Dismissed for an act of Intelligent Disobedience

The chain of command is critical but is not sacrosanct. The uniform military code recognizes this. Those in uniform are required to disobey an illegal order.

Acts of omission in the face of serious avoidable harm are morally equivalent to acts of commission. Failing to respond to Captain Crozier’s urgent request to move elements of his crew ashore to slow the spread of Covid-19 cases was the equivalent of issuing an order to maintain the conditions for virulent contagion. Clearly dangerous, and arguably immoral and illegal. It is these situations in which the discipline known as Intelligent Disobedience is called for.

Guide dogs, who exist to keep the blind or sight-impaired person in their charge safe, are taught to intelligently disobey orders that will get the team injured or killed. They also are proactive in avoiding harm to those in their charge. We have seen dogs throw their body in front of the blind person to keep him from falling off a train platform or stepping into an elevator that is not lined up with the floor.

In other grave emergencies, we have outstanding examples of Intelligent Disobedience. On 9/11 Rick Rescorla, the safety officer for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, disobeyed the order to have personnel in the south tower stay in place after the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. By disobeying he saved 2700 lives.

When I was asked to talk about Intelligent Disobedience at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2017, I cited the contemporary example of the correct response to a life endangering situation in naval aviation. Over 100 flight instructors refused to continue flying with faulty oxygen systems in the T-45 aircraft used to train new pilots. They had given prior warnings up the chain of command without result. In contrast to the current situation, command gave the exact right response to this act of intelligent disobedience. It called for a 48-hour stand down and review, and reinstituted flying only at a safe altitude until the source of the oxygen problem could be fully established and remediated. Contrast that with the removal of Captain Crozier.

The formulaic reason given for removing Captain Crozier was “loss of confidence” in his leadership. Really? The contemporary military prides itself on understanding the concept of VUCA : Volatile, Uncertain, Complex , Ambiguous conditions in which decisions must nevertheless be made. To maximize resiliency, the best practice is devolving decision making power to the war fighters in the field, trusting them to make agile decisions in the face of rapidly changing conditions on the ground. Captain Crozier had that perspective and took action. By removing him for doing this, the senior naval officers involved in that decision have undermined the military’s requirement for a mid-level officer corps that will respond with the courage and agility of Captain Crozier.

Because of the alarm that he raised, thousands of sailors are being placed into quarters where they are safer from contagion while their shipmates tend to the security of the aircraft carrier. Meanwhile, Captain Crozier himself has tested positive for Covid-19. We wish him a full recovery, and to have his good name recognized and restored by the Navy and sailors he admirably served.