re: "Will R2P become NMP"

Cdr Salamander at the Naval Institute Blog ("a venue for thoughtful, vigorous debate on naval and security policy") generated some decent lessons-learned while the civil war, er, revolution, er, "humanitarian intervention" was still going on.


Money quote(s):


"The Battle of Tripoli will work itself out, as will the conflict over time. We can pick it apart then in reasoned hindsight. There are other things a few levels out at the POL/MIL level that are a lot clearer and worth discussing."


As it did. The Law of Unintended Consequences, however, has not been suspended.


"Something that came out at the beginning; “Responsibility to Protect” known by the shorter, R2P. The concept has been embraced by decision makers such as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. A form of “Humanitarian Imperialism” – it is something that over the last few months we have heard less of. The reasons are clear; Libya still isn’t worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier, and both sides are responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of civilians. So much was heard early that we were there to “protect civilians,” but time has shown that some civilians are more important than others. There is no appetite anywhere for Western boots on the ground to execute “R2P” in Libya’s cities. As long as African migrants are kept in Africa and the oil flows – NATO will be more than willing to move from R2P to NMP – Not My Problem. Few really believed that was the reason for intervention anyway – at least the serious." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


R2P is just as scary a prospective "international norm" as anything else to have come down the pike in recent years. Yet, the more it becomes part of "international law," the less likely it will become anything more than what it is now: a figleaf for use when intervention is in support of some other, less noble-sounding, national interest.


Recall that once "genocide" became a crime under international law (and a treaty was widely signed that obligated states to act to prevent/stop it) all kinds of lawyering and tap-dancing ensued to call what were clearly ongoing programs of genocide from what they obviously were, just to avoid having to actually do anything about it.


"When sustainable logistics and baseline C4ISR are defined as “unique capabilities” – then the facts of NATO non-USA military capacity should be very clear."


Essentially, what are (with a straight face) termed the military capabilities of most (if not all) of our NATO allies amount, in an international sense, to the niche capabilities of our own various state National Guard entities. They provide often useful specialties, but can't function in combat unless they're embedded within a larger, coalition, deployment. Assumed (but un-said) is that the U.S. will always be there to provide the larger context and support.


"(T)he essential effectiveness and efficiency of the CV/S/N once again has been proven. Land based air has its place – but any distance makes the ability to provide persistent effects from the air over the battlespace prohibitively expensive compared to a carrier off shore."


CAA has, for years and in different venues, held that one of the essential characteristics of a superpower in the modern-to-current era are the ability to develop, deploy, and maintain global force projection capabilities. Since World War II and the dawn of the nuclear age, that has meant the following: inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM) of the nuclear variety (may be ground or sea-based) and the aircraft carrier battle group.


(Experience has caused me to add expeditionary ground forces but let's not go down that particular rabbit hole today.)


If you've got an aircraft carrier (and the screening and support forces it requires to successfully deploy), you can project air power just about anywhere excepting the far interiors of Central Asia and Antarctica.


"Whatever happens in Libya will happen. No one outside a few fringe-types will light a candle for the Gadaffi family of thugs. They have been a blight on the planet for decades. What happens next will be up to the Libyan people. We should all wish them luck and hope that something positive can come out of this."


Hat tip to The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.").

8/23

re: "The AEGIS Standard Towards Strategic Balance"

Galrahn at Information Dissemination ("The Intersection of Maritime Strategy and Strategic Communication") examined what's really behind the curtain.

Money quote(s):

"(T)here 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."

I've occasionally suggested that U.S. currency ought to be backed by precious metals such as Uranium or Plutonium, but apparently I lack the sublety exhibited by bankers back in the 70s.

"Kaplan says "Armies respond to unexpected contingencies, but it is navies and air forces that project power." This is similar to something I believe to be a constant of 21st century national security policy; which is that armies project force, but it is navies and air forces that project power."

Harking back to my International Relations 101 course taken oh-so-many moons ago, I recall that "power is the ability to influence the course of events" (whereas my Basic Engineering 101 course taught me that "force equals mass times acceleration," but that's not the kind of "force" being discussed here).

Power, in terms of national security policy, is projected by things that can influence the course of events beyond our national borders. In terms of hard power, that means things like ICBMs, carrier battle groups, strategic bombers, and expeditionary ground forces. The ground forces come last on that little list because, a.) they take longer to get where they can "influence the course of events," and, b.) the distance at which they can influence events is much less.

"Does a world where China becomes the worlds largest economy strike me as a strategic concern? Honestly, by itself; nope. China is the most important trading partner to the United States today, and I see that achievement for China in alignment with US economic advancement in the 21st century, and economic advancement by the US has historically also driven social and technological advancement for the United States as well. With that said, the brilliant and creative Stan Lee was right - with great power comes great responsibility.

What concerns me much more is if China fails to mature within the liberal global order over the next few decades and simultaneously attempts to achieve primacy of the global oceans through naval power."

What does Galrahn mean by "mature" in that last sentence? Does it mean China morphing into a liberal democracy operating more-or-less peacefully within the existing global economic and Westphalian nation-state system?

"(T)the proverbial F-16 standard - once the replacement for the Gold Standard that placed the US dollar at the center of the global energy currency market - is itself slowly being replaced by the proverbial AEGIS Standard that protects the global trade lines-of-communication towards insuring global currencies can exchange in the spirit of commerce in the 21st century market."

11/30

re: "Aircraft Carrier: Chinese Territory In Any Sea"

Michael Mandaville at Big Peace explains why this is important.

Money quote(s):

"The socialist People’s Republic of China is expanding its influence by refurbishing the Varyag, a Soviet era aircraft carrier, renaming it the Shi Lang. The carrier is expected to start sea trials later this year. An aircraft carrier is a strategy to project power far from the homeland. The mere presence of an aircraft carrier has far-reaching effects in the realpolitik between nations. To defend Taiwan, the United States sent aircraft carriers between the island nation and Communist China to warn against aggression. When finished, the Shi Lang is expected to be a formidable presence, especially when combined with other combatants into an anticipated Carrier Battle Group."

Wait a minute! Isn't the Varyag supposed to be converted into a casino? Wasn't that what the end-user certificate said? How in the world were we ever fooled like this by our strategic partners, the Chinese?

"The carrier’s loaded displacement (weight) of 67,000 tons will enable it to host as many as 50 aircraft.

The Chinese Navy has a roughly 75 surface combatants, 60 submarines, more than 50 medium and large amphibious ships, 70 or more missile boats and several hundred patrol craft. The surface combatant contingent primarily consists of Destroyers and Frigates. Most are the Chinese produced Luda or Luhai class with four Russian Sovremmony class destroyers. The frigates, which are smaller but capable ships, are the Jiangwhei and the Jianghu class. These ships are not as advanced as the American Aegis class cruisers but they are stepping stones to more far reaching naval ambitions."

As our navy shrinks, to the point where we have more admirals that ships, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy grows, ship by ship and capability by capability.

"In 2006, a Chinese submarine stalked an American Carrier. The Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine trailed the Kitty Hawk battle group which has cruisers, submarines and helicopter anti-submarine detection capability. Undetected, the Song class surfaced within five miles of the carrier – well within the firing range of their Russian wake-homing torpedoes and their anti-ship cruise missiles. The incident proved a keen embarrassment for Admiral Fallon who heads U.S. Forces in the Pacific and has aggressively engaged the Chinese military with exchanges and even invitations to sensitive U.S. military bases. The Chinese have not reciprocated with similar invitations to their military bases, perhaps proving that an American open hand offered in friendship merely shows its Communist adversaries that it holds no weapon. The Song class captain would not have shadowed and embarrassed the U.S. Carrier Battle Group without permission from China’s masters. They did so to prove American vulnerabilities – and perhaps the mettle of their own submarine fleet against the vaunted U.S. Navy. Moments like this allow the PLAN’s leaders to request bigger budgets and prestige within the Communist hierarchy. Now it is they who are confronting the Americans in ‘their’ Pacific ocean."

Can't find fault with that analysis. Keep reading:

"The Chinese have been visiting ports far and wide, including the Gulf of Aden, the Phillipines and even battling Somali pirates on patrol. They are upgrading the carrier for ‘research and training’ purposes according to an article in the Washington Times. The Chinese have been struggling to create a navy beyond their coastal force over the last few decades."

China has been more than a regional naval power in the past, but you have to go back some few centuries to see it. In living memory it just hasn't happened.

This time around they're the new guys on the global block and have something of a learning curve ahead to master all the interolocking and moving pieces that come together to generate naval force projectiong. But they've gotten started.

"I discovered the demographics intertwined with economics driving the Chinese goal. With a burgeoning population and more than 100 million unemployed, the Communist Party must keep the economy pumping. If not, then social unrest results. For the last four or five years, this social unrest has been percolating and popping across China. The corrupt Communist party officials have routinely ignored the people and the people’s democracy. The PRC has routinely used its security forces to slam down hard on political and economic grievances."

Demographics and economics are the corpses at the banquet for China. China must keep its economy growing even as its population ages and tens of millions of young Chinese males grow to an adulthood where there are no young Chinese women for them to marry. In the short run this means ensuring access to overseas resources (i.e., open sea lanes) no subject to any other nation's interference. In the long run there may be no easy answers.

"Riots and bombings, more common in the rural area, have moved into the cities. These acts don’t directly threaten the Socialist Dictatorship, but they do alarm the Communist hierarchy which uses ’social management’ like internet censorship and police presence to neutralize any threats. And these are not just a few incidents. When China does something, the word ‘big’ almost always enters the picture."

So they're like Texas that way.

"To keep their economy going, China needs resources and oil. This strategy is in line with their overall quest to extend Chinese PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy) influence well beyond their traditional coastal defense imperative. Oil lies in the disputed islands of the South China Sea and vast natural gas reserves lie under the Senkaku Islands controlled by Japan but disputed by Chinese nationalists encouraged by Beijing. Influence. Energy. Territory. The only direction for them to go is outward. And the next logical step is the 4.5 sovereign acres of national territory that can move anywhere. An Aircraft Carrier."

An aircraft carrier battle group is the platform for sea-based force projection centered from anywhere you're able to sail it. It's like having your own fortified, nuclear-capable mobile island.

re: "Soft power, or flaccid power?"

"The Phibian" at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") is always insightful with regards to the naval aspect.

Money quote(s):

"As an already dangerous nation started to disintegrate last week, I heard it first from Charles Krauthammer - the phrase that always comes up when something nasty turns towards our people or a national interest - "where are our carriers."I don't know about you, but I count this as a moment of national shame last week. The world's greatest naval power, its citizens in danger and need evacuation by sea - and our answer is ...."

Apparently the only U.S. warship in the entire Mediterranean Sea, and area I always to have a Fleet dedicated to it, was a destroyer, and one rather pre-occupied beyond mission parameters.

"I know the argument that the American military presence would be destabilizing - but I just say it is wrong headed in the extreme.

At this touchy moment - letss not even talk about which ship is where. What the Big E is doing and not. If there is a CSG and an ESG in the Gulf of Sidra or the Gulf of Mexico - or on liberty in Caan; it does not matter to the argument ... but we'll get to that later.

For an untold number of times, American citizens have relied on the Navy-USMC team to get them out of a country falling apart. Our citizens in Libya are lucky that things did not go south. Nod our heads and be thankful that we got lucky this time. Ask yourself why we did not have other ships out there, and know we are not alone.

I think the nations of the world are re-discovering the joys of having and effective navy - and the consequences of not having one."

As a consular officer, it's always been a source of reassurance to know that my Navy and Marine Corps colleagues had my back, especially since consular officers are virtually the last official Americans to be evacuated, occupied, as they/we are with assisting in the evacuation of American citizens.

"(I)f you ever wanted to create air supremacy - a no fly zone if you will - either to cover evacuations or to keep the Libyan runt Air Force from bombing their own people - there is only one way to do it - with Aircraft Carriers. Big deck aircraft carriers. Way to far for land based air even if you could get basing rights.

If you want to do it for any length of time, you need two at a minimum. Longer - three. Two American and one French would be nice. Two American and then perhaps Brit/Italian/Spanish as help would be."

It's an awfully big world out there. Since nearly the founding of the Republic, the U.S. Navy has helped ensure that freedom of the seas and of navigation meant something more than an aspiration. They've made it stick. But they can't do that from the Pentagon, from Norfolk or San Diego; they have to have hulls in the water and sailors to crew them.

re: "Muddy Boots"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") noticed SecDef Gates' speech at West Point.

Money quote(s):

"Mr. Gates’ predecessor notably regretted having to “go to war with the army you have,” rather than the one he wished he had. To me that means having a ground combat element capable of the full-spectrum of military missions, from humanitarian assistance, to training foreign indigenous forces to combined arms mechanized maneuver.

This is not to say that you’d ever seriously contemplate another nation-building mission as we’ve attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we ought to retain a nation-breaking power, and when it comes to enemy ground formations that cannot be done with air and naval power alone – someone has to hold the hill and plant the flag, even if only to haul it back down again once the enemy’s will to fight is broken.

To me the secretary’s speech sounds like we’re tailoring our missions to our budget, which is not in itself an irrational thing to do. But we might as well be honest about it, and admit that we’re voluntarily curtailing our ability to project power in traditional ways in favor of I’m not exactly sure what."

re: "Will the Pentagon Always Be Able to Evacuate Americans from Hotspots?"

Michael Rubin at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") asks a most excellent question.

Money quote(s):

"In Lebanon alone, the number of American citizens numbered in the tens of thousands, even though many hold dual citizenship and perhaps only a fraction would request assistance. Add Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen to the mix, and it becomes an open question whether the American military has enough forces in the region to evacuate American citizens should violence (or insurance companies) prevent airplanes from flying into unsettled countries."

"Cutting force projection not only affects future combat missions but also humanitarian relief whether in the form of evacuations or tsunami relief."

&

"(A) vote for cuts would not only undercut the ability to project force globally but would also remove the ability to protect American citizens should many countries simultaneously experience unrest.

Congressmen should also ask the State Department to explain how, in the aftermath of broad-based defense cuts, they will manage evacuations of American citizens absent the same level of military assistance that they can count on now."