China on My Mind

China has and will always be on my mind, and since I met my wife, in my heart. That said, I am not an apologist for their current or past system of government and in fact find it counter to what I believe in; and in my youth fought mortally against. This week a few of the blogs I follow have had an exceptionally rich number of posts, seeking to counsel, warn, and decipher our current and future relations with the mystical dragon that is economically breathing down our necks as it approaches our status as the worlds strongest economy from behind.

Thomas Barnett has been in the forefront of counseling that we need to manage China's rise much like Great Britain shepherded the rise of the United States as a great power in the early 20th century. Barnett has written over 200 posts this year that are tagged about China. This week was no exception and this quartet of posts lays out more sensible ideas for how we should respond to what in reality is the return of China to the world stage as a great power, a position she held for most of her 5000 year history.

First is this piece with tips about how to blunt and put the brakes on demonizing China here at home.
Trying to Unwind this Demonization Trend

Tom follows that post with this post and link to his World Politics Review column, with the viral video of the now famous Chinese Professor.
Using China to Scare Ourselves Straight

Then this about how demographics are going to change  the world, once again!
Globalization's Massive Demographic Bet

Tom then looks at the FDI or Foreign Direct Investments over the past century.

Fascinating really: you can see the decline of the British empire, then the US stepping in to fund so much of the world post-WWII, and then our own progressive decline as the rest of the West recovered, then Japan rose (and fell), and now China rises. Naturally, some will wish to make the comparison of the decline of the US "empire" with that of the Brits', but our system was never set up to maintain dominance. It was set up to encourage the rise of others peacefully, which it's done (65 years of no great power war and counting, the biggest increase in human wealth/income ever seen, billions avoid poverty). The world simply couldn't handle the rise of great powers--until we came along and forced a system that could. It is, without doubt, the greatest accomplishment of any great power in human history.

Read more:
Strange Days

On the heels of this, comes a second broadside of common-sense fired directly at the leadership in Washington. Here is just of taste of what is coming.

Our definition of a "responsible stakeholder" is "do everything the way I want it and THEN you can be my friend!" That's not how you treat an ally; that's how you treat a dog. If we have FDR today, he'd deal and he'd deal with confidence. That guy believed in his system, and had no fears dealing with authoritarian regimes. But we don't have any FDRs today. Reagan and Clinton were the last, it seems: guys who knew how to cut deals, compromise, move the ball--with confidence in their country and its future. Now we have such little people with little minds (yeah, Bloomberg said it and I repeat it!). We bluster and we strut and we're being ignored more and more--a trend I trace back to the beginning of W's 2nd term (Katrina proves we can't nation-build abroad or at home).

UPDATE: STRANGE DAYS (UPDATE)

Coming on the heels of Barnett's posts comes this brief post by Robert Farley at Information Dissemination who discusses what he correctly labels a fractured Chinese foreign policy.

China is full of many people who want many different things. Like the U.S. national security apparatus, the Chinese government harbors a plethora of different foreign-policy perspectives, some focused on trade, others on power, and still others guided by domestic political concerns. Moreover, the Chinese government is no longer the only actor of consequence in China. Chinese public opinion increasingly constrains policymakers, and can even force them into action they don't want to take. Like all states, China is fractured. Recognizing its fractured nature is the key to developing an effective U.S. policy toward China's rise.

Don't miss the links to Robert's column at WPR, and the very interesting Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI report about China.

Read More.
Fractured China

Now where is this all going? Most might think that Robert and Tom's posts are preaching to the choir of their readers and will have little impact on those counting on tapping into the national malaise of anger and self doubt that in part came from our own drunken binge on the scent of cheap money and easy credit terms along with feeding at the trough of feeling our oats for the past half century.

We need a wake up call, but more importantly we need leadership that is visionary in the vein of a Roosevelt or a Lincoln whom front loaded the next quarter century of economic growth for America while in the depths of  war. Lincoln in his five important bills during the 33rd Congress, and Roosevelt in holding Churchill's feet to the fire about shedding their colonies after the war and then taking the leadership role in conducting the war at Tehran in 1943. We continue to suffer from mediocrity and men blinded by hubris and measures of implanted self-destructive genes.

Recently I have been reading two books as mentioned in a previous post . The thread of what would happen when we insist on a hasty and blind charge towards one man one vote democracy in countries with massive iniquities. Think what would happen in China if the people all could have an equal say in their policy while most of the country is barely out of grinding poverty. They would be mailable to someone who could seize the moment and their new found nationalism in what is dubbed by the Chinese leaders as Netizens who by far display extreme nationalist tendencies that mirror the worst of mid-20th century Germany and Japan. We only have to look south to view Venezuela and how Hugo Chavez has harness the poor to vote him president for life and start down the road of creating an almost fascist state, ditto Bolivia and over the horizon, watch for Ortega in Nicaragua. Honduras just stopped short of allowing their president Zavala to proceed down that path.

If we play our diplomatic cards right we can see a peaceful rise of China that operates in a capitalist system with Chinese characters and is a partner in developing and spreading the system of free market and capitalism that sprang from the fountain of hope and opportunity called the United States.

Finally, to share a small story about China. My mother and father in-law lived through the worst of the Cultural Revolution and being professors of foreign languages were sent out to the fields as punishment and re-education. They don't speak of it and I only recently learned how badly my father-in-law's health was broken during that time. Quietly as the worst passed, they raised their two daughters to learn foreign languages and as soon as possible, encouraged them to leave, one to Germany and the other to America. Today, they live the quiet lives of the retired, but knowing what they must have endured and then finding a way to re-purpose themselves and go on and remain proud of their nation for it's long endurance and heritage gives me pause to reflect on their strength of character. And also, their wisdom to not want to see their daughters and grandchildren fall victim to the same spasms of what happens when the citizens run amok.

Taking Note of Two Knights of the Keyboad

This week has produced a bonanza of quality reads among the blogs that I read as regularly as a 19th century mountain man  runs his traps. Part of this rich bonanza of brain food can be traced to two individuals who over the past few weeks have posted an abundence of rich treatises on a broad range of subects from security, to business, social and politics.

As I noted last month, Thomas Barnett has moved into high gear producing up to a half score posts each weekday that distills the main thesis of the articles he gleens from a variety of media sources. The only way to pay his due is to take a moment and look back at yesterday, June 3, when he produced his normal ten posts ranging from nuclear armed subs to Dams to Sweet Potatoes and long term unemployment in America among six other outstanding reads that will provide a mornings worth of pondering more deftly and concisely than any of the MSM outlets. Click on his name above to read his latest posts.

And the other intrepid blogger who contributed to this week being a banner week for reads was Galrahn who returned to announce that he "has the bridge" at his must read, naval centric blog Information Dissemination . Without fanfare his byline appeared this past week to offer his astute observations about all things naval. Here is a couple of his posts that blow away some of the coastal fog surrounding stories about the sea. Here's two Hezbollah Threatens Unrestricted Naval Warfare Against Israel and Bloggers and Battleships that illustrate his depth of understanding of naval strategy. Galrahn's crew of felllow bloggers, Feng, Brian McGrath, Chris Rawley and GvG make up a strong crew able to steer you to the important issue of naval interest.

The Week in Review

One of the most often asked questions I get from friends and students is how do I keep up with all the information that flows out across this medium dubbed the blogosphere. I must admit that it takes discipline and a careful eye to pick what for me is the better jewel out of a basket of jewels presented each day. I decided then to try and find the post or posts that stood out each week and gather them together here to offer a taste of what stood out.

First off, a post over at the U.S. Naval Institute Blog took top honors for generating a blizzard of comments that often grew heated amid the more thoughtful responses. Read on: Showing One's Throat to the Wolf

At this point perhaps Aesop may have a lesson that rymes.

A stray Lamb stood drinking early one morning on the bank of a woodland stream. That very same morning a hungry Wolf came by farther up the stream, hunting for something to eat. He soon got his eyes on the Lamb. As a rule Mr. Wolf snapped up such delicious morsels without making any bones about it, but this Lamb looked so very helpless and innocent that the Wolf felt he ought to have some kind of an excuse for taking its life.

“How dare you paddle around in my stream and stir up all the mud!” he shouted fiercely. “You deserve to be punished severely for your rashness!”

“But, your highness,” replied the trembling Lamb, “do not be angry! I cannot possibly muddy the water you are drinking up there. Remember, you are upstream and I am downstream.”

“You do muddy it!” retorted the Wolf savagely. “And besides, I have heard that you told lies about me last year!”

“How could I have done so?” pleaded the Lamb. “I wasn’t born until this year.”

“If it wasn’t you, it was your brother!”

“I have no brothers.”

“Well, then,” snarled the Wolf, “It was someone in your family anyway. But no matter who it was, I do not intend to be talked out of my breakfast.”

And without more words the Wolf seized the poor Lamb and carried her off to the forest.

The tyrant can always find an excuse for his tyranny.

The unjust will not listen to the reasoning of the innocent.

Next, is a book review by Mark at Zenpundit that caught the eye of the folks at the Small Wars Journal who linked it with comments.

John Robb weighs in with this edgy post on the ongoing sovereign default crisis in the EU. Here is a sample below:

Most analysts (at least the ones that are worth reading) contend that the sovereign default crisis (Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.) in the EU is about the collapse of a system that created monetary union without a political union. It isn't. That's actually a narrow, parochial view. Instead, the current sovereign debt crisis about something much more interesting: it's another battle in a war for dominance between "our" integrated, impersonal global economic system and traditional nation-states. At issue is whether a nation-state serves the interests of the governed or it serves the interests of a global economic system.

This week also saw the return of Galrahn to regular posting at Information Dissemination where he promises a make-over as he marks the third anniversary of this excellent naval centric blog.

Two other favorite blogs announced changes are afoot in the coming week.

Thomas PM Barnett announced the roll out of a new blog link beginning Monday.
Basic blog design already in place, with some posts teed up. Currently fleshing most the pages I want on the site. Not everything will be done by Monday.

In moving over the old, I bring along all the posts and pix, and manage import the comments and the links inside the posts. Comments from 5/5 through 5/9 will be lost to the universe!

Weird to basically have two entire sites up for five days. Even more strange is going through some of the old posts (the ones that get linked because they're important in some way) and fixing the screwed-up bits. But no, I won't fix everything, because the first 2-3 years just didn't travel well the last time and it's just not worth my time. Annoying to read but the record's intact.

Anyway, see you over there on Monday. The link to the blog will now be:

www.thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization

Finally this change coming over at It's The Tribes, Stupid" where Steven Pressfield announced the launch of a blog dedicated to writing as the former continues on under a new name and author.

Next week I’m launching a new site, which will be a better fit for all of my writing, titled “Steven Pressfield Online.” “Writing Wednesdays” will have its new home there. We won’t stop. In fact, we’ll add a couple of new features. The site overall will be more of a Pressfield/Writing site.

“It’s the Tribes” will continue too—under a new name, “Agora.” It will be edited and run by MAC McCallister. MAC will take the site to the next level for sure. He was a key participant in al-Anbar, Iraq, when the Sunni Awakening happened, and he hasn’t backed off since. He is outspoken, passionate and opinionated. I love him. He’ll be great.

Lastly, the blog links took on a couple of new sites, well worth the time to check out.

Pileus Blog Pileus describes itself as, "a group of scholars who examine public policy and philosophy in light of our respective disciplines."

Matt Gallagher, Former Army officer and Iraq veteran turned writer and author of Kaboom has launched the Kerplunk Journal where he holds forth on issues related to his former job.

And one final note. A quote to live or die by.
Hardcore Quote: Veteran of the Day

The War in Afghanistan 2558 Days and Counting

To put Afghanistan in prospective. World War II lasted 2175 days counting from Sept 1, 1939 to Aug 15, 1945. Our Civil War was three days short of four years or 1456 days. The war in Afghanistan has lasted 2558 days counting from October 7, 2001. There is no end in sight, in a war where the casualty rate resembles our own Indian Wars of the 19th century, and with a cost that competes with the heady spending days of the Vietnam War.


Framing the debate about the strategy in Afghanistan, has been as difficult as trying to swat a mosquito with a straw. The level of frustration is reaching a point where it can no longer be tolerated. Our democracy deserves to know what is Afghanistan to our national interest, and is it worth the lives and monetary cost to do what other great powers have tried and failed, for the past 2500 years? Today, that goal appears to be to move Afghanistan's people, kicking and screaming into the 21st century, whatever the cost.

Below, are several posts that resonate with reason and offers insight beyond the stifling self-interest that flows from much of the media and our elected officials.

Zenpundit leads off with this post that he introduces this way.

Had a pleasant and interesting email conversation with the always thoughtful Dr. Bernard Finel of The American Security Project ( that link is the blog, here is the main site for the org). Dr. Finel has been blogging vigorously and very critically of late about COIN becoming conventional Beltway wisdom, a premise he does not accept nor believe to be a useful strategic posture for the United States. It was a good discussion and one that I would like the readers to join.

Read this important post in full:
On COIN and an Anti-COIN Counterrevolution?

This next post comes by way of Thomas Barnett who opens with these words from his World War Room column in Esquire.

On Monday, the latest video surfaced from Osama bin Laden's longtime deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, featuring his usual sermon on the state of the radical Islamic struggle against the United States. The gist: Al Qaeda is winning hands-down, natch. Trouble is, it's not.

The message wouldn't have attracted any more media attention than his thirty-or-so similar videos from the past three-and-a-half years except, of course, for his affirmation that a truce with President Obama is still on the table: If America is willing to "concede" radical Islam's "victory" throughout the greater Middle East by withdrawing all of its troops, then Al Qaeda will stop targeting Americans.
Some offer.

Read more: Why Al Qaeda Is Losing the War on Terror.

Clearly Barnett raises valid points that Galrahn of Information Dissemination picked up on and added his thoughtful analysis.

Here is a snippet of Galrahn's thoughts.

As Tom Barnett notes, "We're the ones winning this struggle across the board" and are doing so by connecting opportunity to places where opportunity has rarely existed in any form, much less on a global scale. While there is a hint in the truth that by fighting them over there we aren't fighting them over here, there is also a bit of truth in suggesting that fighting the soft war is more important, and achieves a more attainable containment strategy than fighting the hard war in those disconnected places ever will.

Read more: Thinking About Trends and Changes.


From the field in Afghanistan comes this report filed by Michael Yon. The photos are stunning and Michael's reports so real, you can taste the grit of the dust kicked up by the rotors.
Read more:
Pixie Dust

Michal also found the time to contribute this guest post at Steve Pressfield's It's The Tribes Stupid!

It can be tempting to downplay or ignore the influence of tribes in Afghan politics, and on the effects on our operations. We tried to ignore the great influence of the tribes during the war in Iraq, and not until 2006, fully three years into the war, did we effectively begin to work with tribes on an appreciable scale.
Tribes in Afghanistan: A Guest Post from Michael Yon

The Blog Heard Round the World

Alexander Hamilton, American Grand Strategist.

A few days back I posted a thought prevoking link A Brief on the Accidental Guerrilla by Zenpundit. Since Mark first posted his brief essay it has generated additional comments by such diverse bloggers as Information Dissemination - New Doctrines Without Strategic Foundations, Abu Muqawama - Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!, MountainRunner -Recommended Reading: Kilcullen Doctrine,The Strategist - Sunday reflection: on “The Accidental Guerrilla”,SWJ Blog - Weekend Reading and Listening Assignment and grand strategist, Thomas P.M. Barnett - Safranski on Nagl on Kilcullen.

Joining that list is this thought provoking analysis from Joseph Fouche of Committee of Public Safety. His post distills the position articulated by Dr. John Nagl.

….In direct opposition to the ideas that drove American intervention policy two decades ago, Kilcullen suggests ‘the anti -Powell doctrine’ for counter-insurgency campaigns.
First, planners should select the lightest, most indirect and least intrusive form of intervention that will achieve the necessary effect.
Second, policy-makers should work by, with, and through partnerships with local government administrators, civil society leaders, and local security forces whenever possible.
Third, whenever possible, civilian agencies are preferable to military intervention forces, local nationals to international forces, and long-term, low-profile engagement to short-term, high-profile intervention.

He then adds Mark's critique.

Zen correctly criticizes this “doctrine” on three grounds:

1. “Kilcullen’s three principles are an operational and not a genuinely strategic doctrine.”

2. “[T]his operational doctrine requires a sound national strategy and grand strategy if it is to add real value and not merely be a national security fire extinguisher.”

Then he adds Galrahn's comments:

I am beginning to wonder where [COIN] becomes a priority towards national security, and how we get to the point this becomes national security as opposed to imperialism. Understanding a culture in COIN is a means by which we implement cultural influence, and potentially force cultural adaptation. Toward what strategic national objective in national security do we participate in this doctrine?

I ask this question because Zenpundit is on to something when he calls this “The Kilcullen Doctrine.” I think there is enormous potential here for positive and effective results, I’m just not sure I see the answer to the “why” question though…

Joseph then turns up the flame on this debate by posing this question.

I wonder if asking for a grand strategy is asking too much from the American system of government. There have been few epochal grand strategic thinkers in American history: Hamilton, Wilson, Kennan, perhaps Jackson, Mahan, FDR, or Kissenger. Hamilton was the greatest of all. Talleyrand, himself an epochal figure whose grand strategy of legitimism ruled Europe from 1814-1914, once wrote, “I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton”. Hamilton adopted a system outlined in three of the greatest grand strategic documents ever written (First Report on Public Credit, Second Report on Public Credit, Report on Manufactures) that was so potent that even his Jeffersonian opponents adopted it whole hog by 1815 and followed it, excepting a Jacksonian interlude between 1830-1861, with stunning success until 1945. The first grand strategic dilemma that the Hamiltonian grand strategy encountered was the spectacular and sudden elevation of American power during World War I. America went from playing the role of challenger and spoiler to the role of nascent hegemon. This was beyond even Hamilton’s seemingly premature and grandiose predictions of future American greatness:

"I shall briefly observe, that our situation invites, and our interests prompt us, to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe by her arms and by her negociations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority, she has long maintained, has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority; and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America–that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed a while in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the controul of all trans-atlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!"

Hamilton's words ring out across the ages reminding us that greatness flows from the pens of patriots whose motives are love of country, not personal gain and power.

Drawing on others who have tried to articulate a grand strategy, Joseph offers his own thoughts to carry this important dialogue to the next level.

In part he writes:

If we’re looking for a rationale behind the Kilcullen Doctrine, perhaps this would suffice. America expects a world of nations. In many parts of the world, there are no nations. America’s grand strategy should be to make a world of nations. This means that grand strategy should aim to establish a global dictatorship of law. Any law will do, as long as it keeps a nation’s citizen out of other nations’ hair. The maximal expression of this grand strategy can be American soldiers going into every nook and cranny of the ungoverned world and using COIN-fu to magically subject the riotous locals to the power of law or it could be the global minimum of collectively punishing a group of tribesmen who don’t think of themselves as a nation as if they were a nation. It certainly encouraged the indigenous inhabitants of this continent to develop a sense of nationhood.

Read more: Grand Strategy Through the Lens of Schizophrenia

I whole heartily recommend reading Joseph's post and the other's linked above. This is one of the most important topics facing our future. If we as a nation, by the very nature of our fluid form of governance, has a hard time formulating a grand strategy we citizens must join the debate with informed voices, un-encumbered by partisan politics and motivated by love of country.

Collateral Damage

Bombing mission Afghanistan

Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Attack Configuration

A1D Skyraider

Stryker Force

Corvette

Reading the 8 May SWJ Roundup by SWJ Editors the articles about Afghan civilian deaths caused by airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets tiggered a flashback of forty year old memories. Air strikes in the proxmity of civilians seem to be our Achilles' heel, also known as Collateral damage that first surfaced during our long war in Vietnam and appears again, as we try to swat suspected sites from 20,000 feet. The lesson lost on most, is that when you kill some farmer's wife or child you will have endorsed a irrevocable contract with the farmer and your enemy to see you dead or gone.

Afghan Civilian Deaths Present US With Strategic Problem - Greg Jaffe, Washington Post.

US Admits Civilians Died in Afghan Raids - Elisabeth Bumiller and Carlotta Gall, New York Times.

Reading these reports bring to mind times in Vietnam when air strikes were called and we would wait to see who would show up. Early in the war 1965-67 often times it would be the A1D Skyraiders, slow moving almost indestructible fighter-bombers who could carry the same payload of a B-17 of World War II fame. The Official Website of the A-1 Skyraider Association.

When the Spads, as they were called, showed up, the ordnance was usually placed right on target as the pilot was able to see where he was dropping his load. The throb of their piston engines played the overture, as they roared in, 20's blazing at a tree line before a package of 500 lbs bombs shredded the enemies lines saving many a trooper to fight another day. If it were the fast movers the F-4's and F-100's, they would come in either at a steep dive bomb slope or zip by dropping their load at speeds that left little chance for correction, hence it seemed that to keep from hitting our guys they would error on the side of caution and often times the ordnance would hit wide of the mark. This is not to denigrate those brave souls flying the fast movers,

they were there to protect us at great risk to themselves and for that they will always deserve my undying gratitude.

But when, we are working in areas like Afghanistan where the innocent and the bad guys are blended into the same soup, we need to consider other means to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

In a related post, Galrahn of Information Dissemination turns from the sea to look at Wings Over Somalia as a way of furthering the discussion on what to buy to meet the security challenges of the next decade.

I found this link within the post to illustrate that finding a way to put ordnance on target and reduce civilian deaths is getting a lot of traction. AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes has solicited 64 Comments » which shows the level of interest in finding a solution to this problem. The reality is, we need to have alternative platforms to preform the missions that appear to be the current bread and butter of the air assets of this nation. The A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" has been preforming this service in Iraq and Afghanistan and as noted, takes an incredible amount of maintenance time to keep them flying. They continue to be up-graded and rebuilt to extend their long service life. But they are getting old and the replacement the F35 is an expensive platform that is yet to be proven. The discussion now centers on finding an light to medium attack aircraft that is better suited to small wars.

The Army and Marine Corps land forces have been in the forefront of adopting to this new environment by adjusting from heavy tracked fighting vehicles to the wheeled Stryker and LAV 25 and the up-armored HMMWV which are more capable of operations in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The challenge for the Air Force and the Navy is to adjust to the conditions that require more risk. Sending out soldiers and airman to confront the enemy close-up will expose them to the enemy fire. I understand the trade off, you are not going to risk a billion dollar investment against the collateral damage that may occur. But, when it does happen, paying off the families survivors is only the tip of the iceberg. When that family, in the traditional law of revenge, allows the Taliban to set up an ambush that kills an American soldier or two, what have we gained? If we strike back by bombing the families compound and kill the rest, their extended families will just sharpen their daggers to be ready to carve another notch in their AK's stock when they draw the inevitable American blood.

The Navy has been finding that sending battleships to chase pirates is turning out to be expensive and not very successful. In response to the tremors to introduce mission capable ships echoing across the blogs,Where is the 10% in the Navy's fleet constitution strategy? and Influence Squadrons - The Next Evolution, to the halls of congress Notes From Last Thursday's House Subcommittee Hearing and onto the desks of planners in the Pentagon is demands for smaller craft that hearken back to the days of sail and gunboats, when sailors would see the eyes of their enemy.

Since this type of war is fought for the hearts and minds of the indigenous people of the nation we are trying to help, blowing them up along with the enemy will only guarantee the enemies success by convincing them that we are the bigger threat. As we remained engaged in Southwest Asia and someday soon in Africa, we need to have the tools to surgically remove the threat without destroying the patient.

UPDATE:

The Small Wars Journal has this post, by James A. Gavrilis, a former Special Forces officer who has served two tours in Iraq, who writes.

One of the most profound changes the U.S. military must make to be effective at countering insurgency is to shift strategic centers of gravity from the physical to the human aspects of warfare.

The nature of counterinsurgency, or unconventional warfare, differs from conventional warfare in a very important way: the population is the center of gravity. We say this, but what does it mean? How does it change operations? How do we implement this idea? Many of our military leaders are still trying to answer these questions. Our military has a predisposition to focus on enemy forces and capabilities and the confrontation between friendly and enemy forces, with little emphasis on the social or political context within which the confrontation takes place.

Read more: A Model for Population-Centered Warfare

This bookends the argument that winning the hearts and minds is the mission and the source code to defeating a counterinsurgency.

April and the Return to Conflict.

Just to see if you're paying attention!

Piracy April 2009

April is the first full month of spring and just as life begins to bloom after a long winter of dormancy, the human pursuit of war stirs itself and becomes manifest amid to the pockets of disconnected societies. Piracy took center stage for a while this month as Americans celebrated the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips, just before they were forced to return to navel gazing and to consider national self-flagellation as a way to make amends for decisions made by the previous administration over the use of waterboarding to extract information from terror suspects.

While all this is going on, piracy has been on the rise for the first three months of 2009, with April now standing at 44 seizures of ships by pirates around the world. Galrahn of Information Dissemination, has two posts among many that focus on this problem. The first recounts the record set this month for pirate attacks.

Galrahn's final comments set the tone to backtrack and read the whole post and examine the accompanying map that illustrates the growing menace of global piracy.

Given how the pirates have picked up on modern technology, they are probably watching the weather just like the experts. In the case of piracy in the Strait of Malacca earlier this decade, the massive south east Asian tsunami played a major role in curbing the activity. One thing to watch for is a tsunami that could potentially hit one of these pirate cities and wipe out the boats used for piracy. Weather is a significant factor one should always keep an eye on.

Read more:
April a Record Month for Modern Piracy

In this second post, Galrahn offers several options that have an historic ring that will leave an astute reader humming the Marines Hymn.

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea.....

This analysis assumes that if the policy regarding the use of military power stays at the current level, which is in essence ineffective despite current record levels of international naval assistance (which will dwindle in the weeks ahead), the problem will get worse as the weather improves over the next few months and the Obama administration will see its leadership credibility globally erode. This is a potentially debatable position, but history does not suggest ineffective action in the face of serious security problems that are only getting worse leads to good things.

This raises the question, if we know the diplomatic efforts are going to take a long time to develop, what tactical actions should the Obama administration approve for the military to buy time for the long term Somalia policy to form? This analysis looks at three possibilities: engage from the air, engage on land, and engage at sea.

Read the whole post to see what tactic Galrahn favors in this well thought out essay.
Tactical Options for Fighting Somali Pirates


As a nation we struggle to swat away at the bees that seem to sting us at will while our elected officials dither in a return to hyper-divided politics along two fault lines. Big war industrial vs the COIN advocates and ideologues who demand prosecution for past sins vs let's do anything short of pulling fingernails to protect the country. The idea of redirecting the country efforts will take a consensus of agreement like those worked out by such visionary leaders as Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Eisenhower. Many had high hopes that President Obama would be in the mold of these past leaders whom brought the experience of consensus building to the office. The ball is in his court as to see if he is able to keep the ideologues of both sides from tearing the country to shreds under his watch.

Meanwhile around the world, several countries have begun to redirect the focus of their national defense posture to reflect the changes that they perceive in the future. The following links take a brief look as some of the alignments by two of our allies and a troubling development by the hermit kingdom.

Great Britain

This short article by Isabel Oakeshott and Michael Smith, The Times looks at Britain's plan to focus on the future by adjusting her forces to confront the kinds of wars she has fought the past half century.

BRITAIN’S special forces are to be dramatically increased under plans being drawn up by the government.

John Hutton, the defence secretary, will this week signal radical reform of the armed forces in response to “lessons learnt” from the war in Afghanistan, where specialised units are seen to be playing a vital role.

Read more: SAS to Expand in Army Shake-up

Australia
Is also planning for contingencies as they encounter a new pallet of defense issues as noted in this article by Patrick Walters in The Australian.

Kevin Rudd is set to announce Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet, and powerful new surface warships.

Read more:White Paper Orders Huge Military Build-up

In a companion piece, Patrick Walters takes a closer look at the proposed increase in Australian Naval power.

The naval and air power build-up is the key component in a more powerful defence force that the Prime Minister sees as essential to preserving Australia's security in a more turbulent world.
The white paper is the latest manifestation of Rudd's ambition for Australia to be able to act as a significant middle power in the Asia-Pacific region.

It is also a recognition that the power balances in our region are undergoing a historic shift with the rise of China and India.

Rudd understands that in a generation's time Beijing's formidably expanding military power could challenge the long-held military dominance of the US in east Asia with destabilising consequences for regional security.

Read more: Naval Boost a Bid for Regional Power

And finally, the hermit kingdom is again acting like a sociopathic step-child, who finds that when the focus seems to stray from providing them handouts, that banging nuclear fuel rods together brings the great powers running with armloads of goodies to sustain them until the warehouses are empty.

North Korea

This in from an article in the New York Times by CHOE SANG-HUN.

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea announced Saturday that it had begun reprocessing thousands of spent nuclear fuel rods, adding that it would use plutonium extracted from the rods to make nuclear weapons.

The announcement came hours after the United Nations Security Council placed three North Korean companies on a United Nations blacklist for aiding North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs.

Reading about them has become tedious, as they stick their proverbial thumb in the eye of the six powers and the UN.

Read it if you want: North Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Work

Well, that should give any reader enough to contemplate and for most, drive them to flee to their favorite spring resting place to in bide in an adult beverage. Let us hope that We as a nation keep our eye on the ball and the future. It is not the wall we must worry about running into, it is the small things we can trip over. Looking back with a vengeful eye will cause us to trip and fall and break our neck over one of those small things in our path.

In the Finest Traditions of the United States Navy

The news this Easter Sunday that Captain Richard Phillips has been freed by the United States Navy and three of the pirates killed and one captured were executed in the finest traditions of the American Navy. Here is my initial take. We see a small group of trained men took direct action to end this first act of taking an American ship by pirates in two hundred years. The navies of the world have deployed to the region and so far have been less than successful in preventing pirates from taking their pickings of the thousands of ships that traverse those waters. My own take is that the real benefit beyond presenting an image of universal unity is an exercise that might be described as naval butt sniffing, where the world navies have a chance to sniff out each others operational methods. This awareness is leading to what Galrahn has described this way in his post Leveraging Success Going Forward.

If the US takes a deep breath and practices both patience and statesmanship, this situation will produce a framework for cooperation and mutual trust and confidence among the nations of what Tom Barnett calls the "Functioning Core." The US should do nothing that delivers the message that there is one set of rules for us and another for the rest of the world. Moreover, we have a chance to "lead from the edge" by actually listening and adopting the ideas of other nations. This is a priceless strategic opportunity that should not be wasted.

I have linked several posts that address suggestions for tackling this problem. Even though Somalia pirates are not a direct threat to our national security, they do impact our global community and at the same time as noted above offer us opportunities to move forward.

First a look at how this problem is growing.

Somali Pirates: A look since 2005

And now for solutions and comments

The US Must Speak so the Pirates Understand

An Indian Ocean “Influence Squadron” Forms

How to Beat the Somali Pirates

Piracy: The Only Solution

To get an idea of the number of ships in theatre is this order of battle provided by Information Dissemination from April 4, 2009. 5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle.

The cost of maintaining this international fleet is in the billions and judging the level of continued piratical success is tactically a failure.

.

Suggestions for dealing with this have ranged from convoys, small green water influence squadrons, to taking out the pirate bases. One idea floated was to station armed guards aboard ships transiting this region. This tactic was used during World War II when United States Navy Armed Guard was placed aboard merchant ships to protect against uboat and air threats.

[Steve Schippert] of threatswatch offers a similar view Somali Piracy: A Practical Solution -

Here is my opinion on this idea. If this tactic is adopted and modified to the conditions of this region, two things will be accomplished. First, and foremost any attempt to attack a ship would be met with the same kind of force that ended this latest act of piracy. Secondly, the cost of providing this protection would be lowered to levels that are sustainable to both the nations and the shipping companies. The true benefit would fall back to the common citizen who sees his tax dollars used more effectively and the cost of goods competitive.

Small teams could be inserted onto the ships as they approached the danger zone. The teams would have to be well armed with enough firepower to sink any of the small boats that are used to challenge them. In the same fashion of shotgun guards on stagecoaches in the 18th and 19th century they would become a known deterrent after the brigands become aware of the threat.

These teams would ride shotgun until the ship passes the danger zone and then are flown back or pick up a ride on a ship going the other way. The fear of arming crews would be eliminated as well as having weapons carried on board. This is no more dangerous than banks hiring armed guards to deter robbery.

This mission could be shared by the seafaring nations who could contribute their security teams under the mandate of the UN and following the time tested maritime rule that pirates be dealt with deadly force whenever encountered. The only time that conflict would occur is when the pirates attack. Small fishing boats or even pirate boats acting as fishing boats would be free from harm. The upshot of any successful attack would be that the pirates would insure themselves and their brethren a level of assured destruction in the response that world opinion would demand.

This leaves the pirates to prey on small craft which have been their bread and butter for the past two thousand years. Short of eliminating the pirate bases and entering into nation-building in a country with limited resources to sustain such an operation, we are faced with continuing to spend billions to police this vast area with limited results or find an effective way to make ships pirate proof with the add on measures described above.

The Armchair Admiral and the Zen

The observations of galhran of Information Dissemination have graced this blog before and today is no exception. Joining in, is Mark of Zenpundit who offers a counter-point to Galrahn's post on Mexico.

First, in a followup to a post I wrote last week Naval Hearings, The Ships, The Crews and The Mission in The 21st Century comes this in depth review of the hearings written in a balanced tone that finds more in common among those testifying than previously mentioned.

Both Dr. Barnett and Dr. Thompson agreed on two interesting points. First, if we build an interoperable national fleet in the spirit of the Navy's maritime strategy we will get good results. Second, the fleet is not likely to get larger without smaller, cheaper warships. I enjoyed the way Dr. Barnett puts it in his written testimony:

Read more:

Notes From Last Thursday's House Subcommittee Hearing

And then in his capacity as a guest blogger at for the United States Naval Institute Blog,

Galrahn adds his thoughts to the conversation began by Mark of Zenpundit about whether Mexico is a failed state or as Galrahn suggests a weak state.

Quoting DNI, Admiral Dennis Blair.

"Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. [Let me] repeat that. Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. The violence we see now is the result of Mexico taking action against the drug cartels."

The important observation by Galrahn addresses our COIN strategy and raises an interesting point with this statement.

My point would be this: there is no value in the cartels overthrowing the Mexican government because its existence helps them more than its absence helps them.

But this is my larger point. There are currently zero, none, nada 4GW/COIN/Whatever military solutions for failed states; our emerging 4GW/COIN/Whatever doctrines, strategies, and theories only apply for weak states that have legitimate governments that can be supported. Failed states are problems that can be handled, even in an ugly way, by conventional military forces. The danger to US strategic interests is not failed states, as is often claimed, rather the real danger to US strategic interests always comes from weak states.

Read More:

Failed States Are Worse Than Weak States

I agree with his final assessment that if the cartel's take out the legitimate government our options become certain. Currently, we have few options other than supporting the current Mexican government in their efforts to overcome the cartel's grip. The important issue is that another voice is added to the conversation, which is what Mark was attempting to do, by raising the question in the first place. It is better for us to prepare for every contingency by launching discussions that air the views of all who look south with concern for our neighbor. Mark, has responded with Galrahn's post this way.

I found Galrahn’s argument to be very intriguing. There’s the issue of Mexico specifically in his post and then Weak States being worse than Failed States as a general rule. First, Mexico:

The thought experiment I penned previously aside, Mexico is not yet a Failed State and I hope it does not become one - though I would not wager a mortgage payment on it staying away from catastrophic failure. Mexico is definitely, in my view, already a Weak State suddenly resisting the process of being “hollowed out”, slowly, by vicious drug cartels. I wish President Calderon well in his efforts to crush the narco networks, but just as America cannot avoid admitting that our drug laws are impacting Mexico severely, let’s not let the fact that Mexico’s ruling oligarchy has also brought this disaster on themselves with their self-aggrandizingly corrupt political economy escape comment.

Mark concludes by asking for input.

That brings us to the general question of, is a Failed State better or worse than a Weak State whose tattered shreds of international legitimacy prevent robust foreign intervention? I am going to “punt” by inclining toward judging on a case-by-case basis. “Failed State Botswana” is not likely to impact the world very much nor is “Functional State Congo” going to look very good next to anything except Congo as the Failed State that it is. Now “Failed State China” or “Failed State Russia”, that has consequences that are the stuff of nightmares.
What do you say? Which is worse: Weak State or Failed State?

Read more Is A Weak or “Hollow” State Worse than a Failed State?

Both men are carrying the ball forward and presenting forums to discuss the issues before they become a full blown crisis that catch America unprepared. One of the main examples carried forth by Thomas Barnett in Great Powers is for people to get involved and in effect create their own public policy. For Americans this means discussion between all those interested in their nation and a free society I invite everyone who reads this to take the time to consider this issue, read, join the discussion it's free and will be welcomed by all.

The Underwear Incident Revisited

San Nicholas Island 75 miles west of Los Angeles.

Incident off Hainan Island

The incident last week involving a thinly disguised American spy ship, posing as an oceanographic survey ship and five Chinese spy ships posing as fishing boats, continues to simmer across the blogosphere. The big War crowd cries, "Beware! we told you so! those dirty communists are at it again." While other's are taking a more pragmatic view, by criticizing China for actions more becoming the hermit kingdom than a rising great power. The following is a series of posts from distinguished blogs looking back, after some of the fog has burned off.

A post at the United States Naval Institute Blog by Springbored! offers this advice from the past, regarding the "Underwear Incident."

As Chinese and American warships ships go toe-to-toe in the seas off China, I find myself wishing Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. was still alive.

The venerable Admiral knew China. In the closing days of World War II, he helped China re-occupy the Yangtze River, and found his wife–a Harbin native–in the chaos of 1945 Shanghai.

Admiral Zumwalt also knew how to confront challenges at sea. As a young captain of the guided-missile frigate Dewey, Admiral Zumwalt kept his cool as Russian vessels charged to within 50 yards of his new command.

Read more:

A Wise Admiral’s Advice To China:

Galhrn the master of Information Dissemination weighs in with these comments.

His concluding words will encourage you to read the whole post.

There has been speculation that China reacted strongly to the Impeccable because the Impeccable was tracking one of the new PLA Navy nuclear submarines out of Sanya. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming US-China military meet and greet goes. Depending upon the results of that meeting, it is possible we may end up with confirmation what the US was doing, and why China decided to react so strongly.

Read more:

China Measures Reaction in South China Sea

And joining the conversation in childing the Chinese and reflecting the direction of the previous post is this from Tom Barnett's weekly column.

China's naval shenanigans

Those aggressive and immature Chinese are at it again: sending their spy ships to harass our spy ship as it conducts submarine-related surveillance in international waters off their coast. Our new director of national intelligence warns that this is the "most serious" military push back we've encountered since 2001, when the Chinese forced down one of our spy planes right off their coast.

Sense a pattern? I'm not a China expert, but it strikes me that Beijing manufactures a new spy crisis every time we field a new president -- like clockwork.

Read more at Thomas Barnett: China’s naval shenanigans: the young and reckless

Checking out what your neighbor owns, has gone on ever since Fred Flintsone spied Barny Rubble bring home dinosaur steaks and threw a fit of anger in to Wilma that Barny wasn't sharing.

Not to make light of this incident, but before we get our underwear in a twist and let either side ramp up what may turn out to be a little emperors syndrome or as Tom Barnett notes, an immature nation testing the resolve of a new American President. If we remember the 2001 incident, it was a lot more provocative, and it passed. Or back in 1999, when NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during Operation Allied Force, it too passed.

To put the distance from Hainan Island in prospective. The map of the California coastline shows San Nicholas Island off shore in the Santa Barbara Channel. San Nicholas island is 75 miles from Los Angeles, the same distance our ship was operating out side their major naval base on Hainan Island. Freedom of the seas is protected as well as the rules of navigation. A polite request, goes further than juvenile behavior.