Thoughts on gaining a strategic balance in the Pacific

U.S. Navy

Chinese Navy

A couple of day ago I discovered this opening paragraph on a blog that I read daily.

I'm going to slow down my posting as we approach the holiday season. The reason is actually two fold. First, my wife is due to have our third child at the end of December, and I still have many things to get done before then. Second, Christmas is approaching and I am absolutely committed to finish reading all the books I have purchased and not yet read this year so I can restock via a delivery from Santa.

With the budget basically being a 90 day hanging curve-ball, I figure now is as good a time as any to step back awhile.

I became resigned to the terms that Galrahn, master of the most cutting edge naval centric blog, Information Dissemination had put forth. But, as the next couple of days have shown, before he slows down or begins to fore-go sleep and free time, when joy is visited on the good master's home.

But in advance of that time and for the present, Galrahn has put up two dandy posts that exhibit his insight and ability to gin up the questions and be Socratic in his approach to posing questions about the future and utility of having a strong navy. He began with a post where he begins discussing US primacy in Asia by extensively quoting from a speech by Malcolm Turnbull, an Australian government minister.

...A humiliation that in the 20th century included the brutality of the Japanese occupation and rape of Nanjing, and in the 19th, the Opium Wars which were the equivalent of the Medellin Cartel sending a nuclear submarine up the Potomac and threatening, successfully, to destroy the Capitol and White House unless the US disbanded the Drug Enforcement Agency...

Galrahn, goes on to comment on this speech.

From a strategic perspective, I note that - finally - we see a legitimate political leader (and as expected, outside the US) at least attempting to raise the topic of policy options should US primacy not be maintained in the Pacific.

He then adds a link and quotes from an article from Hugh White in the NYT's, that supported Trunbull's views, then ends with this Socratic question.

As China builds up military resources and capabilities commensurable with their economic growth, how should the US respond? Whose strategic vision of the future includes US prosperity and security regardless of whether China is the largest economy in the world or not?

Read more:
US Primacy in Asia: Not Inevitable

Then before the day was even half over another thoughtful post appeared; based on the previous primacy post, and assumed top billing as it added another log on the great meeting fire circle that hosted the converging views that were sure to be drawn into the discussion he had stoked.  Relating back to an earlier time when he was invited out to meet with his globe trotting uncle who introduced him to how global business works by bringing him along on several important meetings.

I learned a lot, no question, and many things I learned that week have stuck with me through the years, but there was one 3 hour meeting I attended where those gathered discussed the shift in the late 70s away from the gold standard towards the global economy today, and over time I have come to accept their argument as a quiet truth understood by those on the global side of big money: The Gold Standard was replaced by the proverbial F-16 Standard in 1979 to save the world during a global energy crisis. It was at that time America's debt economy was born.

Because of overwhelming US military power and because the US was willing to use force when necessary to protect interests, it was believed that no competitor to the US dollar would ever emerge until a competitor to the proverbial F-16 emerged first. Keep in mind, these are bankers and strategy consists mostly of risk management in their world. The only safe bet in the emerging global economic order that included many new players participating as resource contributors was the raw power of the United States to back the US currency by force.

After watching the banking crisis of the last few years and the war of the last decade, I frequently wonder if the proverbial F-16 standard even exists in the minds of global bankers anymore.

Basing the remainder of the post on an article by author Robert Kaplan, Galrahn ends with this analogy.

To use a simplistic and imperfect historical analogy as bloggers tend to do, I would suggest strategic balance in East Asia is achieved as long as the US emerges as Athens and China emerges as Sparta, and the global security environment and global economy is managed better than it was by the ancient and modern Greeks respectively. If that happens, the 21st century has an opportunity for a prosperous and promising future. However, if China strives to become Athens and US policy continues to be driven by the Spartans in the DoD; Australia, everyone else in the Pacific, and Washington, DC should not only be preparing for, but expecting war. 

Read more:
The AEGIS Standard Towards Strategic Balance

Galrahn raises important questions that like a thread of logic draws in information from a galaxy of sources to craft important questions and provoke thought about the role that the US Navy has played and needs to play in the future.

Fast Battleships: The Aegis System of World War II

USS Iowa plowing ahead on a new mission

Become a plank owner below

A month ago, I wrote about the New Mission for the USS Iowa BB-61 the lead ship of the last battleships build for the US Navy. Today, I wanted to revisit the Iowa and write a bit about the history of battleships in World War II, where their original mission to defeat the enemy fleet as decried by Alfred T. Mahan and his writings that had influenced naval doctrine since the turn of 20th century, was re-purposed to provide what we might dub the Aegis System of World War II.

World War II saw the methods of sea control move from the barrel of  a 16" main gun battery to the air and under the sea. The battleships before the new classes of North Carolina and South Dakota could not keep up with the fast carriers, and consumed too much fuel to be deployed to support the early landings in the South Pacific. The newer classes arrived in the Pacific in October 1942, where they found a new mission of providing a massive platform for anti-aircraft guns to help fend off attacking planes that threatened the carriers. The Battle of Santa Cruz Islands, October 26, 1942 saw the effect of what the anti-aircraft firepower of the new battleships could do to protect a carrier. The American Order of Battle was divided into two groups; the USS Hornet, protected by two heavy cruisers, two anti-aircraft cruisers, and six destroyers, with a combined firepower of 72 5" DP guns and numerous 1.1 anti-aircraft mounts. The USS Enterprise group was protected by the USS South Dakota, one heavy, and one light cruiser and 8 destroyers with an equal battery of 1.1 anti-aircraft barrels and added 40 MM barrels on the South Dakota. The results of the battle saw the Hornet sunk, and the Enterprise damaged but surviving the onslaught of over 100 Japanese planes, with the South Dakota credited with shooting down 26 of the attacking planes by putting up 890 rounds of 5", 4,000 of 40MM, 3,000 1.1 and 52,000 rds. of 20MM.

South Dakota firing on Japanese bomber Oct 26, 1942

flak from South Dakota and San Juan

USS South Dakota Oct 26, 1942

I am not one to second guess history, but the concentration of having such a robust anti-aircraft gun platform as the South Dakota, supported by the antiaircraft cruiser USS San Juan CL-54 seemed to be the deciding factor in the Enterprise surviving to fight again. The effect of the lesser armed destroyers, in the Enterprise group was impacted when the USS Porter which carried no effective 5" guns, was accidentally torpedoed and required the assistance of another destroyer to rescue her crew in the height of the battle which potentially removed five 5" barrels from the fight. One can only surmise what would have happened it the Enterprise had been lost, or had there been no fast battleships ready to answer the call on the night of November 14-15, 1942.
As the war progressed, the six fast battleships were joined by the new Iowa Class ships, along with the their older sisters, re-floated, and re-armed with scores of anti-aircraft guns that produced such a volume of fire that when used with the new proximity fuse shells, saw no further losses of battleships or fast carriers, with only the light carrier USS Princeton being sunk during the battle of Leyte Gulf. In a time before guidance systems like the AEGIS, the battleship was the last line of air defense during the horrific final months of the Pacific War.

The Iowa class battleships brought 10 twin barrel 5" mounts, 20 Quad 40 MM mounts, and 49, 20 MM guns, which concentrated to put a wall of steel in front of any attacking foe, as the flag plot below showing five battleships surrounding four carriers will illustrate.

The effect of these great ships was also felt as they turned their main batteries to soften up every invasion beach after Guadalcanal which will be the subject of future post.

But for now, I want to pause to invite anyone reading this who has not already done so; to considering parting with a few dollars and becoming a Plank Owner on the USS Iowa as she prepares for a new mission of becoming the host of an education center and museum , devoted to preserving our naval heritage and the memory of those who served their country so valiantly. To those of you who live close to San Pedro, or in the bay area, where she currently needs volunteers to assist in painting and restoring her vast deck, I would invite you to fill out a volunteer pledge application and lend a hand in something you can tell your grandchildren about.

So in the immortal words of US Marine SGT Dan Daly,  lets see if we can all step it up and join the effort to make this the finest historical center on the world, devoted to our Naval heritage.

Gorillas, Battleships and America's global presence

Goma, DRC, by Pascal Maitre, Natl Geography

Mountain Gorilla, Joel Sartore-Natl Geography

Like many of the posts on this blog, the topic springs from something I read and was moved to tie them together in an effort to provide a ginned up intersection where the ideas can be perused and pondered in an effort to inform, or encourage understanding that will help foster an opinion. Today the catalyst came from an article I was reading in the November edition of National Geographic Magazine about Africa's Alberttine Rift and how an exploding population is fostering unrest and will in all probability see an extinction of the Mountain Gorilla and other species, as people impoverished by war and the highest birth rates on the planet, overrun the national game parks in a search for arable land. The article richly illustrated with photos of both paradise and human conflict, informs the reader and asks the question, "is there enough for everyone?" The conflict has been blamed on ethnic rivalries, but the competition for natural resources has led to conflict that has seen over five million people die due to disease and starvation brought on by constant tribal and ethnic war. In the short run, this part of the world is not part of the strategic interest of either the United States or any great power. That said, some unnamed great powers would be happy to see the population kill each other off, so the resources would be easier to extract for their own needs.

Read more:
Rift in Paradise

This morning, as I checked the latest posts on Facebook in what has become a sort of town meeting bulletin board, where friends and publications post the latest links to relevant articles, I was drawn to a link to an article a fellow faculty member had posted. The article  questioned the ability to continue to sustain a overwhelming military presence in the face of the need to retrench our global military footprint in order to again move forward, and not end up on the ash heap along with other former great powers. The article by Joseph M Parent and Paul K MacDonald asks the reader to consider whether it is necessary or sustainable to continue the present level of military commitments across the globe. I don't agree in total with their prognosis, but it merits consideration for the valid questions it raises.

Read more:
The Wisdom of Retrenchment: America Must Cut Back to Move Forward

There are several good reasons to question the wisdom of building platforms to fight the last wars well into the future. Just as it is important to remember our past history before believing that societies don't change or challenge even their closest trading partners. One only has to read the first chapter of Ian W. Toll's new book Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941-1942 to gain an understanding of how Japan moved from a feudal society to challenge the combined might of the United Kingdom and the United States in less than a century. However, just as then, we might be possessed to be preparing for the last war with massive building programs spending billions on a few massive platforms such as this reported by Galrahn, at Information Dissemination.

The enormous cost of this new surface combatant in the context of an emerging age of global naval power growth and more capable anti-access, area denial capabilities raises legitimate questions regarding the future force structure of the US Navy. As the high end surface combatant suffers from legitimate mission creep, now requiring capabilities towards military superiority against ballistic missiles, combined with all the other tasks found in the development of multi-mission capable warships, is the Navy properly accounting from a holistic perspective the impacts of more and more investment in sustaining multi-mission capable ships that can perform at the highest end of every mission area? How long can the Navy sustain generational growth at the high end of surface warfare at a cost of an extra ~$1 billion added cost per ship before the fleet is too small to meet the primary mission of the Navy vs the threats given primary mission focus for the Navy?

Read more:
AMDR Will bring very high fleet costs

Galrahn is not done questioning the present direction of shipbuilding, and posts this about the need for having more Amphibious Ready Groups or ARG's.

While ARG deployments in the Pacific are old hat for the Navy and Marine Corps, it is becoming increasingly rare to see an ARG deployed from either coast to spend any significant amount of time anywhere other than operating under CENTCOM command in the 5th fleet. I have heard many suggestions that the Makin Island ARG has been working overtime during deployment preparations training for activities specific to activities one might find around Somalia and Yemen - like piracy. If I was a pirate warlord, my advice is to take the best deal you can for ransom as soon as possible, and start looking for a new job with less associated risk.

All I'm saying is that I have noticed the US is giving the Horn of Africa a lot of attention lately, and if we are ever going to see a shift in US policy towards piracy, that policy change will arrive in the form of an ARG that added extra training specific to the piracy issue - and a new ARG just deployed to that region following rumors of intense anti-piracy training....

...For the record, Bataan ARG represents a visible data point regarding the need for more amphibious ships. When amphibious ship deployments start breaking modern deployment length records - which WILL happen with Bataan - that means the Navy has not built enough amphibious ships. Politicians in Washington have held many hearings on the topic of dwell time for the Army, but right about now I'm thinking the Navy and Marine Corps folks who have been on ship for over a year in training and deployment are probably wondering who the hell their dwell time advocate is in Washington DC. At what point will Congress get the message that without more amphibious ships - which consistently has by percentage the highest number of days at sea annually of any surface vessel type - the nations leaders are asking way too much of the smaller, always desired but usually-overlooked-by-big-Navy amphibious force. 10 months is a long time for a battalion of Marines at sea, but because they are Marines - no one will ever hear a single complaint about it.... 

 Read more:
The Makin Island Deployment - Another Reminder the US Needs More Amphibs

Now one might ask what does our naval preparedness has to do with Mountain Gorillas and the conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa? The on going greater need seems to be to field platforms that are able to both control the sea lanes in the tenor of Alfred Mahan's vision of a great power, as well as continuing to do what we have done the past decades since the end of World War II and after the Cold War; by spreading our source code of free enterprise, and encouraging a global middle-class that will ensure peaceful decades for our grandchildren. The above articles are shared in order to capture your attention to the world we live in and that we can't do everything, nor can we ignore the gorilla in the room any more than we can ignore the poverty of spirit and natural hunger. We can't intervene, but we can do as we have since the founding of the republic and the launching of the Six Frigates that founded our navy and used our naval power for the greater good.

 Our own nation is resilient and over time, do as Winston Churchill used to say about us. "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

            

An "Oh Sh*T" Moment or Three!

I was moved to title this post with an asterisk censored exclamation borrowed from the title of a recent post by Niall Ferguson, Author and Professor of History at Harvard University. Ferguson pulls no punches in a hard hitting essay that traces the decline of civilizations to a sudden drop off a cliff than a slow gradual decline over centuries. He explains the decline in these terms.

In my view, civilizations don’t rise, fall, and then gently decline, as inevitably and predictably as the four seasons or the seven ages of man. History isn’t one smooth, parabolic curve after another. Its shape is more like an exponentially steepening slope that quite suddenly drops off like a cliff.

If you don’t know what I mean, pay a visit to Machu Picchu, the lost city of the Incas. In 1530 the Incas were the masters of all they surveyed from the heights of the Peruvian Andes. Within less than a decade, foreign invaders with horses, gunpowder, and lethal diseases had smashed their empire to smithereens. Today tourists gawp at the ruins that remain.

Note these examples of how the great civilizations of the past ended their running with the bulls.

The Roman Empire didn’t decline and fall sedately, as historians used to claim. It collapsed within a few decades in the early fifth century, tipped over the edge of chaos by barbarian invaders and internal divisions...

The Ming dynasty’s rule in China also fell apart with extraordinary speed in the mid–17th century, succumbing to internal strife and external invasion. Again, the transition from equipoise to anarchy took little more than a decade.

A more recent and familiar example of precipitous decline is, of course, the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, if you still doubt that collapse comes suddenly, just think of how the postcolonial dictatorships of North Africa and the Middle East imploded this year....Here yesterday, gone today.

Ferguson lists five institutional innovations that he dubs "killer applications" that allowed the West to surge ahead of all of the Rest, beginning in 1500.

Western Civilization's Killer Apps

COMPETITION Western societies divided into competing factions, leading to progressive improvements.

THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Breakthroughs in mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology.

THE RULE OF LAW Representative government based on private-property rights and democratic elections.

MODERN MEDICINE 19th- and 20th-century advances in germ theory, antibiotics, and anesthesia.

THE CONSUMER SOCIETY Leaps in productivity combined with widespread demand for more, better, and cheaper goods.

THE WORK ETHIC Combination of intensive labor with higher savings rates, permitting sustained capital accumulation. 

Ferguson presents troubling statistics to back up his view that we are hurtling like the train above, towards that cliff, and our own "Oh ShiT! moment. He then turns to describe what can be done to "reboot the system" and do, what he says Americans have always done;  kick start our instinctive loyalty to those "killer applications" of Western ascendancy.

Read More: America's Oh Sh*T Moment

Now if you want a couple of more possible "Oh Sh*T" moments to wake up too; try these possible scenarios. IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability

And Israel's possible response. Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear capabilities?

Finally, for a real slide down a mile long razor blade into a pool of alcohol is this story from The Atlantic. Read about how Pakistan moves their nukes and our plans for keeping them from ending up in the wrong hands.

Pakistan lies. It hosted Osama bin Laden (knowingly or not). Its government is barely functional. It hates the democracy next door. It is home to both radical jihadists and a large and growing nuclear arsenal (which it fears the U.S. will seize). Its intelligence service sponsors terrorists who attack American troops. With a friend like this, who needs enemies?

The Ally from Hell!