Embracing Opportunity With Soft Power

Lawrence J. Korb and Max A. Bergmann had an editorial last Tuesday in the Baltimore Sun regarding the role of the US Navy in humanitarian operations. We really like this article for a number of reasons, but mostly because it does a good job of describing the maritime strategy, particularly the role of maritime forces in peacetime.

The article begins by following the history of humanitarian responses by the US Navy starting with the 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia, highlighting that following the American response a Pew Poll noted that 80 percent of the citizens of Indonesia had a more favorable opinion of the United States after our response. We are still not sold on polling as a useful unit of measure for peacetime strategy, but as we search for better metrics we believe it does count for something.

The article makes four good points in favor of the maritime strategy that promotes an active role for the Navy in humanitarian operations. Read in full here.

First, such missions act to maintain precious stability. After the 2004 tsunami, there was a real danger that chaos, even unrest, would spread beyond the disaster zones. Our response not only saved lives but also helped stabilize the area.

Second, it improves the image of the U.S. Responding to disasters demonstrates to the world the goodwill of the American people and can serve to improve our standing in world opinion, as it has in Indonesia. As Admiral Mullen explained, the tsunami intervention showed another side of "American power that wasn't perceived as frightening, monolithic or arrogant."

Third, such missions help cast our global military posture in a better light. Countries will be more accepting of a U.S. military presence in their neighborhood if they know that our military will be there to help if disaster strikes. Adopting this role also enables the U.S. to build closer relationships with countries, as in Bangladesh, where joint preparations helped avert an even worse disaster and improved our relations.

Finally, responding to natural disasters is the price of being the world's largest superpower. As the guarantor of global security, the U.S. is looked to not just for its ability to deter threats but also for its ability to help when countries are in need.

Responding to disasters should therefore not be seen as a burden on the U.S. military, but should be embraced as an opportunity.

We have stated many times that we believe the great challenge for the US Navy in our time is to develop our nations strategic capabilities to leverage the maritime domain in support of our nations interests during peacetime without eroding the nations wartime capabilities. It will not be easy, because on the surface requirements can be very different, but we believe a well thought out resource strategy can accomplish this objective within the nations means of our era if the Navy is able to align its means with ends and ways.

We observe the forward deployed presence of Expeditionary Strike Groups specifically has enhanced the Navy's ability to respond to peacetime challenges. The adaptable nature of these resources means the Navy is there, prepared.

We would like to see more articles, perhaps more research and study put forth by Lawrence J. Korb through the Center for American Progress discussing the importance of the Navy's Maritime Strategy, and in particular its dual role for warfighting and peacemaking. Why? Because CAP has been noticeably absent from discussions regarding the Navy in the 21st century, which is ironic, because it appears to us that Admiral Roughead would be listening.