSC, I remember reading an article pondering on how some of the great military leaders would do in our modern military. Your comment reminded me of that article. I'm sure if Nimitz was an ensign now, he could kiss his career good bye for that mistake. Sometimes, we forget that we learn as much from our mistakes as from our avoidance of them.

[kojack]

Patton would NEVER rise in todays military of pregnant nondeployable mommies and rank equality, enlisted generals, etc.

I suspect there are probably large numbers of officers who pass on commanding after coming out on the lists for the reasons listed. Afterall, the pay is the same. Why risk it in a PC military?

[MPLisa]

It will only get worse under Komrad Barry Obama, just as it did under Korporal Komrad Klinton. Let me explain why:

1) Over the past 2 decades, as a society we've embraced all underdogs. Now, normally, this isn't a bad thing, the Statue of Liberty even welcomes the world's downtrodden (thankyou France...).
2) Liberals fall all over themselves to ensure that the government supports the downtrodden. Part of this is an effort to elevate self-esteem of all individuals. (self-esteem, I guess, in and of itself is a guarantee(??) of success in the eyes of Liberals).
3) Thus, to build up self-esteem and be all inclusive, we award a trophy to every 4 year-old kid on every T-Ball team. We don't want to award the "winners" only, because the "Losers" would feel bad. So, rather than making the losers practice more (i.e. WORK HARDER), we pat them on the back and hand them a trophy. By doing this we accomplish two things: First, we build their self esteem. Second, we take away any guilt we have for being the "bad guy" in making the losers work harder to achieve their goals.
4) This is how we've ruined our society by building the expectation of entitlement in our younger generations that "achievement" is not economical, but, rather, in self-image/esteem. It is economical too in the sense that we've turned our country into a huge welfare state whereby we levy confiscatory taxes on "the wealthy", in order to give that money to the sick, lame, and lazy.
5) So, on to the Tortuga. In an effort to ensure we've leveled the playing field in the competition for promotion and command, we've done away with the Navy meritocracy, and instituted the celbritocracy, whereby officers are promoted based on skin color, gender, and soon, sexual deviancy. By doing so, we've placed in command a bunch of incompetent officers who, while they might mean well, are incapable of fighting.
6) Because of the promotion system, we've created a bunch of COs who - once they attain a postion - will not risk anything, thus they become grossly ineffective and worthless as warriors.

The Navy is following the rest of the country into the cesspool created by a omnipotent and omnipresent federal government. It is time to consider alternatives to a strong federation of states.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

It will only get worse under Komrad Barry Obama, just as it did under Korporal Komrad Klinton. Let me explain why:

1) Over the past 2 decades, as a society we've embraced all underdogs. Now, normally, this isn't a bad thing, the Statue of Liberty even welcomes the world's downtrodden (thankyou France...).
2) Liberals fall all over themselves to ensure that the government supports the downtrodden. Part of this is an effort to elevate self-esteem of all individuals. (self-esteem, I guess, in and of itself is a guarantee(??) of success in the eyes of Liberals).
3) Thus, to build up self-esteem and be all inclusive, we award a trophy to every 4 year-old kid on every T-Ball team. We don't want to award the "winners" only, because the "Losers" would feel bad. So, rather than making the losers practice more (i.e. WORK HARDER), we pat them on the back and hand them a trophy. By doing this we accomplish two things: First, we build their self esteem. Second, we take away any guilt we have for being the "bad guy" in making the losers work harder to achieve their goals.
4) This is how we've ruined our society by building the expectation of entitlement in our younger generations that "achievement" is not economical, but, rather, in self-image/esteem. It is economical too in the sense that we've turned our country into a huge welfare state whereby we levy confiscatory taxes on "the wealthy", in order to give that money to the sick, lame, and lazy.
5) So, on to the Tortuga. In an effort to ensure we've leveled the playing field in the competition for promotion and command, we've done away with the Navy meritocracy, and instituted the celbritocracy, whereby officers are promoted based on skin color, gender, and soon, sexual deviancy. By doing so, we've placed in command a bunch of incompetent officers who, while they might mean well, are incapable of fighting.
6) Because of the promotion system, we've created a bunch of COs who - once they attain a postion - will not risk anything, thus they become grossly ineffective and worthless as warriors.

The Navy is following the rest of the country into the cesspool created by a omnipotent and omnipresent federal government. It is time to consider alternatives to a strong federation of states.


What does this incomprehensible rant have to do with the subject at hand????

[MPLisa]

Of course my "rant" would not make sense to someone from a service that routinely loses nuclear weapons.

What is meant by the well written and highly articulate tome is that we'll probably be firing more Navy COs who have grown up in an era of liberal "leadership".

[PAMICH]

We all have been under the command of great leaders, good leaders, up and coming leaders and ones that just suck at being in command. These are the ones that may have had a stellar career as OX, Dept head or DivO but just can't cut the mustard as the CO. I really hope our Admirals can weigh who is doing their job versus the ones who are dangerous in command. I believe this to be true in the Tortuga case. Loss of confidence could be several areas of failures to be combat ready, or poor ships crew moral, or just bad desisions,one after another that hurt the Admiral's view of the fired CO. Now ships running a ground firings seem to be harsh. Misfiring of weapons systems, poor piloting all the time, ship collisions, missed manueverings, bad behavior of Sailors, cover up mishaps etc ..... would be easier to accept as a case of firing without litigation.

To MPLisa, You're excerpts are definately entertaining at times. I am on the right myself, but I never knew anyone could be that far to the right where you are off the scale. Take it easy on those liberals, their hearts can't take that abuse. We do still have quite a few warrior CO's in our Navy.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Of course my "rant" would not make sense to someone from a service that routinely loses nuclear weapons.

What is meant by the well written and highly articulate tome is that we'll probably be firing more Navy COs who have grown up in an era of liberal "leadership".

It's incomprehensible because it is a rant with no basis for your contentions. An 0-5 to o-6 would be in the same age group as I. As such, we recieved our training during the 80s and were commissioned in the years between 1988 - 1993. Read your history. Those were the years of Reagan and Bush one, hardly a liberal pc time. Get your facts right before you rant. That way, you won't look so foolish.

[MPLisa]

"Rant" must be a big word in your vocabulary. I was commissioned in 1988. As J.O. it doesn't much matter which way the winds blow because one is just trying to survive. However, the evaluation and promoting system creates the wrong kind of competition among officers, and we start getting technocrats and those trying to save their own skin, rather than warriors willing to take a risk and career-be-damned. This isn't a recent phenomena, read "About Face" by David Hackworth if you want an indepth study of what happens to a professional corps of officers that kowtow to politics.

Funny you should mention O-5s and O-6s: my peers who are still active duty are punching out after attaining retirement eligibility for many of the same reasons I cited in my well-written "rant". They can stand no more the politics of sensitivity, inclusiveness and diversity for diversity's sake (that is, no more Navy of meritocracy...).

I smell a liberal in you Aggie, I smell the cloyingly-sweet stench of poliitcal correctness and inclusiveness. What I don't smell is warrior ethic, or willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause. I am sure by now you have long-considered a run for congress in your home state, the democrat ticket, of course. You'll flaunt your military service as an example of leadership and warrior-skill, but then in the same breath you'll throw your former colleagues under the bus and say that you want "peace" and "sensitivity" and equality for all regardless of ability. BUNK!

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

"Rant" must be a big word in your vocabulary. I was commissioned in 1988. As J.O. it doesn't much matter which way the winds blow because one is just trying to survive. However, the evaluation and promoting system creates the wrong kind of competition among officers, and we start getting technocrats and those trying to save their own skin, rather than warriors willing to take a risk and career-be-damned. This isn't a recent phenomena, read "About Face" by David Hackworth if you want an indepth study of what happens to a professional corps of officers that kowtow to politics.

Funny you should mention O-5s and O-6s: my peers who are still active duty are punching out after attaining retirement eligibility for many of the same reasons I cited in my well-written "rant". They can stand no more the politics of sensitivity, inclusiveness and diversity for diversity's sake (that is, no more Navy of meritocracy...).

I smell a liberal in you Aggie, I smell the cloyingly-sweet stench of poliitcal correctness and inclusiveness. What I don't smell is warrior ethic, or willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause. I am sure by now you have long-considered a run for congress in your home state, the democrat ticket, of course. You'll flaunt your military service as an example of leadership and warrior-skill, but then in the same breath you'll throw your former colleagues under the bus and say that you want "peace" and "sensitivity" and equality for all regardless of ability. BUNK!


Lisa, what a load of crap!! Nothing like a little bit of Mcarthyism in you, huh? Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a liberal. Let me guess, you have a secret list of Communist and like sympathizers in your desk, too? I don't have to justify my military service to you or anyone. However, just to let you know MS. Support MOS from the MPs, I was always in a combat MOS as an enlisted, cav scout, and as a line officer in the AF, tactical Missiles, as an officer. I volunteered and deployed for both Desert Storm and Bosnia, the conflicts that were present during my time in service. I don't diss on the service of others, nor should you, because all who serve honorably aid in the defense of our nation. Now go write a ticket or eat a jelly donut.

[MPLisa]

Dr. Michael Savage and I both believe, and have evidence to support, that liberalism is a mental disorder.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Dr. Michael Savage and I both believe, and have evidence to support, that liberalism is a mental disorder.

And what does it have to do with the price of tea or this discussion? Nothing like a little tangetalism, huh? Plus, I wouldn't be so proud to quote a quack who has a phd in a pseudo science as your source.

[Bruce]

"Rant" must be a big word in your vocabulary. I was commissioned in 1988. As J.O. it doesn't much matter which way the winds blow because one is just trying to survive. However, the evaluation and promoting system creates the wrong kind of competition among officers, and we start getting technocrats and those trying to save their own skin, rather than warriors willing to take a risk and career-be-damned. This isn't a recent phenomena, read "About Face" by David Hackworth if you want an indepth study of what happens to a professional corps of officers that kowtow to politics.

Funny you should mention O-5s and O-6s: my peers who are still active duty are punching out after attaining retirement eligibility for many of the same reasons I cited in my well-written "rant". They can stand no more the politics of sensitivity, inclusiveness and diversity for diversity's sake (that is, no more Navy of meritocracy...).

I smell a liberal in you Aggie, I smell the cloyingly-sweet stench of poliitcal correctness and inclusiveness. What I don't smell is warrior ethic, or willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause. I am sure by now you have long-considered a run for congress in your home state, the democrat ticket, of course. You'll flaunt your military service as an example of leadership and warrior-skill, but then in the same breath you'll throw your former colleagues under the bus and say that you want "peace" and "sensitivity" and equality for all regardless of ability. BUNK!

Lisa: The value of the warrior in peace-time has always been underrated by the top brass, and, I would add, that they are not always appreciated in war time. Some jobs need technocrats and bureaucrats. Eisenhower would have been a lousy field general, but his diplomatic and organizational skills came in well to be the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Patton and McArthur would have been disasters had they been promoted to Chief of Staff. I recall when my Dad served in the AF (1941-73) many officers who were commissioned in WWII without college degrees found it impossible to make O-6 during the McNamara era, no matter how great their leadership abilities or military skill. A night school diploma earned too late in one's career meant doors to flag rank closed.

Some superior combat commanders only achieved flag rank because they had a mentor who recognized that it was better to train warriors to be good managers than to attempt to teach great managers to be warriors. Those were the days when winners of the MOH and Navy Cross would don the braids of an Admiral's aide. IMHO, that doesn't happen much anymore. Admirals, knowing that they have limited time to mentor their aides, look for people who have skills other than leadership and fighting.

[ToCBS]

Am it to assume that in PMLisa's number 4 " in order to give that money to the sick, lame, and lazy"
he is refering to the CEO's of the banks that recieved the bail out money for former President Bush.

[MPLisa]

No, I am referring to those that couldn't, or wouldn't qualify or pay for a mortgage.

[LibertyHound]

MPLisa

If'n I recollect correctly - if it weren't for past 'Liberal' leadership in the military - there wouldn't be any distaff MP types as you'de been....
But WTF - keep ranting anyhoo..... :)

[OldRetireSWO]

FYI, Navy Commanding Officers being fired and making headlines are not new and have rarely been kept quiet. No new trend here. The article stated that these firings were not due to misconduct. Had they been, those facts would have surely surfaced sooner or later, with splashy headlines. Both of these were fine officers, one of whom I had the privilege of mentoring when he was a young JO. Model Surface Warfare Officers with great records.

In this case, both CO and XO were fired, unfairly in my opinion, because of a failure of the maintenance infrastructure, including class designers, port engineers, overseas/FDNF repair capabilities and a failure by resource sponsors to understand or outright ignore the impact of continuously underfunding and undermanning amphibious class ships and combine it with a complete and utter disappearance of diesel engine expertise throughout the fleet. End result--CO and XO being held responsible for sins way beyond their control, but of course, within their command responsibility (of course). Totally gutless move. Sends a great message too.

Coming out of an availability with an engineering plant in dismal shape, despite "help" from above, the CO/XO are merely scapegoats. A ship in that bad of shape should have never been sent to FDNF without a massive mid-life overhaul and complete diesel control upgrade. Instead, despite ample evidence, it was pawned off on a crew and FDNF maintenance facility with little ability to maintain her and an unforgivable schedule that permits zero room for all but minor repair periods.

Any other LSD on either coast CONUS could be in same or worse shape, but FDNF is unforgiving, hence heads rolled.

And...continuing the thread to the next logical conclusion...

The LSD 41/49 class and soon to be the LPD 17 class share virtually the same propulsion plant and as we are decomming amphibs faster than we can replace them without a decrease in optempo, these new "Smart" gators will soon be broken down/rusted wrecks too. Just a fact of life. With optimally manned crews and nearly twice the surface area to maintain, it is only a matter of time before the LPD 17 class is run into ruin as well.

Navy Times...there is your headline! LPD 17 Class undermanned and doomed to failure!

Used to be 36 deployable amphibs, or 12 three ship "ARGs"...Now there are about 29 deployable amphibs...watch out USMC...the Navy is running low on MEU lift capacity (especially "big deck" amphibs)...but somehow magically the requirement is also going down...meanwhile, we're still pumping out DDGs like nobody's business. Hmmm....

Okay, now that's a rambling rant with 99% truth and 1% opinion.

[LibertyHound]

Okay, now that's a rambling rant with 99% truth and 1% opinion.

Sounds less a 'Rant' and more like straight skinny to me. Doing more with less has always been a hallmark of the service, along with the requisite scapegoats.

[no name please]

I agree there has to be accountability. I know one of the CO's that got fired. He was fired because he held his people accountable and some whiner didn't like it. The Navy needs to investigate the IG process. It is too subjective. People shouldn't get fired because of personality differences. IF they truly have done something wrong they should be fired. It is funny that in almost all of the firings recently there is "no judicial punishment". That way, the CO or XO being fired can't defend themselves. That is wrong. Also, the term "Loss of Confidence" is too broad. If you can't give a solid reason for someone being fired then you have no business firing them. The military is getting too soft. How can a CO be a leader if they can't give orders? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal then let CO's be CO's. If their personnel don't like them, tough luck, one of you will be gone soon. Quit whining and start being sailors. It is true that junior members aren't going to want to take command. Who needs the headache when just because you ask someone to do their job they are going to file an IG and you are going to have your career ruined.
I'm sure a lot of the CO's and XO's fired recently would love a day in court. It would probably show that the majority of firings were unjust.

[CDE]

I am going to jump to defense of the local maintenance folks in Sasebo. I was on the Fort Mac when she was there and the I have to say that SRF in conjunction with the Japanese contractors work circles around any maintenance activity state-side. The American PE in Sasebo has a Japanese counterpart and historically they are OUTSTANDING! Ask any CHENG that has been there! (I was EMO).

[no name please]

When I said I know one of the CO's fired, I wasn't talking about that CO. There have been several firings since last April. If someone does something negligient or illegal they should be fired. Some of the firings I have read about and known the person involved have been for personality issues and I think that is wrong.
I can't discuss the particulars of the case I know about because the individual would be upset but this individual was someone with no blemishes on their record. They had a great career until someone decided they didn't like them and an IG was filed. IG's are subjective and words get turned around and some of the investigators aren't qualified for their jobs.