Submarines Matter For a Successful Strategic Vision

In catching up on my reading, yes I've been busy, I caught an interesting conversation taking place over on Thomas P. M. Barnett's blog regarding an article by Elizabeth Dole. The name of Dr. Barnett's post is on the money, Brain-dead strategizing at its best. I couldn't agree more. The Elizabeth Dole article is a wish list for resources the military would give Santa Claus. Elizabeth Dole summarizes the reason the military needs all this grand new stuff as:

major challenges that we face around the globe

Huh? I am very tired of reading Christmas lists that focus on the "what", I want to see leaders stand up and emphasize the "why" for military resources. Even smart Americans typically do not understand what some of these expensive resources are for in the modern world, and in the the Thomas PM Barnett blog post, the first comment sets the tone.

Yeah, great plan. I'm sure that will go over really well. I know exactly what this country needs: more submarines!!...

Technology is no substitute for strategy and in today's world nothing is going to be accomplished with brute military force alone.

The commenter is probably a pretty smart guy, but he does not understand why the nation needs more submarines. He's probably in the majority. That is why "Brain-dead strategizing" fits perfectly. I've previously made the case why the Navy needs more submarines, but due to the classified nature of the National Strategic Plan (NSP) that supposedly matches resources to the Navy's maritime strategy, the Navy fails miserably making the case for their resources, and when Congress tries it is even worse.

If the elected leadership sees it as their role to run around and tell the American people what the military services need, then it is up to the services to tell the American people and Congress why they need those resources. If you read the case we have previously made on the blog linked above, just like the Navy's strategy we don't mention China... but Elizabeth Dole does.

The US Navy doesn't need more submarines to match up against any one nation, the Navy needs more submarines to execute its new Maritime Strategy. Submarines and large deck aircraft carriers have been the dominate weapons of the warfighter at sea since WWII, and no technology has been invented that changes this despite what transformational types may say. The reason the Navy needs more submarines to execute the Maritime Strategy is so the Navy can shift the warfighting burden from its surface fleet to the underwater service, and in that way enable the surface combatant fleet to shape its force to better execute the maritime strategy more effectively to the pursuit of both objects outlined in the maritime strategy: preventing war and winning war.

Preventing war is a peacetime object of maritime strategy that is relatively new in the study of maritime strategy, and will require critical thought to execute effectively. We have previously highlighted the development of the peacetime aspect of the maritime strategy as the great challenge for the Navy in our time, and we believe that is absolutely true. We believe the resources that contribute to pursuing the object of preventing war will fall upon the surface fleet, which is leveraged by ways of cooperation, mutual security, humanitarian response, maritime security, and escalation control. Attack submarines do not contribute in a major way to the prevention of war (strategic submarines of coarse do, but that is another discussion). By building more attack submarines, the underwater service carries a larger burden for warfighter requirements enabling the surface force to more effectively take on the added burden of peacetime requirements.

This is the strategic context completely absent Elizabeth Dole's wish list. We need more discussions by leaders regarding why we need resources, not more lists regarding what resources we need absent a strategic view.