Today is All About the Navy

This mid-week reads look to the sea, which our entire history as a nation has been our highway and a great barrier that has kept the foreign wars of the past two centuries from spilling onto our shores. In that vein I turn to look at the Navy and the indispensible branch of the Marine Corps. The past nine years of ground war has cost over 40,000 killed and wounded and cost $800 billion dollars. In the age of austerity, paying for the war means taking money away from other defense projects in order to maintain the field force and fund innovations in IED protection in the form of new mine resistant vehicles and detection instruments.

I am no expert on naval strategy or procurement but several of the blogs I follow have been in the forefront of the absolutely critical topic of maintaining our presence as a naval power. Currently, we field the strongest Naval presence in the world, but will that be the kind of fleet we will need in 5, 10 or 20 years? To help wrap your minds around what is changing, check out this post and the photos of  swarm tactics used to harrass a Chinese convoy in the Gulf of Aden. Then read this from Andrew Erickson and this from War is Boring and tell me if the fleet we have is what we need in this back to the future world of a hybrid assmetrical naval warfare envoirnment.

As noted, a few blogs have been in the forefront of thinking ahead and posing the really tough questions the fly in the face of those who are protecting their version of the early 20th century dreadnaughts. To get up to speed I would refer everyone to make Information Dissemination, United State Naval Institute Blog, CDR Salamander and this recent addition to my blog links, New Wars. These blogs are the tip of the spear in discussing and keeping Americans informed on the present and future of America's first line of defense it's Navy.

Here is a taste of what Mike Burleson of New Wars has to say about the The Navy's New Look Part 1 and Part 2.

Here is just a taste of how he sees the Navy in ten years in 2020.

Giant aircraft carriers as the mainstay of the fleet will begin to disappear. There will probably be only solitary examples in European and Asian fleets, but the mighty US Navy will only possess a handful, none likely in full service or with complete aircraft complements. They will be brought out for the occasional brush-fire wars, but their huge expense in crew and operating costs, plus vulnerability will see their day end as surely as the dreadnoughts which they preceded.

Their place will be taken by much smaller multipurpose assault carriers, which can carry V/STOL planes, UAVs, and helicopters, plus armed Marines and their equipment. Even these will not be needed in huge numbers and will be used only in benign threat areas because of the missiles.

The Marines will be busier than ever, only their “second army”, heavy brigade status will be over. They will act as small raider teams in littoral operations, plus serve as armed guards and manned riverine craft such as CB90 boats. For larger operations, they can land from submarines, joint high speed vessels, or even larger sea lift ships like T-AKE, which can carry more troops while being less costly than an amphibious warship.

Conventional submarines (SSKs) will return to USN service, the amazing abilities of the nuclear attack boat outweighed by its immense cost, advanced skills and construction complications, plus declining numbers. By 2030 at least and for the first time since the 1960s, the SSK’s will outnumber nuclear boats in the American fleet.

The surface fleet will begin to grow enormously with the return of the flotilla. With the Navy seeing its need to be in the littorals, logically they will turn to shallow water warships, such as corvettes, patrol craft, fast attack craft and dedicated anti-mine warships. The attempt to pack all these capabilities in a Blue Water frigate, the mediocre but gold-plate littoral combat ship, will be recognized as the failure it is. Likely only 15-20 of the LCS will be built, used only in an underarmed mothership role for small craft, or perhaps as an assault transport for Marines.

Production of large destroyers will likely cease, only because we already possess so many with no peer adversary having any one ship comparable as the 60-70 Arleigh Burke class. So these ships will linger around for sometime in various guises and with successive rebuildings. Because they are so capable, with Tomahawk cruise missiles, Aegis, and soon unmanned vehicles, they will be able to project power as no other warship since the aircraft carrier, only in a vastly less costly and visible package.

And here is a suggestion to counter those pesky swarming fast attack boats.LCS Alternative.

Finally, I pass along this most excellent post about the on-going mission by the USS Mercy to South East Asia. This post from The USNI Blog begin:

While most of the defense community’s attention is firmly fixed on McChrystal-gate, my focus is on the softer and often overlooked side of US Navy operations. Pacific Partnership 2010 is the fifth in an annual series of humanitarian and civic assistance operations projecting US soft power in the Pacific Rim. This year, USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) is visiting six nations, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Timor-Leste. To give these servicemen the credit they deserve, below is a series of photos from Pacific Partnership 2010. Enjoy.

Pacific Partnership 2010

A Few Thoughts on Iran

This past week the news out of Iran has come via Twitter and Utube, that in our time is as significant as the telegraph was when it began to send instant reports singing along wires in dashes and dots, over one hundred and fifty years ago. At first, the MSM was out of the loop and spent the week catching up to what is becoming a replay of 1956, 68, and 89 when the population of a repressed society took a stand. Armed with green headbands and cell phones millions of Iranians took to the streets to send out 140 character bursts of information that in it's brevity resembled those early telegraph messages.

As the week progressed Congress responded with resolutions as the President held his bully pulpit in check amid some criticism that he needed to speak out more forcefully. The blogs have blazed hot with opinions and reports linking the Twitter reports as some began to write thoughtful pieces that tried to make some sense of what we as a people who value liberty as our bedrock creed should do or not do to help the Iranian people.

Thomas Barnett leads off today with this piece written for Esquire magazine.

Having followed the machinations of Iran closely for the last two decades (hell, I pretty much got a major player fired for following the place so closely), there's no doubt in my mind that Tehran's theocracy — sensing the looming furor we've seen from its contested outcome — fixed last week's Iranian presidential election. Not that former prime minister Mir Hussein Moussavi would have won the election outright, but it's entirely conceivable that, if the fix wasn't on, he could have forced a second-round fight with an uncertain outcome — or, worse, the sort of angry popular protests (and, worser still, angry mourning prayers) we're witnessing at this moment. Clearly the religious regime was having none of that (yes, it could have been worse and, yes, there could have been even more thousands of Tweets and riot officers). So the powerful mullahs, I'm pretty sure, chose to manipulate the vote count and portray President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's otherwise probable victory as an undisputable landslide.

Read more: Why Obama Should Let Iran's 'Red-State' Regime Die on Its Own

In a related post Barnett calls attention to this article written the day before the Iranian election.

"What If Israel Strikes Iran?" by John R. Bolton, Wall Street Journal, 11 June 2009.

Tom defines the article this way.

The gist appears in the call-out text: "The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb."

Iran won't close the Straits of Hormuz, nor cut its own exports to raise global prices, nor directly attacks U.S. forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor launch missiles against Israel. It will unleash Hamas and Hezbollah and that's about it.

Then Bolton tries to sell with contrary logic: "This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse."

The deuce you say.

Read more:

Bolton's breakdown on Israeli strikes--a green light subtly lit

Others have added their views and support.

Iran: Helping Tweets Stand Up to Bullets By Nicholas Kristof

Arguing Iran by abu mugqawama

My worry: Budapest '56, Tehran '09 by Tom Ricks Foreign Policy Blog

Facebook, Google Go Persian, Aiding Iran’s Activists at Danger Room at Wired

Some of the Web’s leading firms are rolling out new features, to accommodate worldwide

interest in the protests in Iran — and to not-so-subtly help out the pro-democracy movement inside the country.

Iranian Election: Clockwork Orange at Threatswatch

Much like Stanley Kubrick's 1971 movie Clockwork Orange, Iranian elections are irresistibly difficult to watch. And this election has all the hallmarks of being more than just another sequel, but rather that rare occurrence where it is even more compelling (and irresistibly difficult) than any of its serial predecessors. One of the smartest - and most principled - Iran experts, my friend Michael Ledeen, explains ably just why this is. Their [open demonstrators by the thousands] candidate is the former...

The Tragedy of the Iranian Elections at Steve DeAngelis of Enterra Solutions

It's hard to recall an event that held so much promise but resulted in so much crushed hope as did the Iranian presidential election; perhaps the events twenty years ago in China's Tiananmen Square comes close. The run up to the election was really quite extraordinary. The debates were candid; the accusations were as mean-spirited as any found in U.S. elections; and enthusiasm for change was high. Washington Post op-ed columnist Anne Applebaum notes that even in light of subsequent events, the election did expose a soft underbelly of Iranian politics.

Finally this from Threatswatch (Warning Disturbing Content) Neda: The Voice of Iran

Her name was Neda. It means the 'voice' or the 'call' in Farsi. And in a struggle largely fueled by Iranian women's demands for rights, Neda most tragically becomes the Voice of Iran. It is heartbreaking to watch, with her...

I have refrained from writing too much about this situation. My son's mother is from Iran and that side of the family has many members still living in Iran. They have my prayers and have asked me to not write too much as they believe that the time unfortunately is not ripe enough for a true regime change. The ruling elite and their Revolutionary Guard still hold all the cards as well as the arms to suppress any uprising. Gandhi like non-violent protests have no effect on a regime that from it's earliest beginning, sent children off to be martyred by the tens of thousands in the Iran/Iraq War and is willing to hang and stone women for social crimes.

What Hath Jefferson Wrought?

Map of Democracies
Green-Democracy---Tan-Partial free--Red--Authoritarian

Map of Economic Freedom

Map of Freedom of Press



Two hundred and thirty two years ago today, a document was published in the city of Philadelphia, in the rebellious British American Colonies, that declared the intentions of those present to formally break their union with the British Crown. The author of that document Thomas Jefferson, went on to become the 3rd President of the republic and during his term, set in motion the expansion of the country that ushered in Louisiana Purchase and the United States becoming a continental and eventual world power. Much has been written lately about Jefferson's personal short comings in his relationship with the people he held in bondage. That fact can not be removed from any discussion of his life. However, one must look at the whole of a man's life to measure his worth.

.

At the age of 33, Jefferson was tasked with writing the Declaration of Independence , whose introduction to the world we celebrate every July 4th. It is a day once filled with tradition and pomp, that with time has faded to the singular evening fireworks show, a symbol of our martial and bloody birth. Reflection of what this event and the document that spawned it means to both the United States and the World, has been placed in our collective attic, to gather dust, and await for another generation to re-discover.

.

In a recent post, stratigist and author, Thomas Barnett defined the United States place in history this way. America's historic role in starting, defending, and spreading the international liberal trade order--arguably the single greatest force for good in human history.

.

One only has to look at the maps shown above, and reflect on the number of people who are better off world wide today, compared to a few short decades ago, to understand what Barnett means.

.

Our place in history began with the document above, that flowed from the pen of Thomas Jefferson as he defined the natural role of man, as he had come to believe. Some parts of the document were marked out in order to make it more palpable to some of the slave holding states. That part, blamed King George for the vile institution of slavery. Had Jefferson not struck that phrase, the colonies would have divided and most likely the revolution failed. Jefferson's Account describes the reason behind removal of any reference to slavery.

.

The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it.

.

The Revolution was successful and the United States was born, a republic, not perfect by any means, but an instrument of the people that could be formed and reformed within the confines of United States Constitution. It has taken hundreds of years for the nation to reach the full measure of equality for all. The process is still underway, within the infinite wisdom of the founders, the mechanism for this change is built into the fabric of our nation.

.

The lasting legacy that is illustrated in the maps above show what Jefferson Wrought, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Liberal democracy, economic freedom and freedom of the press are all present in countries who have followed the lead of our founding fathers. As countries become connected to the growing international family of free trade and connected to the free exchange of ideas, democracy follows. We Americans started all the above when one man took up his pen and set to words what became the declaration of a people to affirm their right to free expression and control of their destiny.

.

On this day, Happy July 4th before you step outside to do what ever you have planned, take the time to reflect on that warm summer day so many years ago, as our country began what has been called a grand experiment in self government.

.

Below are a few posts about the Fourth of July.

.

The Fourth of July

.

Reflection Day

.

Flightdeck Friday: Independence Day Edition 2008

.

Declaration

.

And in closing, two examples of our Nation at it finest.

.

These Guys Are Making a Difference

.

Last Day in Nha Trang

A History Lesson for Reflection on Sunday

Today, and for the past five years we have been engaged in trying to jump-start democracy in Iraq. The question is it worth it, lay on the minds of all reasonable people.

Tom Barnett's Sunday column offers a short lesson in American History that puts our own timeline of democracy in prospective.This week's column.

"Americans spend little time remembering our history, preferring to focus on current and future accomplishments. That attitude gives us a bit of attention-deficit disorder when it comes to judging other countries' political evolutions."

His column addresses a pet peeve of mine that many Americans not only have the attention-deficit disorder, but seem to fall into two categories.

Those who see America's development faults as un-erasable sins, that condemn the country for not instantly becoming a Shangri-La with the Declaration of Independence. And those who only see the gilded myth of "A City on a Hill" that grants us the right to see our system as an elixir, curing all ills, and offered by edict and imposition to failed states.

What Tom Barnett does in less that 750 words is a worthy lesson in American History:

It took America quite some time to develop this democracy we cherish.

Remember that when you decry "sham" elections abroad or declare single-party states "dictatorships." Because if mature, multiparty democracy was so darn easy, everybody would have one.

Adding a more recent example of the difficulty in developing a democratic society, is an article in the Washington Post Iraq Is a Mess. But Germany Was, Too, by David Stafford, author of "Endgame 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II."

And if that is not enough to reflect upon. Here is a post by LT G in Iraq, who gives a lesson in the Rules of Engagement . Irony would have it that his latest post, relates to Barnett's lesson on America's founding. Dead Guy Quote (10) .

Leadership?

The news this week has focused on the failure of leadership. A sex scandal felled a governor and the revelations of a candidate's personal pastor, threaten to impugn the integrity of that candidate's perception to be a unifying force for change.

I will not offer my personal opinions on the above issues, the MSM, talk radio and other blogs will cover these stories ad nauseam. However, the events are symptomatic of America losing it's middle ground.

Several posts this week highlight this problem. Eating Their Own posted on Zenpundit notes:

There appears to be an emerging civil war in the Democratic Party flowing along generational, ideological, gender and racial lines that has just spilled onto one of the premier sites of the Left blogosphere, the DailyKOS:

And continues with another post entitled, On Synchronicity and Other Variables cross-posted on Zenpundit and Chicago Boyz. This post speaks to the importance of media in conflict and offers insightful comments in an op-ed by:

Blogfriend Matt Armstrong was recently featured at the USC Center for Public Diplomacy where he had a very thorough and well-considered op-ed on Information Operations and New Media.

The supporting comments reinforce the necessity to:

.....craft some kind of coherent narrative of it’s national objectives, policies and values.

It is well worth taking the time to read, along with Matt Armstrong's linked op-ed to understand what is at stake.

Finally, Tom Barnett's weekly column for Scripps Howard and KnoxNews, entitled, Losing America's middle ground means losing our way directly addresses this issue.

He writes about his own experience in working in the national security community and how he has almost always found that they all have the best interests of the United States at heart. He goes on to note that many people no longer believe that:

I also know many citizens don't believe that. They sense everything is decided by cabals and secret programs and groups you've never even heard of..........Most people see too many movies and don't read enough material that accurately describes the day-to-day workings of things, so their images of policymaking tend to be very dark and nefarious.

Barnett writes that shortly after 9-11 it was cool to be working for the USG. But:

Today, the tide seems to be turning quickly back to those earlier days:........People feel powerless over events, and so they go to blogs and discussion boards and type in statements I couldn't deliver as an actor they're so angry and out of control.

This speaks directly to, Eating Their Own linked above.

Tom points out what is missing is a middle ground because:

....... there is a profound mismatch between our current grand strategy fixated on terror and what most Americans feel needs to be something visionary and more positive -- not just the future to be prevented but the one worth creating.......The next president better address that mismatch or we'll see the moral vigor of this nation continue to decline in dangerous ways, especially during an economic downturn.

This leads back to the title of this post, Leadership? It appears this is lacking in massive droves today. Personal responsibility is only taken when trying to cop-a-plea, after the truth comes out. Many including Tom Barnett hold out hope that Barak Obama's appeal is one of hope, but the latest revelations may torpedo that appeal.

In balance, Barnett, standing in the middle ground also sees an appeal in John MaCain, Handicapping McCain.

Only time will tell, as Tom's final sentence states:

People don't join a cause they mistrust.

I have noted before, that the United States has been blessed to have an almost unbroken chain of leaders from Roosevelt to Reagan, who were able to communicate and maintain the heroic myth that every nation has as it’s cornerstone. This myth is not false ideals, it is the ability to communicate the idea that the future will be better, while assuming responsibility for current conditions. Technocrats and single barreled laser-sighted leaders, have always failed to lead and inspire because they lacked the skills to stand in the middle ground and bring both sides together.

Democracy in retreat?

The previous post about Waving Goodbye to Hegemony called into question the future role that the United States will play in world affairs. Germain to that argument is the role that democracy will play in the future.

An old professor I once had, told his world history classes that it all boils down to "it's the money stupid." Kinda sounds like a political slogan.... But...is that always the case?

A recent article in the Financial Times by Niall Ferguson entitled, Feature: Slow but sure looks at the current state of democracy in the world.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56514caa-cbb2-11dc-97ff-000077b07658.html

He asks:

Has the democratic wave broken? Is the tide of political freedom now ebbing after the spectacular flow that began in 1989? Recent events on nearly every continent certainly give real cause for concern to those who dream of a world governed by the ballot box rather than the bullet. But they may also provide an overdue opportunity to think more realistically about the way the process of democratisation works.

The article goes on to highlight the countries that have retreated from democracy and those who have found economic success, sans a democratic system.

However, recent economic developments have weakened such arguments. The world economy as a whole has never enjoyed a boom like that of 2001-07. Yet democracy has gained little from all this prosperity. Moreover, the most rapidly growing economies in the world since 2000 have not been the democracies

Ferguson offers a different view to explain the success of democratic systems by examining England's democratic heritage.

The England of the 1860s was, in short, hardly a model democracy, quite apart from its still-restricted franchise. Was there corruption? By today's standards, certainly. Were the rich over-represented? Without a doubt. Yet three things are striking about the system Trollope so vividly describes. First, the political elite were agreed in condemning any kind of political violence - even the threat of it - out of hand. Secondly, those in government did not hesitate to leave office, and all its perquisites, if they felt their parliamentary position to be untenable. Thirdly, the overwhelming majority of MPs on both sides accepted the sanctity of the constitution and supremacy of the law.

Ferguson offers only one panacea for ensuring democracy's will again flourish. That being the respect for the rule of law.

The key to spreading democracy is clearly not just to overthrow undemocratic regimes and hold elections. Nor is it simply a matter of waiting for a country to achieving the right level of income or rate of growth. The key, as Stanford political scientist Barry Weingast has long argued, is to come up with rules that are ''self-enforcing'', so that the more they are applied, the more respected they become, until at last they become inviolable.

Our own system on some days calls into question whether those with wealth and power are willing to leave the stage gracefully. As the election approaches all concerned Americans should pause and consider the future they want for their children.