Did Representative Randy Forbes really write this? This is not the stuff one typically finds from a Congressman, because it's too smart. Forbes is no longer simply a Congressman on Navy issues - he's now the Congressman on Navy issues.
If Ray Mabus would have written this article, he'd be the most popular Secretary of the Navy since Lehman! Instead you folks get breathalyzers without any measurable or cited statistics related to alcohol on why... /facepalm!
Throughout the last six decades, America’s military strength has helped preserve a relatively stable geo-strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific. However, in the past decade China has rapidly modernized its military, including another double digit military increase next year, with aspirations of supplanting the U.S. position. If present trends continue, the regional balance of power could tilt in Beijing’s favor as it is increasingly able to deter U.S. forces from entering the region, coerce neighboring states, or – should conflict ensue – win a rapid victory. In response, the United States must work to simultaneously sustain a level of credible deterrence in the region while reassuring allies, including Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and strategic partners like Singapore. Air-Sea Battle is now at the center of this effort.
In short, the Air-Sea Battle Office aims to define initiatives to develop the capabilities and integration necessary to help Combatant Commanders conduct integrated, cross-domain operations in A2/AD environments. According to Schwartz and Greenert, Air-Sea Battle seeks to use “Networked, Integrated Attack-in-Depth” to “disrupt, destroy, and defeat” (NIA-D3) adversary capabilities. More specifically, the joint force (integrated air, ground, and naval forces) armed with resilient communications (networked) aims to strike at multiple nodes of an enemy’s system (attack-in-depth) along three lines of effort. If we can consider these lines in terms of an enemy archer, one could choose to blind the archer (disrupt), kill the archer (destroy), or stop his arrow (defeat). Balanced capabilities geared towards executing all three will be required.
Read it all.
One more thought on Randy Forbes. Yesterday I posted the YouTube link of his public, white glove, mild pat on the cheek of the SECNAV in a recent Congressional hearing. The thing about Randy Forbes argument that struck me at the time is that the questions he raised in that hearing about SECNAV priorities are the same questions I have heard in quiet, completely off record discussions with folks in the Navy.
That tells me two things. First, Randy Forbes has his finger on the pulse of the Navy like no Congressman in a long, long time. That leads to the second point. There is a snowballs chance in hell Randy Forbes is talking to the same people I do, and it has me thinking Randy Forbes questions about the SECNAVs priorities was a reflection of the uniformed Admiralty's concerns for the SECNAVs priorities. Maybe not the CNO, or maybe the CNO - who knows, but if Randy Forbes wrote that article it's a safe bet he had more than a few conversations on the topic from some pretty damn smart (and likely high ranking) folks inside the Navy bubble.
I'm not saying the SECNAV is facing a mutiny in the Navy (although what does exactly make a SECNAV jump THAT HIGH following a blunder THAT political), but I am saying there appears to be a Congressman who has more respect than the SECNAV from the uniformed Navy leadership at this point in time.