Political Grandstanding on the Military Coattails

We are observing a line of thought being forwarded in many places, and what makes it interesting is that nobody seems to notice or care to note it due to partisanship. We are not political observers, we aren't very good at being partisan nor do we care enough about politics to promote some individual ideological position that doesn't quite fit neatly with either side of politics in America today anyway. We do however attempt to stay informed and follow the trends, and when we see something that isn't quite right we intend to speak up during this campaign season. This is one of those times.

The latest set of talking points started with the DoD press conference by Admiral Mullen on July 2nd. These comments, which aren't new for him nor the SECDEF, have become the political news.

First on Afghanistan:

Let me also say just a word about Afghanistan. I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate. The United States and NATO leadership -- and I had the chance to meet with my NATO counterparts last week in Brussels -- are very focused on the challenges there, particularly in the east and the south.

We are exploring a number of options and opportunities to get a better understanding of the scope of the threat and the best means with which to counter it. I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. It's a very complex problem, and it's tied to the drug trade, a faltering economy and, as I've said many times, the porous border region with Pakistan.

Then on Iran:

I -- we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time, and I think if I were just to take the high stakes that were -- that we -- I just talked about a minute ago, part of the results of that engagement or lack of engagement, I think, is there.

What is interesting is that the press jumped on these comments and threw them into politics. Noah Shachtman used the Afghanistan comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama, while NBC news jumped on the Iran comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama. They are both wrong.

As Thomas Barnett pointed out, Admiral Mullen isn't following Obama, rather Admiral Mullen is following Admiral Fallon's footsteps here. To a greater degree, the talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents. Indeed Barack Obama is taking more heat from his supporters with his new position than he is by Republicans, and John McCain's message has been completely replaced by the talking points of the military. It makes sense though, the military is more popular among Americans than either candidate, and the military leadership sounds smarter than both candidates. McCain is still confusing religious sects in Iraq, and no one in recent memory can offer so little insight on strategy or policy with so many words like Obama.

What does this tell us? Everyone can decide on their own, but we keep thinking it can't be an accident that Bush has made the most politically safe position on the war for both the Democrat and Republican nominee the position of current military leadership. Has Bush united the country behind the military leadership position on both wars and virtually all foreign policy issues right before our eyes, at his own expense but also to the credit of his policy positions? Ahh the nuance of politics during a campaign season.

One thing is plainly clear though, Obama and McCain both have no voice in either military affairs or foreign policy right now, because all they both do is repeat what Gates and Mullen are saying.

It's also too bad Admiral Fallon isn't running for President.

KABOOM

We've suggested many times that you really should read the archives of The Kaboom War Journal, because it isn't just outstanding blogging, it is one of those Iraq stories told in a way that is compelling and instructive to the nature of life in war. If you haven't read them, its worth the time, because when you do you'll find insight into why despite being reprimanded for blogging, LT. G has been promoted to Captain G. Details offered by Captain G's lady who has kept the old blog name up since the Army took the blog down.

The ceremony honored multiple members of the Gravediggers, as the entire platoon received awards for actioning into a firefight (I was unaware that actioning was a real word, but I am only passing on what CPT G told me). The cavalry guys received Combat Action Badges, while the infantry guys received Combat Infantry Badges. Same award, just different names for different branches. Either way, the Gravediggers were told they were awesome, something we all already know.

I'm looking forward to the book about the Gravediggers in Iraq. Any publisher who doesn't see dollar signs here is a fucking idiot who hates money.

Another Expert Calls For the Corvette

It is our favorite time of the month, that time when Milan Vego writes an article in the Armed Forces Journal that challenges the conventional wisdom of some naval topic, puts forth a historical view with a modern alternative, and discusses conditions and options. This time around Milan Vego advises it is time to Think Small: Adding small combatant ships would beef up the Navy’s capabilities and the article is top quality.

The article is the combination of advocacy for small combatants, an indictment of the Littoral Combat Ship, and a counterargument to the conventional wisdom bias against small combatants inside the blue Navy. We address those three points in reverse order, starting by countering the argument that small combatants are somehow expendable and irrelevant in the maritime domain.

Perhaps the Navy has felt that if such a force were needed, it could quickly create one. It did this in World War II when, within a short time, some 426 patrol torpedo boats were built, organized and deployed in the most distant war zones. Only 42 of these PT boats were lost to enemy action. Modern small surface combatants are technologically sophisticated and relatively expensive, however. They cannot be built quickly once the conflict at sea starts. There is also the unfounded belief that small surface combatants are of little use in the modern era. Although that might have been true in the past, it is not the case today. Modern multipurpose corvettes and missile combat craft carry weapons and sensors and are fully capable of conducting a wide range of combat and non-combat missions.

The combination of "technologically sophisticated" and "relatively expensive" are two points we have been taking a hard look at lately. There is an idea out there that small surface combatants are going to 'inexpensive' thus able to build up rapidly. That hasn't been true of small surface combatants in any country for several decades. The value of modularity is key here, even if a payload swap consists solely of changing an 11 meter RHIB for a 11 meter Protector USV, the ability to interchange is important. This would allow a small combatant to quickly transition from a VBSS security operation to a ASW operation or armed unmanned vehicle force protection operation against small attack craft.

More to the point, while this capability could probably be achieved through a reproduction of something like the old Asheville class, the Navy would want a new Asheville class designed from the keep up, taking advantages of the evolution in technology in shipbuilding over the last 4 decades since the Asheville was originally designed. Furthermore introduction of a small combatant suitable to challenge the 21st century littoral threats requires a total strategic approach, including operational concept of operations with command and control, logistical support, and sustainment considerations. In other words, it needs to be better thought out than the existing Littoral Combat Ship concept.

Speaking of the Littoral Combat Ship, Milan Vego represents our own position very well with these comments. As we have stated many times, often to a bit of criticism, build a few, but recognize the platform isn't perfect, represents a blue water platform for a green water mission profile, and is clearly not the solution.

The LCS is not really a littoral vessel but, rather, an ocean-going platform. Its draft of 20 feet is too large for maneuverability in the confined waters of a typical narrow sea such as the Persian Gulf. Its sprint speed is generally of little use around islands/islets and in shallow water. It is highly doubtful that a ship of 3,500 tons, no matter how well-armed and -equipped, could match the agility of hostile small boats, and suicide boats in particular. Another shortcoming of the LCS is that it has to move outside the littoral for refueling and rearming.

That last point is a bit confusing without consideration. Without a dedicated tender capable of operating in the littoral itself, the suggestion intended is that the MSC ships that will be required to refuel and rearm will be out in blue water. This is exactly where our concept of a mothership for smaller platforms comes into play, and why we see such a platform to be the flat bottom shallow draft existing LSDs with 21ft draft or new LPD-17s with its 23ft draft.

The first point is important though. The Littoral Combat Ship really is an optimal platform for a blue water platform to move closer in shore within the framework of an existing Carrier Strike Group or Expeditionary Strike Group. The LCS doesn't have the firepower to operate independent, and indeed all the off board systems are intended to be unloaded into the littoral by the LCS while the ship moves back out to blue water, and uses unmanned systems as a relay to teh unmanned systems reporting inshore. This is blue water thinking about the littoral in its zenith, and will be reflected as such by historians.

Milan Vego goes on to recommend existing options, both foreign and domestic as alternatives. We only consider one of the foreign alternatives as realistic, and that platform gets a good writeup in this piece.

The Visby corvettes have a maximum speed of 35 knots on gas turbines and 15 knots on diesels. They are built of fiber-reinforced plastic in sandwich construction. The Visby was designed to drastically reduce optical and infrared signature, above water acoustic and hydroacoustic signature, underwater electrical potential, and magnetic signature. The Visby can be detected at the range of 7 nautical miles in rough seas and 12 nautical miles in a calm sea, without jamming. In a jammed environment, the Visby corvette will be detected at a range of 4.3 nautical miles in rough seas and 6 nautical miles in calm seas. They will carry SSMs. Other weapons include a 127mm rocket launcher, depth charges and three 400mm tubes for homing torpedoes, and a single 57mm general purpose gun plus mines.

The fiber-reinforced plastic construction is usually the turn off for this platform by many, to us it is the appeal. The materials for construction are much easier obtained and purchased in large quantities than that of aluminum or steel. We always refer back to this outstanding PDF when considering the options for the Visby class, highlighting they come in more than the existing size.

We don't claim to have the right answer, and appreciate the approach of Milan Vego to highlight a range of alternatives. We maintain a firm belief that the way ahead for realignment of resources to the new maritime strategy is to cancel the DDG-1000 after two hulls, concentrate on the CG(X) and DDG(X) replacements, and fill out the rest of the force with a formidable amphibious force of at least 19 LPD-17s for the 9 ESGs, transition the existing LSDs to primarily Navy use, and build surface combatants between 500 and 1500 tons in large quantities.

However the challenge of small surface combatants isn't building them, it is sustaining them in forward theaters and keeping them relevant in the conditions of war and peace. It is also why we start with the high value unit, the mothership that bridges the sea with land and littoral in between, rather than the small combatant, because by embracing the high value unit mission profile all the possible mission profiles for small combatants become self evident.

Good Reading To Start the Week With

First read this morning comes from EagleOne, who actually has two items worth reading. The first is his latest Sunday Ship History which focuses in on Tank Landing Ships, a really good read. His second contribution is a bit more current, and notes the pirate activity off Somalia in total disregard to UN sanctions.

'Manoeuvre' in Maritime Asia' has a rare photo of the new ROKS King Sejong the Great (DDG-991). With 128 VLS cells, the new South Korean AEGIS ships come in as first rate battleships by our ranking system for modern surface combatants, and the largest battleships among the Pacific nations.

Thomas Barnett made an interesting comment last week regarding the naval buildup in the Pacific. Bold emphasis ours.

Emerging great powers build navies. That's history.

The Asian situation has been artificial for a very long time: the American navy dominating the region's waters. In a "flat world," it should not surprise anyone that this does not continue, nor should it.

Instead, we should be encouraging the rise of Asian navies interested in policing their own waters and securing the SLOCs between Asia and the Middle East, not to mention handling disaster relief.

But, of course, says the magazine, despite lots of opportunities for cooperation, there also exists the danger of confrontation.

So what's the answer? Let the naval developments trigger more regional security agreements. Build your East Asian NATO from the water in.

It is a safe bet we will be discussing this in more depth in the future. Interesting broader concept here that capitalizes on what we are already seeing, specifically the reduction of piracy in the Strait of Malacca primarily due to security partnership between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

Over at the Unofficial Coast Guard Blog, Jim Dolbow highlights a great find called Sharpen Pens Sharpen Swords (PDF) that gives great guidance towards writing in the pol-mil debate. While these guidelines are specific towards writing in professional journals, we believe they apply very well to blogging as well. This is really a great find and worth a read.

Before going out of town, CDR Salamander emails an excellent link I've probably read three times since this morning, so much to say here. Naval Historical Center has some great data in an article called U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917- which is very much the historical view of the shrinking US Navy. This is almost certainly going to be one of those historical views we think will pop up on the blog many, many times in the future. If I get time, I'll try to put the chart data all into a useful table for the blog, and possibly a PDF for download from the blog because I think the historical view is one people would be interested in having a copy of their own.

Photo is the USS. Washtenaw County (LST 1166), more information available here.

Expert Opinions Matter Most

Captain Wiley of the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) weighs in on resources for medical diplomacy. As captain of both humanitarian deployments of the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) to the Pacific, including Pacific Partnership 2006 and the current Pacific Partnership 2008 by which we follow through Captain Wiley's blog here, he strikes us as without question as having the most qualified, most important opinion on how to resource for medical diplomacy missions.

Much thanks to Lee Whaler and Captain Bob Wiley for such interesting fodder for discussion. With Captain Wiley's permission, we share these insightful comments, which he fully represents as his own. These thoughts leave us with much to consider.

The difference between the hospital ship’s traditional role (Combat Trauma/Life Support) and her role in humanitarian or disaster relief missions is the need for organic expeditionary capabilities. In the latter mission, the ship is required to move forces (medical forces) ashore; keep them logistically supported; and communicate with them. There is also the need to bring patients to and from the ship safely and comfortably. Trouble is, when you say “expeditionary” to a naval officer, what immediately comes to mind is amphibious operations. Personally, I don’t believe the Phib model to be the right model to use. While certainly capable and flexible, it is also very expensive and man-power demanding.

It all boils down to economics. What is the most cost effective method of doing these missions? Personally, I believe we are better “building from scratch” a new breed of hospital ships. Although a little more expensive in up-front capital, in the long run they will pay for themselves in reduced operating costs. Especially if the plan is to use these ships regularly and not just have them sitting around as “contingency” platforms. By building new you can exploit new technology for diesel engines (better fuel economy); unmanned engine room and single-manned bridge (for reduced crewing economy); bow and stern thrusters as well as new mooring winches (for reducing port charges). By keeping the operational costs down, you make for better prospects of doing these medical missions long into the future.

Lastly… If there is one thing I have learned during the two missions I have commanded Mercy: Only a hospital ship can open the doors to many of places we would like to go. Furthermore, a hospital ship must ONLY be a hospital ship; she must only have BEEN a hospital ship; and she must always STAY a hospital ship…NOT some multi-transforming thingamajig that goes from Florence Nightingale to Rambo and then back to Florence Nightingale. Won’t work… Sends the wrong message…

So in thinking strategic about medical diplomacy for the future, what metrics go into planning for a replacement hospital ship? Based on this the short list is lighterage, operational costs, and vehicle space, aviation support facilities, and cargo seem high on the list.

We think that last paragraph belongs on the first page of the first PPT that mentions Milestone A for the next hospital ship replacement. Said another way, this never needs to see the light in future hospital ship discussions. If you want to build another LPD-17 hull to capitalize on costs, build it for a mothership, a command ship, ballistic missile defense cruiser, or new amphibious ship.

One final thought. We do not see these comments as an indictment of the deployments of the LHDs by SOUTHCOM to South America, in fact quite the opposite and it is important to highlight two different types of medical diplomacy deployments are being discussed here. Pacific Partnership is a pure humanitarian deployment, it really is singular in task and specific to a single purpose. The LHDs carry with it a security mission with it, and the use of a hospital ship by SOUTHCOM for a deployment that carries with it a security purpose as well as a humanitarian purpose would be an inappropriate use of a hospital ship.

USS Green Bay Builders Trials

Good news coming from Avondale regarding USS Green Bay (LPD 20).

The USS Green Bay has completed its maiden voyage during Builder's Trials.

"Builder's Trials was a successful event, and we continue counting down the days until the crew of USS Green Bay accepts delivery of the ship on Aug. 29," said Lt. Frank Lencz, USS Green Bay operations officer.

The ship departed June 23 from the Northrop Grumman pier in Avondale, La., and traveled down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico.

About 950 shipbuilders, government contractors and military personnel were aboard for the test run.

Below are some of the photo's we have been sent from the USS Green Bay (LPD 20) builders trials. Click for hi res, and yes we see the rust too.



The really nice thing about these photo's is that they are the first we have seen that really give people a sense for the size of these platforms. The Navy is thinking about all kinds of ways to reuse this hull, and we think that is a very smart thing to do.

The Indian Akula II aka INS Chakra

On Thursday this news crossed the wires.

India will get its first Akula class Russian nuclear submarine in 2009, equipping its navy with the quietest and lethal underwater war machine after a gap of 17 years to enhance its blue water capabilities.

Factory trials of the multi-role nuclear submarine, christened INS Chakra which India-will get on a 10-year-lease, commenced on June 11 at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur shipyard and will be followed by sea trials, Russian defence sources said, adding it will be delivered by September 2009.

This will allow India to train crews for the new indigenous submarine called the ATV project, a future nuclear ballistic missile submarine India is currently building. It is noteworthy the Akula II was leased to India after all, specifically because there have been rumors that China was looking to lease a few at one time but was never allowed to. That tends to reflect the way Russia sees China vs India, Russia appears to believe China is reproducing Russian equipment in the submarine force and is holding back on exporting its top nuclear submarine technology.

India doesn't have the same reputation, and by following the laws regarding technology they have been able to obtain very high technology from Russia, and soon the United States.

"Train the Way You Fight"

Hmm...

In an unprecedented move, the Navy recently tested the communications network supporting its Aegis ballistic missile defense system across the Middle East. The test comes as top military commanders are expressing a hardened stance against Iran’s intransigence.

The upgraded Aegis systems aboard Navy destroyers and cruisers can track ballistic missiles and intercept them with ship-launched SM-3 missiles.

These are the details and context.

The BMD exercise, which took place from June 28 through July 2, involved the destroyer Benfold operating in the Persian Gulf and the destroyer Russell operating in the eastern Mediterranean.

According to 6th Fleet in Naples, Italy, the exercise has been “long scheduled,” with planning initiated last year.

In this situation the Benfold is the early detection system and the Russell helps track for terminal intercept, which in this scenario probably wouldn't be from a SM-3 rather from a Patriot missile, likely in Israel.

Very interesting article, worth reading in full. For more background on how the Navy does Ballistic missile defense, our previous discussions are here, and SJS has some excellent articles here.

Program Executive Officer, Ships - Temporarily Relieved of Duty

It is often stated that one of the many ways to improve the cost problems surrounding naval shipbuilding is to keep people in position for longer periods of time, thereby adding some consistency to program development. This is probably not a good thing towards those ends.

A top shipbuilding officer was temporarily relieved of duty Thursday after the Naval Inspector General substantiated allegations of “personal misconduct” involving a subordinate, two Navy officials said.

Rear Adm. Charles Goddard was relieved as program executive officer for ships by Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Patrick Walsh.

Rear Adm. Frank Thorp, the Navy’s chief of information, said the inspector general substantiated personal misconduct allegations against Goddard. Thorp said the allegations involved “inappropriate personal behavior with a subordinate in a social setting while on official travel.”

A Navy official familiar with the allegations who requested anonymity said the allegations dealt with “the way he treated women” and involved alcohol.

We don't know Rear Adm. Charles Goddard, but we have covered him many times. This problem is well outside his scope of work, and whenever we read "travel", "women", and "alcohol" we see buzz words that raise a red flag towards speculation.

Although we know nothing about the Admiral personally, among the things we have observed about Admiral Goddard professionally is that he is a straight shooter when it comes to his job. While we almost never agree with what he says, to his credit we have never seen him read the brochure to us when describing a program. He also gave us one of our favorite comments on the DDG-1000.

“DDG 1000 is the Dreadnought of our Navy,”

We covered that comment in pretty good depth at the time, so no need to do it again here. All we really wish to say regarding this announcement is we hope he is able to find professional help for his alcohol problem. I've personally met dozens and dozens of Admirals throughout my lifetime, and none of them are average men or women. They always have some quality about them that was recognizable regarding why they made Admiral. This news serves as a reminder that alcohol does terrible things to the judgment of good people.

5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Order of Battle in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS Mobile Bay (CG 53)
USS Russell (DDG 59)
USS Shoup (DDG 86)
USS Momsen (DDG 92)
USS Curts (FFG 38)


Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Peleliu (LHA 5)
USS Dubuque (LPD 8)
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52)
USS Cape St. George (CG 71)
USS Benfold (DDG 65)
USS Halsey (DDG 97)


In Theater

Ocean 6
FGS Emden (F 210)
HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280)
HMCS Calgary (FFH 335)
FS Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet (F794)
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51)
HMS Edinburgh (D97)
HMS Westminster (F237)
HMS Chatham (F87)
HMS Montrose (F236)
HMNZS Te Mana (F111)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)
HMS Atherstone (M38)
HMS Chiddingfold (M37)

These Guys Are Making a Difference

I'm sure their families aren't happy to hear it, but the reasons are clear. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit has done an amazing job in Helmand province. In late April when the Marines took Gamsir (also spelled Garmser), it moved up expected time tables for a region that most observers of the British sector had expected not to be taken until the paratroopers of the 16 Air Assault Brigade was ready. Success usually carries a cost though, and in this case the cost is an extended deployment.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has approved a NATO-led International Security Assistance Force request that the 2,200 Marines of 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit remain in Afghanistan a month longer than planned.

Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Dave Nevers said the Marines “have been doing an effective job” in Regional Command South.

NATO officials said the ISAF commander, Army Gen. David McKiernan, requested the one-month extension.

“The extension will allow these Marines to reinforce the success they have had on the ground,” a Defense Department official speaking on background said.

The unit is part of a one-time deployment to Afghanistan that began in March. The original orders called for the Marines to be back at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in October. The extension will move their return into November. Families began receiving notification of the extension yesterday.

There are still no plans to replace the Marines once their tour in the volatile area is complete. A total of 12 Marines have been killed fighting the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies since the deployment began.

I spoke to my father last week. While I speak to my mother all the time, my father is more difficult to get a hold of. He's unapologetically old school in every way, he still drives all over Arkansas to meet his clients in person because that is how he has always done it. Don't misread that sentence, few people of age to collect social security are as computer savvy as my father, but that doesn't mean he will change the way he does business. Last time I had spoken with him for any lengthy period of time prior to last week was early-mid April.

He shared a story with me about a trip he had taken on April 23rd to Bentonville, AR to meet his client there. Meeting for breakfast at 6:00am in the usual place, his client made it clear that he would not be available that day at the office, that he was going to be attending a service that morning. My father decided to cancel his afternoon appointment and join him at the service.

When they got to the church that morning, they were stunned to see so many people, my father suggested the number was somewhere around 1200, literally surrounding the church and filling every corner within. The service was for Cpl Kyle W. Wilks, a soldier of the 24th MEU who had died in Afghanistan, a name he said he would never forget. After the service, the streets were lined from the Church to the funeral home with what he described as thousands of people, as people in Bentonville had literally come from all over to support the family.

My father is a man not easily moved, but this moved him, and he shares his experience that day with passion and detail that this blog post does not do justice to. With his passion he tells the story towards a single conclusion; when thousands of citizens still come out to honor our brave fallen soldiers for several hours on a Wednesday morning, the American spirit still lives, and the heart of America still beats.

I live in a suburb of Albany, NY, and during an Independence Day BBQ today I shared this story with my neighbors. They reminded me that only a few years ago when a soldier from our town fell in combat in Iraq, the turn out was estimated at 5,000 by the local paper. I remembered of coarse, I had taken by oldest daughter with me to line the streets so she could see the procession, and get a feel for the magnitude and importance of what these men and women truly mean to Americans. All three miles from the Church to the funeral was lined solid with people to thank the soldier and support the family.

Independence came with a cost, as does our freedom, liberties, and way of life. To those who serve, thank you, we forget not the words "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

SOUTHCOM Scores Again

Do we give SOUHCOM too much credit? It has been suggested by an anonymous emailer that we do, but when news like this happens it only reinforces why we believe SOUTHCOM is doing an excellent job.

Three American hostages rescued from leftist guerrillas in Colombia were back in the United States Wednesday, more than five years after their plane went down in rebel-held jungle.

They returned to the U.S. late Wednesday, as their plane landed at Lackland Air Force Base shortly after 11 p.m. All appeared well as they exited the Air Force C-17 without fanfare. The men were flown by choppers to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where they were expected to undergo tests and be reunited with their families.

The best analysis can be found at the Counterterrorism Blog. Essentially, this is what I would call five really good reads on how to put this into context and consider the details.

Colombia Rescues Ingrid Betancourt and Three US Hostages By Jonathan Winer

FARC is FARC'd: Assessing the Hostage Rescue By Aaron Mannes

Details on Colombia Hostage Operation Right Out of Spy Thriller By Jonathan Winer

The Importance of the Colombian Rescue Mission By Douglas Farah

Questions About the Rescue in Colombia By Aaron Mannes

As for whoever has been sending the anonymous email complaining we give SOUTHCOM too much credit, we will make a deal. When they stop making us look smarter for constantly pointing out how SOUTHCOM is taking smart strategic approaches fighting 21st century conflicts with a 21st century style, we will stop giving them credit. Until then, pay attention, because this is one command with lessons worth learning.

Well done everyone, and welcome home to Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell.

Iran Iran Iran, Iran Iran... Bomb?

It was just last April when John McCain made the "joke" to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Clever, but not funny.

Just over 14 months later, oil prices rose to a record high above $144 today. We are now seeing analysts cite oil prices that range from $300-$400 a barrel if Iran is attacked, which is $12-$15 dollars a gallon of gas. This comes at a critical point in the position of the US economy, the dollar is in steady decline, the Fed can't make a decision, housing is on its way to bust, debt is running wild, signs of inflation are everywhere, Americans continue to consume without saving, Washington has become completely ineffective, and there is an absence of leadership to go along with the abundance of rhetoric.

The noise of war is no longer exclusive to the troops in Iraq, because it is now everywhere in the domestic press, and continues to build a steady drumbeat. We just did a Google News Search of bomb Iran, and our return generated "about 12,393 from Jul 1, 2024 to today for bomb Iran" which is less than 48 hours of news. When we wrote this almost two months ago, the return was "about 1,681 from May 5, 2024 to today for bomb Iran" (May 6th about 11:00pm). That is a seven fold increase of news about war with Iran in two months, and there are few signs of the rhetoric cooling anytime soon.

This week alone we have seen Iran threaten to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, diplomats trying to play down the rhetoric, calls by the international community to lean on Iran, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conducting high level discussions about Iran in Israel, and...

what we have seen described as the last sign of hope for diplomacy.

There has been a lot of speculation that at the point the rhetoric hits a high pitch, when it becomes fairly obvious that either the United States or Israel is going to attack Iran, a diplomatic solution would emerge credited to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who would step in and seek to avoid war. We admit to being impressed when this happened today, because it looks like that analysis might be proving accurate.

“We see the possibility of arriving at a multi-faceted solution,” Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister told a press conference at the United Nations in New York. Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, also insisted that a “compromise” could be found.

Both men have led public statements on the nuclear issue in recent days while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s uncompromising president, has kept a low profile.

The shape of a possible face-saving compromise that would open full negotiations is now becoming clearer. A report on Fararu, an unofficial Iranian news agency close to influential opponents of Mr Ahmadinejad, said Tehran may be willing to limit uranium enrichment for a six-week period to pave the way for fully-fledged negotiations.

This offer was part of an incentives package offered to Iran last month by the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany. As we examine the details disclosed in the press, we believe this will be the last diplomatic push before Israel strikes. We note that this offer is intended to create a six week period of preparation for negotiations, at which time the real negotiations would begin. The intent of the six week period is to insure the seriousness on the part of Iran, that they really are interested in a diplomatic solution. It has been suggested that if Iran violates the agreed upon framework during that six week period, they would not be acting like a serious player in the international community, and diplomatic solutions would become very unlikely. The diplomatic package was formally presented to Iran a month ago. Iran has yet to formally accept the offer.

The administration does not believe the Iranians will accept the offer, indeed, it is legitimate to suggest some are hoping Iran rejects it. The next move will determine where the narrative for Iran goes from here.

I'm going to close this with a theory, discuss if you wish, but I will not elaborate on nor defend the theory as it is not mine, and I honestly don't know what to think about it.

If Iran rejects the proposal, and the rhetoric regarding war continues, keep an eye on the dollar. If the dollar continues to decline, it will increase, not decrease, the likelihood of war. In the event of war, as events unfold the global economy will move towards crisis and potential collapse every day the crisis continues, and it will lead to the re-evaluation of the value of individual currencies on a global scale. If that happens, which currency will the major powers lean on? Ask your banker.

The currencies of major markets of globalization are not backed by gold, modern currencies are backed by the F-16. If you don't bring your F-16 to the bank, or you fail to bring your investment in the currency that supports the F-16, you won't get a loan. This theory was forwarded from the economists view why China sits quietly as the world draws near a war that could supposedly collapse the US economy, and the Chinese economy. I thought it was an interesting theory.

5" 62 Munition, Part 2

We see this as a great sign for naval fire support.

BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin are teaming to develop long-range guided munitions for the U.S. Navy. The new 5-inch, precision-guided Extended Range Munition (ERM) will address the current void in affordable and reliable long-range naval surface fire support.

The 5-inch ERM builds on BAE Systems/Lockheed Martin’s success with the Navy’s 155-mm Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) program. The LRLAP has the capability to precisely engage targets at ranges in excess of 72 nautical miles, delivering lethal force in support of military operations ashore with minimal collateral damage. Much of the proven technology used with the LRLAP program is being applied to the 5-inch ERM program.

If you recall, earlier this year the Navy dropped the ERGM Raytheon was developing, mostly because it was too expensive and it didn't work. The only current competitor in the market we are aware of is Alliant Techsystems, which is developing a ballistic trajectory extended-range munition (BTERM). The BTERM has had some problems though.

If the new ERM is like the canceled ERGM, it will only be available for the 5" 62 caliber gun fielded on DDG 81 and forward. Something to keep an eye on for the DDG-51 modernization. BAE has a solid reputation with the LRLAP. Hopefully BAE and Lockheed Martin will be able to capitalize on that success for the ERM.

Digging a Hole to China

This is Admiral Bates speaking. I am trying to get a hold of Chief Springboard. Is he about?

Jordan Tate: He's in a gunfight right now. I'm gonna have to take a message.

That is one of many examples of the hilarious commentary happening over at Springboards, but if you haven't been following it, it can be described as the a blogger who stepped in "it" with the online naval community.

Somehow Springboard has convinced the SailorBob community he is a retired master chief, which I know for fact he is not (I am uncertain if he was ever even in the Navy, he refuses to answer repeated questions), and Springboard has drawn criticism for calling into question the capacity of specific naval officers to command. Now fully into week 2, it has been entertaining to watch, with some comments being laugh out loud funny, and an interesting contrast regarding how some see bloggers in the military space when compared to the continued reaction of Lt G.

I'm breaking my self imposed silence on the Springboard subject to highlight that the CHINFO folks ran one of his posts today in their CLIPS email news. We do not know if the Navy Office of Information folks are fully caught up on the siege by the naval community of Springboards blog (for the purpose of defending one their own), but it doesn't really matter if they are caught up or not. Does anyone else find it disturbing that the Navy Office of Information would think this type of commentary is important enough, relevant enough, or representative of liberal blogging in general to push out the door?

These days, you never know who might be making appointments with Congressional representatives.

Who knows what certain people of a liberal disposition might be chatting about? The LCS? The DDG-1000? Boosting the shipbuilding budget? Delivering a robust, pro-Navy, pro-Marine message?

It would be an awfully rare thing for a Democratic Congress to hear staunch pro-Navy stuff from liberal constituents, eh? Might be a valuable thing to have in the coming months and years, no?

Springboard is being completely self serving in his point here, forwarding the position he represents the entire liberal side of politics discussing the Navy, and with a title like Before You Troll Again..., he is essentially threatening the people posting comments on his blog not to mess with him, or he will call his Congressman or Senator. He also suggesting that he is a powerful service for the Navy to be utilized to influence liberal politicians.

Springboard goes on to make these comments, which I read the premise to be "the navy's officer community lacks professionalism on the internet."

But...with all these trolls running about, vexed liberal people might also just be forced to unburden their concerns about naval professionalism and discuss with Senate aides the failure of the Navy to instill within the ranks an appropriate appreciation for maintaining the highest levels of professional conduct when interacting with the taxpaying public and the blogosphere.

Lord knows the public now has plenty of very interesting...and rather pungent examples.

In other words, printed in a vacuum like CHINFO this post is making the point that the Navy officer community that has engaged the blogosphere are trolls advertising "plenty" of "pungent" examples that lack professionalism. Really? Where? Springboard then goes on to discuss the blogosphere and adds the suggestion...

There are some big, systemic problems looming in the way some in the Navy have decided to interact with the internet. The precedent being set is, in certain semi-official quarters, ugly, undiplomatic and decidedly-un Navylike.

With this point Springboard is at worst attacking any officer in the Navy who posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or anywhere else, and at most attacking the authors who serve in the Navy blogging on those sites. My point isn't to analyze the delusion of Springboard, I shouldn't need to say a thing, my question is why in the world would CHINFO reprint a self serving hit job on the naval officer corps that is completely absent any substance?

Why is the Navy Office of Information distributing Springboard's criticisms of Naval officers who engage online, an opinion that makes broad claims while failing to include even a single anecdotal example, and in context of the last ten days, or worse by itself in CLIPS, is at least an opinion that insults the vast majority of naval officers engaging the blogosphere, and at most an insult to anyone serving in the navy who blogs. CHINFO is still working through the process of finding where blogging fits in their service, but had someone written an editorial in a newspaper that claimed the majority of naval officers who write letters to the editor are unprofessional, would the Office of Naval Information taken it seriously enough to publish it? We doubt it.

The Office of Naval Information is working out the kinks regarding its new blogger section, mistakes will happen. Engaging new media is a learning experience, and as both the Kaboom incident and the Springboard episode highlight, bloggers have their own struggles trying to fit into the national security discussion.

China Cruises the East China Sea

How should we put this into context? Perhaps as the way China conducts a Coast Guard cruise?

China sent out a large patrol fleet, including China's most advanced maritime patrol ship Haixun 31, to the East China Sea for a five-day mission on Tuesday.

Deputy director-general of Zhejiang Maritime Safety Administration He Yipei said that the fleet will consist of two other large patrol ships Haixun 113 and Haixun 111 and over 60 small vessels.

He noted that the bureau will also send 50 maritime vehicles and over 1000 personnel in the large campaign on clamping down on accidents off the Zhejiang coast.

The fleet will sail 17,000 sea miles in five days en route of Zhoushan Islands, Dachen Island of Taizhou and the Chunxiao gasfield.

We will be looking into this in more depth later, because I'm very curious what "50 maritime vehicles and over 1000 personnel" will do to "clamp down" on "accidents".

Has the US Coast Guard ever conducted a patrol like this involving more than 60 ships? If it has, I can't recall it happening. Imagine the reaction of Hugo Chavez if the Coast Guard deployed 60+ vessels to the oil regions of the Caribbean Sea.

China never seems to do anything small. They either don't do anything, or make it look like overkill.

On Reputations, Confidence, and Expectations

In crawling the daily reading list today I came across a post over on Thomas Barnett's blog that is interesting to think about. In his post The "League of Democracies" prefers Obama—by a lot! Tom makes an interesting observation worth thinking about.

Polling data saying that if the election is held in Europe, Obama wins in a landslide.

It is interesting to consider what this means, if anything. My first reaction is to remind myself that when the founders of this nation produced a document called the Declaration of Independence, the opinion of Europeans regarding American politics became irrelevant.

But upon further reflection, there is more depth to this than my initial nationalistic reaction. There is a conventional wisdom put forward that America's reputation has declined in the world, and in Europe specifically. It is said that the decline of America's reputation is relevant to Americans, as if what other countries think about us is in constant motion and we the citizen must adjust our behavior to rebuild our popularity. This shame via reputation tactic to shape behavior is particularly popular among the global warming community.

We find this conventional wisdom regarding the relevance of European opinion of American reputation to be in direct contradiction with our concept of American independence and liberty. We see no evidence that an adjustment in the behavior of Americans will improve our nations reputation with Europe in any substantial way, indeed we see no evidence that our behavior has any effect on the nations reputation in any way.

As we think about the relationship between the US and Europe, we see no evidence that our 'reputation' has actually declined, nor that it ever moves much at all. It is important to understand why the terms matter, reputation is a personal term thus it inspires one to believe they have personal responsibility in upholding its value. These polls claim to measure reputation, but if you read the questions, they are actually measuring confidence, an abstract term that carries no personal attachment.

Europeans don't think less of Americans today than they did ten years ago, and the same is true in how Americans view Europeans. We each have perceptions of the other, if upon encounter the expectations are met during an encounter, the encounter is always pleasant. If expectations are not met, the encounter is recalled as less than pleasant. It really is that simple.

We tend to think the real issue behind all this "talk of America's bad reputation" is actually an issue of expectations. For example, the EU3 has absolutely failed miserably for at least 4 years now in trying to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue, and it is perhaps one of the greatest diplomatic failures in modern European history, and could potentially result in an incredibly costly war in the Middle East. Despite this absolute, total failure of European diplomacy, Americans don't think less of Germany, France, or Great Britain for their total failure in diplomacy. Why?

Because Americans never had any expectations the Europeans could solve the problem.

The reason the Europeans or anyone else might have a low opinion of the US, thus our terrible reputation, has everything to do with our leaderships inability to meet the high expectations our leadership set for the rest of the world regarding the influence and power of the United States. The reputation in America was unchanged even after the war in Iraq started, despite the lack of European approval for the war. The "reputation" of the US declined only after we failed to meet the expectations of a quick resolution to the Iraq war, expectations that US leadership set and did not meet.

Leadership is about setting expectations towards a positive goal, then meeting those expectations. Despite all the rhetoric about a bad reputation for the United States, if the next president can set reasonable expectations and meet or exceed those expectations, the "reputation" of America will make a 'remarkable' recovery.

Navy R&D;

We are big fans of Sharon Weinberger, she is consistently insightful in regards to military technology, and uses keen observation skills to highlight the 'fine print' that is often missed in defense reporting. While her writing on Danger Room normally sticks to the details, her sharp wit comes through in her commentary by leveraging sarcasm when appropriate. Sharon published a piece last night in Foreign Policy called The Pentagon’s Doomsday Men, and we really liked it.

Sharon is continuing the discussion we recently highlighted as the Paradigm Shift in the DoD, the debate over future force structures in the military services regarding how the military should evolve into a force for nontraditional threats and/or stay focused on building forces to counter major power war.

Sharon takes an interesting approach with this piece, rather than discussing the shift the services are struggling with, she observes the lack of shifts in the research and development community within the DoD, a community that now spends a budget that exceeds $75 billion annually.

The Pentagon, for its part, frequently speaks about investing in “high-risk, high-payoff” efforts—research that might well fail, but could lead to significant breakthroughs if it pays off. The Pentagon counts stealth aircraft, unmanned aircraft, and the Internet as successful examples of this strategy. Defense officials often employ a similar justification when addressing threats that may have a low probability of occurring, but pose a devastating consequence if they occur.

The problem with this approach to risk is not the underlying philosophy, but the frequent lack of willingness to either qualitatively or quantitatively address the actual risks. At the extreme, we know an attack by aliens from outer space is theoretically possible, but improbable. On the more conventional side, we know that a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland is more likely than another country’s sudden development of a fighter that can match the F-22.

Sharon goes on to highlight some of the more high profile DoD R&D projects, specifically ballistic missile defense and the much discussed hypersonic aircraft. We don't claim to have credibility on judging the merits of hypersonic aircraft, but her points on missile defense, specifically the risk of a ballistic missile attack from Iran or North Korea vs a nuclear bomb from a terrorist is one we agree with.

We have discussed this subject before. Considering R&D, we consider the question where the focus should be for the Navy.

The Navy has low balled its R&D budget the last several years, intentionally, only to see Congress boost the budget above what was requested. This is a well known budget tactic by the Navy, specific to the Navy cutting R&D in its base budget for more ships, specifically the DDG-1000. Congress doesn't appear fooled by the technique, particularly evident with the current DDG-1000 discussion in Congress and the expectation of a boost to the R&D budget again in FY09.

As we think strategic about what the R&D project the Navy should be going all in on, one item in particular rises to the top. As we look at the technology focus, we believe the Navy needs to go "all in" on a research effort to develop and produce the technologies that would focus on and eliminate the threat of AIP submarines.

The AIP submarine is the rising modern threat to the global system. As an inexpensive weapon system it is one of the most lethal technologies at sea, being produced at a fantastic rate not only for major powers like Russia and China, but also on the export market for a several small nations.

As the Yuan class submarine becomes full scale production, we expect to see production levels hit an average of at least 4 per year, which during a ~10 year run that also includes nuclear ballistic and attack submarines for China could arm China with well over 100 modern submarines by 2025.

Wouldn't be nice if at the 2025 time frame, just as China is fielding this incredible underwater force, the US Navy is deploying technologies that made the AIP submarine obsolete? From a "risk management" perspective, the perspective Sharon takes in her article, the risk of failure would still likely produce several useful technologies towards either the detection or destruction of submarines, even if it fell short of its goal for making the submarine obsolete. Success in such an initiative would also have the nice side effect of eliminating the threat of the quiet, inexpensive export conventional submarine as a viable weapon to be utilized against the US Navy.

If the program was very successful, one potential side effect would be the impact such a research program would have on MIW. Imagine a world where naval mines were easily detected and neutralized threats.

A maritime domain protected by the threat of submarine or maritime mine would indeed be a legitimately safer world.

"Preparing the Battlefield" Part دو

Seymour Hersh, call your office, this message is probably on your voice mail.

An Iranian navy commander leading a unit that arrested 15 UK sailors in the Persian Gulf last year has survived an assassination attempt.

The attack on Colonel Abolqasem Amangah, the commander of the Arvand Rood Navy Base in southern Iran, occurred while he was driving in the eastern Sorkh Hesar district of Tehran last week.

Two groups of unidentified assailants, a group on a motorbike and the other in a car, opened fire on the vehicle of the Iranian commander.

Amangah pulled his car over, took shelter, and managed to escape unhurt.

It kind of puts the title of his latest piece into perspective huh? "Preparing the Battlefield"

Indeed.

For all you new folks who aren't familiar with Colonel Abolqasem Amangah, he is a rock star in Iran, they even threw a parade in his honor earlier this year. That link never gets old, Eagle1 won comment of the year...

Building Requirements Through Experience

Defense Daily has an article called Marine Corps Board Reviewing Delayed Marine Personnel Carrier by Emelie Rutherford out this morning, and we didn't get very far before we think something doesn't sound right...

A Marine Corps board is expected to sign off this month on a new plan for the future Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC), a medium-weight armored vehicle program recently delayed by two years because of fiscal constraints.

Service officials decided in April to halt plans to allow the MPC to enter into the technology demonstration stage and then issue a request for proposals for it--actions expected this past spring--because of a lack of funding. A new plan shifting the schedule to right by two years is being staffed to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC), said Kevin McConnell at Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

"I assume that that [plan] is going to be concurred with by the MROC members because it's been widely briefed," said McConnell, deputy director of the fires and maneuver integration division.

The decision to delay MPC "was purely about the budget," and the program "is actually a very high priority," McConnell said.

Mr. McConnell, "purely" is such a strong term. I would have liked to hear questions about the MPC test conducted for loading and unloading on existing ships. Didn't hear about that? Well, the MPC prototype used for the test was too big and too heavy. Hopefully someone will enlighten us about the problems fitting through the stern ramp, or the problems using the ramps between decks.

The MPC is the latest in a series of Marine Corps equipment designs that is too big and too heavy for existing sealift. One side of the argument is to say "those damn Marines, they keep building bigger gear then complain because their equipment loads for MEUs continues to shrink." That same argument suggests the Marines need to be thinking a different way, a common buzzword is "flexible" and critics advocate the Marines need to shed their heavy gear and go light. There is one enormous black hole in the critics argument, unlike the Navy, the Marines are developing requirements based on experience and lessons of war.

Those critics would have the Marines dismiss all of the lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq so they can fit some theoretical set of metrics developed absent the requirements learned on the battlefield. Sure the MRAP is big and heavy and doesn't fit very nice within the float, get over it. The alternative got a bunch of Marines killed. Is it going to suck when the Marines build a big, heavy Marine Personnel Carrier that further reduces the amount of equipment the Marines can carry with them within the existing ESG structure? Probably, but it shouldn't, the Marines are adapting to the reality of war based on the metrics derived through experience in war, anyone in the Navy who complains about that needs to get their wits together, and instead of complaining, get behind them and support the Marines requirements.

The problem isn't the increased size of vehicles, that was the solution in Iraq. The problem is the lack of evolution by the Navy to address the demands of this evolution in 21st century war. The Navy needs to work with the Marines to evolve the platforms that support the MEU, failure to do so is to place the theoretical requirements of the future over the absolute lessons learned in war. Looking at the big picture, it doesn't help the Marines any that the Navy is using Amphibious ships for their own purposes and resisting the call for more ships, because the reasonable conclusion we draw is that it is time to build more amphibious ships.

It is often suggested the JHSV is going to help this problem. Wrong. The JHSV has many potential uses, and will be fantastic in supporting operations after assault, but the JHSV cannot support the Marines from ship to shore to battle without infrastructure, either with a Sea Base or a port or some form of causeway. JHSV is great, but it, and sealift in general is not a replacement for amphibious assault. Don't be the guy claiming "but the Marines haven't assaulted a beach since Korea." That argument loses for two big reasons. First, every single major Navy in the world is building amphibious capabilities into their fleet right now, ALL of them. That makes it you vs the whole world in that argument, and there is tens of billions being spent worldwide proving your argument silly. Second, a US submarine hasn't sank a ship for an even longer period of time, do we abandon attack submarines too? Uhm, no.

This is why we continue to advocate for a 7 LHD, 2 LHA, and 19 LPD-17 amphibious force that transitions all existing LSDs into mothership roles for the Navy, but as secondary support platforms should a major amphibious operation call for it. The Marines need the extra vehicle space of the LPD-17s, and the Navy needs the LSDs to build forward sea bases. The requirement is 9 ESGs, that is 19 LPD-17s for 8 ESGs each with 2 LPD-17s, with for the forward deployed ESG, it would be 3 LPD-17s.

The attitude we often see put forth is that the Marines need to quit developing these big pieces of equipment. Well, that might be a legitimate argument for the EFV, but it isn't for the MPC. The way we see it, the Marines are the ones building metrics off experience in war, while the Navy is applying metrics built on the theory of war. Experience trumps theory everytime.

Given the choice between either battleship, DDG-1000 or DDG-51, and up to 19 LPD-17s, if the Navy is going to support their own requirements and the Marines requirements, they pick the LPD-17s. What do I mean by own requirements? We are not pulling these numbers out of thin air...

There have been 9 amphibious ships on deployment in 2008: USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Nassau (LHA 4), USS Peleliu (LHA 5), USS Nashville (LPD 13), USS Dubuque (LPD 8), USS Ashland (LSD 48), USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52), USS Oak Hill (LSD 51), and USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41). Of the 9 ships, three have been for Navy specific deployments: USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Oak Hill (LSD 51), and USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41). That means a full third of the amphibious ships deployed this year have been for purposes other than the Marines, and I'm ignoring that the 24th MEU is in Afghanistan, not on the Nassau ESG. A full third...

We are suggesting 7 LHDs, 2 LHAs, 19 LPD-17s, and 12 LSDs used for the Navy. 7+2+19+12 = 40, with 12 for Navy purposes. What is the percentage of 40/12? "Match resources with requirements" is not a slogan, and requirements should be determined by experience, not by theory.

Observing The Navy's Global Soft Power Deployments

Captain Bob has brought sexy back to Civil Service Mariners (as the photo highlights) and as the first comment highlights his wife would agree. The blog for the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) is a really good daily read. Yesterday the Mercy spent her last day in Vietnam and is on its way to Singapore. As we have been observing the deployment of the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), we have found a tremendous amount of media attention given to Operation Smile in Vietnam. It took us a little while to figure out why, but it turns out Cindy McCain, leveraging some of that celebrity status she has during the presidential campaign, helped promote it. In fact, the Miss Universe contestants also helped promote it. Whoever is responsible for the marketing for the deployment is doing an ace job! Meghan McCain has some very good pictures of the work Operation Smile did there, about half way down on that link. Meghan, next time take a few pictures of the ship!

The ship that will execute the second SOUTHCOM Global Fleet Mission deployment departed Norfolk on Friday. We have previously discussed the creativity taking place under Admiral Stavridis's command. First it was using HSV Swift as a Global Fleet Station platform, then it was using Stiletto for chasing down drug runners, then it was the use of airships for surveillance, and now it deploying a Rescue and Salvage Ship, specifically the USNS Grasp (T-ARS 51), for what is being called Navy Diver-Global Fleet Station 2008. The divers are from the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command's Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit Two and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group Two. Good luck to Capt. Jose Delfaus, we look forward to news from the Caribbean during this deployment.

The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is helping out following the Tsunami destruction in the central Philippines. I've read in some places this is overkill for a Carrier Strike Group, but I think that is a bad read of the situation. Does it require an aircraft carrier? Nope. However, it sends exactly the right signal regionally, that the US Navy will be there when they are needed, in force if necessary and with help when possible. Given the conditions right now in the Pacific, with a massive naval force involved in RIMPAC and North Korea blowing up their nuclear coolers, one wonders where else the strike group should be instead?

Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) is in Singapore in the middle of an 11-day exercise that will focus on anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare and security operations. While we aren't certain, we believe the exercise ends Thursday and these sailors will get the 4th of July off. The exercises includes 13 ships and 1 submarine. US forces for the exercise include the coast guard cutter Morgenthau (WHEC 722), USS Jarrett (FFG 33), USS Tortuga (LSD 46), USS Ford (FFG 54) and USS McCampbell (DDG 85). The USNS Safeguard (T-ARS 50), which had been expected to participate in the exercises, was sent to the Philippines to help with the ferry that overturned and killed several hundred. You can follow the news from CARAT on the Commander Task Force 73 news website, which is frequently updated with news believe it or not.

Finally, there are some discussions and observations that suggest elements of the USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group are on their way to the Gulf of Guinea, in fact already in the Atlantic Ocean. Due to press coverage in that region being limited at best, while we believe this is a planned aspect of the Nassau ESG deployment, given recent security concerns regionally one never knows if the mission profile has changed. The Coast Guard cutter Dallas (WHEC 716) is in the region as part of the ongoing U.S. Naval Forces Europe's Africa Partnership Station (APS) initiative. There has been no media coverage of the Dallas since it completed an exercise with the Cape Verde Coast Guard on June 17th. A lot of stuff happened in the region after June 17th.

LHA-6 Will be USS America

This crossed the DoD wires, but the link was taken down. We will update link when it is available again.

The Navy's newest class of large-deck amphibious assault ship, LHA 6, will bear the name USS America, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced while speaking at the USS America Carrier Veterans Association reunion in Jacksonville, Fla.

This ship will inherit a proud tradition, explained Winter. From the American Revolution through the first Gulf War, three warships have sailed with the name America...

LHA 6 will be the fourth U.S. Navy ship to bear the name America. The first America, a 74-gun ship-of-the-line, was the first built for use by the Continental Navy. However, before having a chance to serve the fledgling U.S. Navy, the ship was presented as a gift to the king of France to show appreciation for his country's service to the new nation. The second USS America (ID-3006) was later the name given to a troop transport used during World War I. The third was a Kitty-Hawk class aircraft carrier (CV 66) in commission from 1965 to 1996. Among other notable accomplishments, the carrier America made three deployments to Vietnam and launched air strikes on Iraq during the opening days of Operation Desert Storm.

When it comes to names of Aircraft carriers, which is what the LHA-6 class essentially is, the Navy record since 1975 has been less than impressive. In this case, we like it.

If the US Navy was to maintain 12 aircraft carriers in the 21st century, we would prefer the following 12 names.

Enterprise
Hornet
Yorktown
Saratoga
Midway
Constellation
Ranger
Intrepid
Kitty Hawk
Essex
Wasp
Oriskany

Name frigates after Presidents, assuming we ever build any again.

Exploring the Israel-Iran Option

Seymour Hersh has a new article out in the New Yorker called "Preparing the Battlefield," and after going through all seven pages twice, we are still left wondering what all the hype is about. Essentially the article suggests that the US is operating in Iran to collect intelligence, and appears to attempt to shame Democrats for supporting the gathering of intelligence in Iran by funding intelligence gathering. The implication is that because Bush hasn't brought the intelligence gathered back to Congress there is a problem, but speaking from experience, if Bush never brings the intelligence back to Congress, that is probably a good thing for the country. The record there hasn't been pretty, and we prefer he keeps that stuff to himself where it is unlikely to be used to make the case for war.

The rest of the Hersh analysis is of the various politics of the issue, including some interesting stuff regarding Admiral Fallon, but nothing that left us feeling empowered with new information. Essentially, other than the politics, there was nothing new there.

What the Hersh article does do though is note that his sources are the same as ours, with one new one we had previously not observed. Hersh specifically highlights articles by Andrew Cockburn written back in May, that can be found here and here. Its basically more of the political dancing in Washington. The defense related information that Hersh cites is the news in Iran, which is what we watch, so as folks disinterested in the political shuffle in Washington, we didn't see anything worth exploring other than the confirmation of special forces to gather intelligence.

And on that note, we think about what they might be watching in Iran. One gets the feeling this is on the short list.

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The question to ask is, are they fueled? Unlikely, and if you know anything about ballistic missiles, you know why. Putting ballistic missiles with no fuel on launchers makes this a strange move for the Iranians, one of many strange moves we are observing in fact. But of all the crazy things associated with the Iran war theory discussion, this is by far our favorite topic.

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam newspaper, which is affiliated to Iran's state-run radio and television network.

"Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue... Oil prices will dramatically increase.

"This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

We do not believe the United States will attack Iran during the remainder of the Bush administration. We believe if one was casting odds, the odds of Barak Obama or John McCain bombing Iraq in the first 100 days of their presidency is higher than Bush bombing in his remaining days. With that said, we believe Israel will likely bomb Iran during the Bush administration, and when it happens it will change the way the world looks at 21st century warfare. SUTER will be small stuff compared to what we expect to see.

The conventional wisdom expresses concern regarding what will happen to Israel if they bombs Iran. In truth, the answer is the ballistic missiles of Iran is about the only "new" threat Israel faces, it is hard to imagine the Iranian Air Force could hit Israel, and Iran's Naval options are virtually nil. It is likely Hamas and Hezbollah go crazy on Israel in retaliation, but they did that in 2006, so that isn't really a new threat and one Israel will be in a better position to manage than they were in 2006. As we ponder the scenario's, as soon as the first bomb drops, the question isn't whether Israel will destroy itself, the question becomes will Iran destroy itself.

When one contemplates all of the reactions by Iran, one must consider the consequences. For example, if Iran attacks US forces directly, that would essentially be a declaration of war on the United States leading to the most lopsided battle the region has seen since 1991. For all of the focus on Thomas Barnett's Esquire article about "Fox" Fallon, it seems to us people seemed to miss several points Admiral Fallon made. One memorable comment for us was on page 1, in the first section, when discussing the possibility of war with Iran, Fallon said:

"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

Regardless of all the scary scenario's that get tossed around by political pundits, there is one scary fact for Iran that stands out during the decision process: declaring war against the United States has historically been a really bad idea.

Another possible retaliation is the one discussed above, shutting down the straits. Who honestly believes Iran is going to unilaterally shut down the straits and crash the economy of the entire Pacific Ocean region? Does Iran think China will simply sit on its hands and watch their economy crash? I'm trying to figure out why crashing the energy economy of every major power in the world except Canada, Brazil, and Russia is a good idea for Iran. This isn't an option for Iran, because if they shut down the strait, they would lose the political high ground and prove Israel right: Iran is a suicide state.

The fact of the matter is, other than asymmetrical attacks in Iraq, which will only turn Iraqi's against Iran even more, or asymmetrical attacks against Israel after the limited number of ballistic missiles are fired, Iran really doesn't have much recourse without being completely destroyed in a total war scenario. If Hezbollah attacks a mall in Minnesota after Israel attacks Iran, does Iran honestly believe the entire country will not blame Iran? Even more important, do the Iranians really believe the Europeans will simply pull out of NATO to remove their obligations to support a NATO member that was attacked by Iran? The logic assumed by westerners to the suicidal nature of an Iranian regime built on survival simply doesn't make much sense to us.

In other words, Iran is incredibly threatening as long as everyone is talking, but the unfortunate reality for the Iranians is, once the talking stops Iran is left in a terrible strategic position with very few options that don't have massive potential blow back, both political and military. Unfortunately for Israel, if they attack Iran they are on their own. Unfortunately for Iran, they will be on their own too, and Iran doesn't have very many military options against a power as strong as Israel.