It’s not often that I sit down to write a column that I know will offend nearly everyone reading it. But here we are, eh?

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly did the right thing when he relieved Captain Brett Crozier of command of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. 

That statement may come as a surprise to some readers, as I believe I am fairly well ensconced as one of the more “liberal” voices here at CP. I consider myself a moderate and am thus able to offend my friends on the right and the left. But for this column, I’m metaphorically putting on my old Air Force lieutenant colonel’s uniform, and I want to talk with you about why Modly was correct.

First off, full disclosure: I know, or at least knew, Tom Modly. Back when I was a junior officer teaching political science at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Tom was our Navy exchange officer, teaching poli sci alongside our AF crew. Each of the service academies had officers from all the sister services teaching in residence, to give the cadets a wider exposure to the profession of arms. I haven’t talked to Tom since about 1990, but I remember him as a friend, and a person of great personal integrity. As such, when he was named acting secnav, I admit to being a bit shocked, as I don’t see how people of honor can work for Mr. Trump. That said, there is something honorable about serving in the face of Trumpian nonsense, and we certainly need people of honor in the administration to counter the Jared Kushners out there. I suspect Tom falls into this category.

It is very challenging to explain military ethics and thinking to civilians. Less than one half of 1% of Americans are in the military or are veterans. So, for 99.6% of the country, the military is an alien and poorly understood entity, and it is beyond the scope of this essay to explain what uniformed armed service means. Suffice it to say that TV shows rarely portray the military correctly. Heck, they can’t even get most of their actors to get military haircuts, but I digress…

Military service is fundamentally different from any civilian occupation, and until you have worn the uniform, I’m afraid military ethics and honor are difficult to understand, let alone internalize. My first military assignment was as an ICBM launch officer, prepared to launch nuclear weapons and to kill millions. There is no similar job in the civilian sector.

So let me try to explain why firing Captain Crozier was correct. But first, let’s talk about what the captain did right: he stood up for his troops. The issue is not that he passionately supported those in his command. His letter was both fitting and proper in content. No, the issue is not about what he wrote.

It’s about to whom he sent the letter.

In the military, the chain of command is vastly more important than, say, the hierarchy of a major corporation or business. In the military, decisions made by commanders at all levels can impact far more than a financial bottom line; they can mean the difference between life and death. That may sound trite, but it is true. Had Captain Crozier sent his letter to his direct commander, he would have been on firm military and ethical ground. If that commander had ignored the letter, then it would have been proper and fitting for Crozier to jump to the next level of command, and to demand action, and so on. 

Such a jumping of the chain is not without consequence. An officer has a moral obligation to either follow the lawful orders of those in command above him or her, or to resign. That’s it, there is no middle ground. And having jumped the command, the implication is that the officer involved is willing to risk his or her career for this point of honor and taking care of the troops. As a young junior officer, I once had to place myself between the wrath of the family of a retired 4-star general and two of my cadets, whom I felt the family was abusing (it’s a long story…). Taking care of your troops is absolutely vital in a military leader.

But Crozier, it is reported, did not follow this plan. Rather, NPR reports that he sent his powerful email to roughly 30 people, but remarkably not to his direct commander, likely a 1 or 2 star admiral, very likely located on the USS TR itself. Thus, Crozier did not follow the chain of command, and he apparently decided to go public, as he must have known such a large number of email copies would ensure. So, it’s not about his message, it is about how he chose to communicate it.

My civilian friends may not understand what I am awkwardly trying to explain. Indeed, they may simply reject my assertion that Crozier’s email was not a noble and honorable thing. I get that. But in the life-and-death business of the military – especially on a warship – such lapses in judgement in senior leaders cannot safely be ignored. Again, had Crozier climbed the chain and been rebuffed at every level, I would join in the celebration of his service and his commitment to taking care of his troops. But that’s not what happened. He ignored the chain and went public.

Do we really want commanders of major weapon systems, such as carrier groups, to decide what orders they shall follow, and which they shall ignore? I think not. Captain Crozier served his country nobly and well, until he made a profound error in judgement. I respect his service, but Modly did the right thing, though I might quibble with him about the timing and manner of his action. 

The Navy has made it clear they are not forcing Crozier to retire, though I suspect he will choose to do so. I trust history will remember the entire breadth of his service, as it should. But good order and discipline are vital in the combat arms. Crozier made a mistake, albeit an honorable one, to protect his troops. I respect that, even as I support Modly’s actions.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.