re: "Chinese Dragons and Russian Bears"

"Sam Huntington" at Always On Watch ("Semper Vigilans") reviewed strategic issues involving our near-peer competitors.

Money quote(s):

"(A) far more dangerous situation is developing in Asia. No surprise, Americans are not hearing about any of this from the state-run media. Here are a few examples:

· China is claiming island territory within fifty miles of the Philippines.

· Chinese frigates regularly intruded Philippine territorial waters.

· Chinese ships fired upon Philippine fishing boats.

· Chinese naval vessels rammed Vietnamese fishing boats (See Note 1)

· Chinese accost Indian naval vessels operating off the coast of Vietnam, demanding to know why they are operating in Chinese waters.

· Chinese military aircraft intrude into Taiwanese air space.

· China intruded Japanese mainland territorial waters on 14 occasions.

· China intruded Okinawa territorial waters on 10 occasions.

· China created six major incidents with the US Navy at sea.

· Raise your hand if you aren’t aware that North Korea is China’s redheaded stepchild.

Note 1: Vietnam possesses one of the world’s largest armies: (China: 4.5 million, Vietnam: 5.9 million)."

You know the one about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics?

Well, in terms of international relations, geopolitics, and grand strategy, the professionals are studying China.

"Danger of a regional conflict is real. The consequence to China’s arrogance has been a dramatic increase in military spending among Southeast Asian countries. Australia, Japan, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have all dedicated billions of dollars on new or upgraded military hardware. The United States is upgrading naval facilities in Guam —so much so that Representative Hank Johnson(D-GA) worries the island may capsize. Nevertheless, all of these countries recognize the wisdom of pooling their resources to keep China in check; Japan has taken the lead in establishing mutual defense cooperatives with Australia, South Korea, India, and the United States. Singapore has offered to provide bases for the US Navy."

CAA no longer worries that Guam will become overburdened, over-balanced, and capsize, having received assurances that Guam possesses a sufficiently sturdy keel and gyroscopic stabilizer.

"Owing to the fact that we don’t know what motivates Chinese behavior, the Australian General Staff worries that a mistake could lead to disastrous consequences —particularly when it is likely that China will attempt to use its military to enforce a Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The problem is that while demanding that other nations treat Chinese EEZs as its sovereign territory, China routinely refuses to acknowledge the EEZs of other nations. From the standpoint of international law, EEZs are not sovereign territory. We can therefore see how China might regard the US Navy’s mission to safeguard open sea-lanes as an intolerable trespass —a situation that could lead to deadly confrontation."

It's the old "what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-negotiable" attitude turned somewhat sideways: China will use existing international norms and fora to its own advantage and ignore those which infringe upon its own interests. That's what one does when one is the center of the Earth, after all.

"Some politicians argue that given China’s dependence on global trade, a deadly confrontation is unlikely. They may have forgotten that economic ties did not hinder German aggression at the beginning of the 20^th Century —a costly mistake for France. ....but here is where we find the real and present danger. Defense cuts may encourage China to challenge allied nations within the region of Southeast Asia —they are that arrogant."

Nor did close economic ties deflect World War I; for that matter, the United States' close economic ties with Saudi Arabia deter the 9/11 attacks.

(Marx notwithstanding, man is not solely, nor even primarily, an economic animal.)

"From Russia’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to threaten the United States and NATO with pre-emptive strikes unless we agree to cancel the so-called Missile Defense Shield, designed as a safeguard from Iranian ICBMs."

This seems a little over-the-top; threatening pre-emptive strikes is way more sabre-rattling than is necessary. Russia has far more effective economic and political levers to pull than jacking things up on the defcon meter.

"If one understands international relations, Russia’s timing couldn’t be better. We should anticipate this sort of behavior by an adversary whenever they perceive American leadership as weak, incompetent, ineffective, or confused."

Harsh words, but hardly unwarranted.

The "reset" button must have been like those ones installed near crosswalks: not really wired to anything but they give pedestrians something to do with their hands while waiting for the lights to change.

"This situation should once again remind us that American politicians and diplomats seldom learn important lessons of history. America cannot afford another war right now. Neither can we afford the perception of weakness, incompetence, or abject stupidity. We continue to live in a dangerous world"

Diplomats actually aren't slouches when it comes to learning their history lessons; however if you expand your definition of "diplomat" beyond those actually trained and experienced in it to those who practice it on our behalf at the highest levels....

"Rather than facing a deadly and costly regional conflict in Southeast Asia, it would be far less expensive to deter Chinese aggression vis-à-vis a strong military presence along the Pacific Rim. As for the Russian Bear, they understand but one thing: force or its promise."

5/4

re: "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"

COMJAM at The Lexicans ("A home for us all.") marked the end of an era and the loss of a national asset.

Money quote(s):

"It’s oft said in Our World that you can tell a person’s journey through their time in the service by the little bits of colored ribbons on their chest. While that’s often the case, when it came to the folks who flew in VQ-2 (and VQ-1 as well) that really wasn’t very true. For as was written by SJS, they were in the shadows. Deliberately and with intent. You don’t advertise where you went or what you did. For many years, not even their aircraft were marked with much more than maybe the star-and-bar, a small Modex and a US flag. When they stepped off their land-based aircraft, when far afield, they wore a coat and tie, and you never departed with more than a military ID card, cash and dog tags." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Like the t-shirt says: "It's a small world, but a Black one."

(Those who know, will know.)

"(W)hat they did mattered. It mattered to the Flags. It mattered to the Task Force Commanders, the Fleet Commanders, the Regional Commanders. It mattered to Langley and to Ft. Meade. It mattered in the EOB and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It mattered to the few folks in the Air Wing who maybe, once upon a time, had Been There and Done That, then slipped away, usually to ride the Cadillac and spout offense ‘trons at those who grieve them and their fellows and it mattered to the few who’d been “read in.” They were a rag-tag bunch of loveable hooligans and cast-offs oft as not, and that led to some memorable pairings, when CAG would insist that someone, some has to, you see, “take care of the VQ Det, please.”

Sometimes it was, remarkably, the fighter squadrons who took them under their protective embrace, ensuring that they became as much a part of the Ready Room as their own." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Smart commanders want the collectors to feel they're part of the team, because they are.

"The Bean Counters won, in the era of The Great Unilateral Disarmament. The Cold War was won, and we were experiencing the End of History. We had other things to do, and after all, there were land-based planes to Do The Work, and they didn’t shoot things nor dropped stuff, so what good were they really? The “program” had cost lives; many, many lives lost over the decades. Planes that went out and simply did not come back; maybe some wreckage, maybe an angry accusation from someone, somewhere; maybe some rumors from the depths of the Gulag. It was all very, very messy. But the beans must be counted and the budgets paid mind to. The turf battles for what money there is continue. Since they now flew only one kind of aircraft, the two subject-matter expert squadrons were brought “home,” leaving behind decades in-theatre, where they built up a breadth and depth of unsurpassed corporate knowledge. Because it mattered.

Now, because counting beans trumps tactical knowledge and in-house expertise. Because PowerPoint Promises and “maybe-might-ought-to-work” robotic dreams far surpass the hard facts of actual reality and because all the decades in the shadows meant recognition and visibility that leads to advocacy within Big Navy were not to be, the VQ “we” will become, as of Thursday, May 17th, 2012, a singularity. http://www.vq2.navy.mil/ And the defense of the nation will be diminished by yet another brick in the wall." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"And still, other than a knowing glance, a quiet word and the odd bit of ribbon with a bland description noting the entire squadron’s work at a place or at some time, they say nothing. For that is the way of the Shadows."

5/16

re: "Heresy over defense, part 2"

Tom Mahnken at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") responded to Kori Schake.

Money quote(s):

"Kori Schake responded to my call for a debate over defense spending by firing a volley in defense of the new orthodoxy on defense spending. Specifically, she attempts to make the case that the federal debt is a national security threat that demands further defense cuts, that the United States has a large margin of superiority over potential adversaries, and we need to seek greater efficiency in defense.

I agree with Kori that our national debt is an important national security concern, but I also agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey that it is not our most important one. In my view, it would be strategically unsound, even if it were economically possible, to balance the budget on the back of defense.

I agree that defense should not be "out of bounds" in budget matters. But the fact is that in a period that has witnessed a massive expansion of government spending, the Defense Department has already sustained several rounds of cuts, dating back to the first months of the Obama administration. As both Robert Gates and Leon Panetta have argued, additional cuts cannot help but affect U.S. security." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Entire departments, not to mention lesser agencies, have little-or-no Constitutional basis. Even Gov. Perry could probably name at least two.

"Some parts of the world (Europe, for example) are clearly safer and more secure than in decades past. But other parts of the world, such as Asia, are less secure. Of particular concern is China's ongoing military modernization, a portion of which is aimed at coercing U.S. allies and denying the United States access to the Western Pacific. As I have argued elsewhere, the United States has consistently underestimated the scope and pace of China's fielding of new weapons, including those designed to counter U.S. power projection forces. Moreover, over the past decade the weapons most needed to respond to such developments have received short shrift in the Pentagon budget. As a result, the United States faces an increasingly unfavorable military balance in the Western Pacific."

Europe, at least the central and western portions, are safer and more secure from threats posed by other central and western European states. And even, it seems, from Russia (hopefully). That still leaves non-state threats as well as NATO's seeming inability to manage, collectively, even their Libyan intervention without lots of heavy lifting by the U.S.

And by "heavy lifting" I mean logistics, ISR, and basic re-supply. Shiny fighter-bombers are just pretty paperweights once you can't re-arm them anymore.

"(T)he post-9/11 military buildup has produced few new weapon systems, and those that have been fielded over the past decade have been geared toward a particular kind of war against a particular kind of foe. For example, the United States fielded thousands of Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles for Iraq and a sent a second generation to Afghanistan. Such vehicles are unlikely to be of much use in future wars, however. And the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that have been crucial to U.S. success in combating insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and targeting terrorists in Pakistan are unlikely to survive in a conflict with an adversary that possesses even a rudimentary air defense network.

Whole parts of the U.S. armed forces have been left out of whatever "rolling modernization" has taken place. U.S. Air Force aircraft are on average more than 23 years old, the oldest in Air Force history, and are getting older. Many transport aircraft and aerial refueling tankers are more than 40 years old, and some may be as old as 70-80 years before they retire. The U.S. Navy is smaller now than it was before the United States entered World War I, and is getting smaller. No "rolling modernization" will reverse these trends; only full-scale recapitalization of the U.S. armed forces will."

The Air Force, like the Navy, suffers from the huge per unit capital outlays needed to launch even a single ship or new airframe.

"(T)he ultima ratio of defense is effectiveness, not efficiency. That is, defense spending ultimately exists to provide security to the American people. Inefficient yet effective defense remains preferable to efficient yet ineffective defense."

10/14

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: "Preventing Pearl Harbor"

George Smiley at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") commemorated America's most famous intelligence failure.

(Remember that operations are always successful; if they're not successful, then there was a failure of intelligence.)

Money quote(s):

"(C)ould the attack have been prevented, sparing the lives of 2,000 Americans who died on that fateful December day in 1941. While war clouds had been gathering for years before the Japanese strike, supporters of FDR claim that neither the President, nor his senior advisers, had any direct knowledge of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, and could not provide definitive warning to Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, the senior Navy and Army commanders in Hawaii.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that U.S. intelligence was aware the Japanese fleet was on the move in late 1941, and might carry out a strike against American possessions in the Pacific."

George details for us a lot of that intelligence.

"Pearl Harbor was clearly at the top of Japan's potential target list, but raids on the Philippines, Alaska, Wake Island and Guam couldn't be ruled out. So, U.S. commanders in the Pacific faced the daunting challenge of locating the Japanese fleet, across millions of miles of open seas."

All of these potential targets were eventually attacked, and at least portions invaded and seized (including part of Alaska's Aleutian Islands chain).

"(T)here is one incontrovertible fact: the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor could have been easily prevented, had President Roosevelt followed the advice of his previous Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral J.O. Richardson. During his tenure as CINCPAC, Richardson repeatedly warned of his fleet's vulnerability at Pearl Harbor, and requested that most of his ships return to their home port in San Diego. When FDR refused, Richardson stuck to his guns and paid a high price: he was fired as CINCPAC in early 1941 and replaced by Admiral Kimmel."

There's a price, sometimes, in being prematurely correct.

Richardson's memoir included this passage, from a message to the chief of naval operations:

"(T)he probable cost (human and physical resources) of any war should be compared [with] the probable value of winning the war."

Clearly Adm. Richardson was a strategic thinker and had read his Clausewitz.

"Sadly, only World War II buffs and naval historians are familiar with the courageous stand of J.O. Richardson. At the cost of his own career, Admiral Richardson stood on principle, trying to avert a military disaster that he believed could be averted, by returning the fleet to San Diego and engaging in the preparations needed to ready the Navy for war.

Richardson's integrity and candor offer an important lesson for military leaders--or anyone in a position to advise decision-makers. Even in that rarefied air, it is essential to tell "the boss" what they need to hear--not what they want to hear. Admirlal Richardson did just that, realizing his advice might fall on deaf ears and result in his dismissal. It's regrettable that so many of his peers failed to follow his shining example in the days before Pearl Harbor."

Tell the truth as you see it, interpret the facts you know as best you can, don't shade or flavor unpalatable truths to fit the preconceived notions or prejudices of your superiors, and let those above you, with access to a presumably wider range of sources and methods, decide on the basis of a fuller scope of information.

12/7

re: "Why is Mark Lippert still on the White House payroll?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") questioned the status of a reservist mobilized from a highly-place position.

Money quote(s):

"When the White House published its report of White House staff salaries last month, there was one senior staffer on the list who hasn't actually worked at the White House in almost two years -- Mark Lippert.

Lippert was listed as receiving $147,500 in 2010 under the title of "deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff for national security operations," according to the disclosure. Lippert was chief of staff at the National Security Council until he left in October 2009 to serve a deployment as a reserve Naval intelligence officer. The chief of staff position was filled in December 2010 by Brooke Anderson."

It's perfectly normal for a deployed reservist to be formally kept on the payroll (whether receiving any pay or not) for the period of their mobilization. Just as it's perfectly normal to hire someone to do the work during that reservist's mobilization.

Veterans re-employment rights don't guarantee you the exact same job and desk, only a comparable one.

"So what is Lippert doing now, and why is he still listed on the White House payroll? A White House official told The Cable that Lippert never officially "detached" from the White House and that's why he was never taken out of the human resource system or removed from the payroll.

Three former NSC staffers said that it was commonplace for staffers to keep their White House billets when they deployed overseas with the military and that all federal employees have the option of keeping their federal salaries when deployed, rather than taking what is often a lower military salary.

But Lippert didn't get any pay or benefits from the White House in 2010, the White House official said. So what happened to that money? It remains in White House coffers and was used for various other salaries, events, and travel expenses, according to the official."

This is the very first I've heard of being offered the option of getting paid at ones (higher) federal civilian pay rate in lieu of ones military pay grade. Must be something special just for White House staff.

"Now that Lippert has finished his deployment to an undisclosed location, the White House is looking for another job for him."

Anybody know where he's landed?

7/21

re: "Public Servants"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") asks a legitimate question, disguised as speculation.

Money quote(s):

"Perhaps its different in other parts of the federal bureaucracy, but in the Navy, at least, senior executives take congressional inquiries quite seriously. And you’d never make it to flag rank by committing your actual thoughts about congressmen or senators to an email.

Of course, flag officers are typically selected competitively based on such characteristics as intelligence, integrity and professional performance. US attorneys, being political appointees, may have other selection criteria."

Not having served in every nook and cranny of the Department of State, I suppose that it's possible that, somewhere, there is an office or, Heavens forfend, an actual post or office that doesn't treat a congressional inquiry (or, as they're known, a "Congressional") as if it were a lightning bolt from Mount Olympus.

Immediate attention, rapid turn-around, and management scrutiny to ensure completeness and attention to detail; these are the highlights of how Congressionals are handled by FSOs (and State civil service staff as well).

Apparently this may not be the case in every Executive department within the federal government.

12/3

12/3

re: "The Daily Caller - The Libyan intervention is not wholly legal"

David Kopel at The Daily Caller is troubled by the legalities.

Money quote(s):

"Is President Obama’s war against the Libyan government legal? It is arguably compliant with modern international law, because it has been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Nothing in international law, however, can change the United States Constitution’s procedures for when the United States can go to war — which require the consent of Congress."

Nothing in the U.N. Charter about it superseding the Constitution. I read it (the Charter) decades ago, and if it had said something like that I feel certain it surely would have stuck in my memory.

"(T)he Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power “To declare War.” Some persons claim that the president’s commander-in-chief power includes unilateral authority to make war on his own initiative. The founders believed otherwise."

There is indeed a fuzzy bit of Constitutionality about the president's role as commander-in-chief and Congress' responsibility for declaring war. This is one of those areas that gets hashed out over time and there's often some back and forth over this stuff. That being said, it shouldn't be considered beneath the dignity of the commander-in-chief to comply with either the Constitution or at least the War Powers Act. Or so one might have thought.

"America’s first war in Libya — two centuries ago — complied with the Constitution. The Barbary pirates, who were supported by the government of Tripoli, seized American ships in the Mediterranean because the Americans would not pay protection money. While President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the American Navy to guard the ships, he asked Congress for permission to take further action. As his message to Congress acknowledged, authorization for offensive war is an “important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively.”

Congress passed two separate authorizations for military force in 1801 and 1802."

Has anyone checked to see if one of those has, perhaps, gone unexpired all these two centuries now and might still be in force?

"Placing U.S. forces under a NATO command changes nothing. Even if the NATO Treaty could somehow authorize war, that treaty only requires nations to fight in response to an attack against the territory of a NATO member."

Considering that the commander of NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral (and a good guy, by all reports), this would be a rather thin fiction at best.

re: "Today's Reading Assignment"

George Smiley at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") discusses a national asset in decline.

Money quote(s):

"(S)igns of our naval decline were on display in recent weeks, as the Libyan crisis began to unfold. Instead of sending a warship to rescue American citizens from that country (as the British did), the U.S. hired a commercial ferry. One reason: there was only one U.S. warship in the Mediterranean at the time, although a carrier battle group and an amphibious group were only three days away, in the Red Sea. Those assets have since re-deployed to the Med.

We neglect our Navy at our own peril."

Actually two warships, were in the Mediterranean but one was a command and control ship and the other was having, er, command climate problems.

"(I)n an era when federal spending must be reduced, it is very easy to say we have "no peer competitors" (to use Dr. Gates's phrase) and use that as an excuse to downsize the military. A modern Navy is expensive to build and expensive to operate. Yet, it represents an essential investment, not only for the United States but for the west as a whole.

Did we mention that China is currently building five fleet carriers which will join the PLAN by 2020? Beijing is building a Navy for the future, while ours continues to decline. We've been down this road before (think Japan in the 1930s) and paid dearly for our mistakes. The next time, we may not be as lucky."

I'm not a naval expert, but five "fleet carriers" sound like just the thing if you want to be a regional hegemon, and the region you have in mind is the Pacific Ocean.

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.

S&S - Still playing the name game with Navy and Marine Corps

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Still playing the name game with Navy and Marine Corps


By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes

Stars and Stripes online edition, Wednesday, May 5, 2010


WASHINGTON — Rep. Walter Jones never expected changing the Department of Navy’s name would be a decade-long fight.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"But each year since 2001 — the first year he proposed adding the Marine Corps to the official title — the North Carolina Republican has found himself on the House floor making an impassioned plea for the simple three-word change. And each year the measure has failed in the Senate."

&

"The bill deals only with the formal title of the department, and would not change command structure or the missions of the Navy and Marine Corps."

S&S - Rebuilding Haiti’s demolished port is no small task for U.S.

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Rebuilding Haiti’s demolished port is no small task for U.S.


By Seth Robson, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Sunday, February 28, 2010


PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Rebuilding the piers, cranes, warehouses and other facilities at Port-au-Prince — the seaport that the Haitian capital is named for — will be a key factor in the reconstruction of this earthquake-shattered nation, according to U.S. military personnel working there.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"When U.S. Army and Navy personnel began operations at the port on January 20, they found a facility in ruins."

"Military operations at the port have been overseen by Lt. Col. Ralph Riddle, 45, of Luray, Va., commander of the 832nd Transportation Battalion. Riddle is a member of Joint Task Force Port Opening, which activated as soon as the earthquake struck and arrived in Haiti on two LCUs (landing craft utility ships) a week later.
I
t’s a little-known fact that the Army runs seaport operations worldwide, mostly using commercial contracts, on behalf of the Department of Defense, he said Thursday."

"When the team arrived, there were no landing points among the ruins so the task force discharged equipment onto a nearby beach using the LCUs. The shallow-drafted vessels shuttle out to cargo ships, then pull up to dirt ramps bulldozed out into the surf so that the cargo can roll off, he said."

"In the weeks since the disaster, the port has been a point of entry for humanitarian aid, food, water, rice, beans, oil, MREs (Meals, Ready to Eat), USAID food packages, construction materials and tents, he said.

Six weeks after the disaster, the captain of the USAV Hobkirk, the first LCU to hit the beach was still at the port moving cargo."

"The port still employs its original Haitian workforce driving stackers, forklifts and loaders and the military is working with commercial terminal operators who continue to do business there, Riddle said."

&

"Most of the traffic has been imports although there have also been exports leaving the country, which is a big producer of mangos for overseas markets. For example, the port received a shipment of lumber and the cargo ship Tharinee Naree out of Bangkok was in port on Thursday, delivering an entire power plant that will run on heavy oil or coal and power an industrial park in Port-au-Prince. The car transporter Viking Princess was to arrive Saturday carrying 240 vehicles, Hahne said."

S&S - Navy ship evades pirate attack

Stars and Stripes

Navy ship evades pirate attack

By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Friday, May 8, 2009

Katrina Parker/Courtesy of U.S. Navy

An SA-330 Puma helicopter picks up pallets from the Military Sealift Command dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Lewis and Clark in January during a vertical replenishment with the amphibious dock landing ship USS Carter Hall.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"A U.S. Navy ship that once was used as a temporarily jail for suspected Somali pirates successfully evaded a pirate attack Wednesday off the Somali coast, a U.S. Navy official said Thursday.

The USNS Lewis and Clark, a Military Sealift Command ship normally used to transport cargo and ammunition, used to be configured to hold about a dozen pirates — and at one point held as many as 16 suspects.

On Wednesday, the ship "performed evasive maneuvers" and avoided being boarded by pirates on two skiffs that had pursued the ship for more than an hour, said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/5th Fleet."

re: "Outrage"

Fetiche Nouvelle (Duyen Ky) at Eternity Road raises a number of excellent objections to media coverage of our pirate prisoner.

Money quote(s):

""Suspect" -- ? Either he was a member of the pirate crew or he wasn't -- and if he wasn't, what was he doing on their little jaunt, and negotiating with the U.S. Navy on the pirates' behalf?"

"And some idiot of a "civil rights lawyer" is claiming that America violated the "laws of warfare," on top of everything else? We're not at war with the Somali pirates! They're not a sovereign nation! No laws, no conventions, and no courtesies apply to people who sail into international waters, raid commercial shipping, take hostages, and threaten to kill them if their demands aren't met!"

&

"(I)f a federal judge had decreed this young viper to be a juvenile, the worst that could have happened to him would be a couple of years in a reform school -- after which he'd be a legal permanent resident of the United States!

I had to convince a consular official that I was fleeing from political persecution and that I had no intentions of subverting the government of the United States by subterfuge or violence."

S&S - Navy to transfer piracy command to Turkey

Stars and Stripes

Navy to transfer piracy command to Turkey


Stars and Stripes

European edition, Friday, April 25, 2009


The U.S. Navy will transfer command of counterpiracy maritime efforts to the Turkish Navy on Sunday, according to a Navy news release. The move marks the first time Turkey will command a Combined Maritime Forces Task Force.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Since its inception in January, U.S. ships have led the counterpiracy effort, called Combined Task Force 151, under the Navy’s 5th Fleet in the Middle East.

Turkey now will lead the multinational effort that patrols and monitors 1.1 million square miles of water, including the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. Shipping lanes there are used by roughly 23,000 commercial vessels each year."

FN - U.S. Navy Arrives at Scene of Hijacked American Ship

Fox News



U.S. Navy Arrives at Scene of Hijacked American Ship

Thursday, April 09, 2009


File: A Maersk cargo ship like the one hijacked off Somalia carrying 20 Americans.

The U.S. is gearing up for a standoff with the band of pirates who hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship off the coast of Somalia as a Navy warship reportedly arrived at the scene early Thursday.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The crew of the Maersk Alabama were able to regain control of the vessel Wednesday, but the pirates escaped with the captain as a captive."

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for world action to "end the scourge of piracy" as U.S. warships raced to confront the pirates."

"Wednesday's incident was the first such hostage-taking involving U.S. citizens in 200 years. In December 2008, Somali pirates chased and shot at a U.S. cruise ship with more than 1,000 people on board but failed to hijack the vessel.

The top two commanders of the ship graduated from the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, the Cape Cod Times reported Wednesday."

&

"Robert A. Wood, Deputy State Department Spokesman, told reporters the ship was carrying "vegetable oil, corn soy blend and other basic food commodities bound for Africa.""

_____
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

re: "Humane Justice, Political Policy, and "Enemies of All Mankind" "

Galrahn at Information Dissemination ("Observations of an Armchair Admiral") puts modern anti-piracy policy into proper historical perspective.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he policy of the United States towards piracy is ignoring common law practice going back to the Roman Empire. When western elites today suggest the best way to handle "enemies of all mankind" is to capture them and hold a trial, a position that throws away common law practice for nearly 2000 years that has been "hang on capture without trial," it does raise legitimate questions regarding the reasoning behind this new policy that disregards history.

Rules of engagement is a condition set established by policy, but policy is also driving the legal consequences for pirates, which in strategic terms influences both the ways the ends of strategy the Navy must apply in dealing with pirates."

&

"At a minimum, political leadership who determines pirate policy should be asked to explain why this new policy, which everyone has accepted as ineffective anyway, is somehow better than the policy applied consistently over the last 2000 years when dealing with a pirate problem. For 2000 years, humans applied an effective policy of execution to deal with piracy, why reject success and embrace a failing policy? Has our nation become too sensitive to violence to even apply justice to what human history calls the "enemies of all mankind?"

The application of moral humanitarian rights for modern pirates produces a policy that raises questions regarding the judgment, capacity to govern, and wisdom of international policy makers. Are they enlightened, or foolish with the new policy? By applying moral humanitarian conditions that results in a policy every nation globally accepts as ineffective, and because the application of those conditions is for the sole purpose of favoring a moral humanitarian application of justice to pirates, the US pirate policy ultimately sacrifices the laws of the global social order in favor of giving human rights to the "enemies of all mankind."

Those who argue that violent justice cannot solve this problem ignore several thousand years of history that suggests otherwise. It is absolutely a fact that Somali piracy can be eliminated on land, but history also shows that the application of the common law practice of execution also reduces the activity of piracy significantly. In the 19th century the Royal Navy proved all prior history correct by applying common law, the result was that piracy globally was virtually eliminated. Westerners should question and give serious consideration to whether we are evolving towards progress, or away from it. History is a solid guide for the future, but does this policy learn from history or ignore history?"

S&S - Stray animals remain a problem in Naples

Stars and Stripes



Stray animals remain a problem in Naples


By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes

European edition, Sunday, February 8, 2009

Sandra Jontz / S&S


A group of stray or abandoned dogs available for adoption gather at a gate of the Lega Pro Animale veterinary clinic and shelter in Mondragone, Italy.

Sandra Jontz / S&S

One of the stray or abandoned dogs available for adoption from the Lega Pro Animale veterinary clinic and shelter in Mondragone is this German Shepherd mix, which was microchipped and registered to a U.S. Navy servicemember who had been stationed in Naples, Italy. The dog likely was abandoned after the member left, said Dr. Dorothea Friz, adding the Navy said it was unable to locate the individual.

Sandra Jontz / S&S
Petty Officer 2nd Class Steve Dockendorff plays with Russell, one of several dogs the Naples, Italy-based sailor has fostered. Over the years and between duty stations in Italy and Bahrain, Dockendorff has adopted or fostered roughly 17 stray dogs.

NAPLES, Italy — Marcella Falco loves her job. But each morning, she dreads going to work.
Will this be another morning when she finds a dog chained to the gates of the animal shelter?
"It just breaks my heart. Every week, we find one dog, two dogs, just left outside the shelter," Falco said. "Sometimes they are just running around outside the gate. Sometimes they are chained. What choice do we have? We give them a home."

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"In Italy, animal shelters too often become the final home for thousands of abandoned or stray dogs, including the 550 dogs and puppies that reside at the privately run Rifugio San Francesco in Ischitella, a suburb of Naples. "

&

"Some are abandoned by U.S. servicemembers when they leave their duty stations, although the number of pets left behind by the military is not available. Most, however, are from the country’s rampant stray population.

Italy has nearly 150,000 stray dogs and nearly 2.6 million stray cats, according to Ministry of Health data."

S&S - Navy to close last facility in U.K. by May

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Navy to close last facility in U.K. by May


By Charlie Reed, Stars and Stripes

European edition, Saturday, January 17, 2009


The U.S. Navy will close its last remaining facility in the United Kingdom by May, officials said this week.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The "disestablishment" of the Joint Maritime Facility at RAF St. Mawgan in southwest England is expected to save the Navy $9 million annually, according to U.S. European Command spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker.

The facility, which will be returned to the British government, employs 300 U.S. sailors, 45 British troops and 100 civilian personnel from both governments, Barker said."

&

"The closure at St. Mawgan will mark the end of the Navy’s presence in England, where sailors have been stationed since World War II."

S&S - Decision on carrier base opposed by Virginia lawmakers

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Decision on carrier base opposed by Virginia lawmakers


By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Saturday, January 17, 2009


ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy this week announced it will homeport an aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport in Florida, sparking criticism from Virginia lawmakers who vowed to fight the decision.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The move would put a nuclear-powered aircraft at an East Coast port outside of Norfolk for the first time to diversify the fleet’s location in case calamity struck the Norfolk area, the Navy said."

&

"Naval Station Mayport hosts 22 guided missile destroyers, cruisers, frigates and other vessels."