As a civilian I’m in no position to critique the CO’s decision making. However it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume a SONAR contact classified as a fishing boat may have a net deployed posing a hazard within a certain radius.
I assume Aaron Aamick (Sub Brief) and H.I. Sutton will make a video about this incident in the coming days, and we’ll get a credible answer to whether there’s any fault here on the part of the sub crew.
> As a civilian I’m in no position to critique the CO’s decision making.
To nitpick, you absolutely are. The military reports to the civilians; that is who they are accountable to.
That said, I don't know anything about submarines. But it has nothing to do with being a civilian or military. It's the trick of management, oversight, responsibility - we need to oversee and make responsible decisions for things where we lack expertise. I need to hire a plumber even if I know nothing about plumbing. Other people need to hire IT professionals, and IME some of them know nothing about IT!
Yes, they do, but we don't want the civilian leadership criticizing captains for their operational decisions. Strategic, yes, absolutely. "Do we do this mission or not?" is absolutely up to civilians (Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense, President) to decide. A captain making in-the-moment decisions about the running of the boat or ship can be handled by the military - up to and including loss of command or even court martial. If they are operating within their orders and official regulations, civilians should stay out of it or risk having a military that doesn't work when we need it.
In any organization, military or otherwise, there is a hierarchy of authority. The paint operator reports to their forperson who reports to shop floor manager who reports to the ... etc. who reports to the CEO who reports to the board of directors.
It's generally not a good idea for the CEO or board member to directly manage the painter, because there is so much they don't know about the person, situation, paint, etc; that's why they delegate. Also it undermines all the managers in the chain. On the other hand, sometimes those costs are worth it, and it's better than the alternative - sometimes the bureaucratic rules get in the way, or the structure is malfunctioning, and you need to get things moving.
But none of that is not special to militaries.
> civilians should stay out of it
While it may be true practically in many cases, I think that phrase is antithetical to democracies and freedom. A big threat to democracy is a military that is above civilians in status, power, etc. And one big advantage of a democracy is an open society, where citizens can see and respond to issues; sunlight disinfects corruption.
You left out my leading phrase: if they are operating within their orders and military regulation. And civilians are quite entitled to question those. If the captain is within both of them and still commits a war crime somehow, you don't hang the captain, you hang the admiral.
It might seem like a technicality, but my point is that civilians are entitled to question anything they want about the military - that's necessary for democracy. I would agree that it's usually not wise.
> If the captain is within both of them and still commits a war crime somehow, you don't hang the captain, you hang the admiral.
You hang both. Captains are officers, not automatons; they are responsible for their actions. But I agree that the admiral is the biggest issue, or maybe the secretary / minister of defense.
I assume Aaron Aamick (Sub Brief) and H.I. Sutton will make a video about this incident in the coming days, and we’ll get a credible answer to whether there’s any fault here on the part of the sub crew.