Congratulations Matt Armstrong

From Mountainrunner.

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is charged with appraising U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Commission formulates and recommends to the President, the Secretary of State, and Members of Congress policies and programs to carry out the public diplomacy functions vested in the State Department, Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other government agencies, as well as appraising the effectiveness of the public diplomacy policies and programs carried out by government agencies.

There are seven members on the Commission, with "not more than four members may be from one political party." In February, the White House sent to the Senate four nominations for the Commission. The Commission also includes an Executive Director hired as a civil servant on a two-year appointment.

Today, Matt Armstrong, author and publisher of MountainRunner.us, was sworn in as the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission. The immediate impact is the suspension of blogging, including the publishing of guest posts, at MountainRunner.us.

The Commission's website will be updated in the near future. Plans for the new website include a blog and repository for all of the Commission reports we can digitize.

I just want to say congratulations to Matt Armstrong. Mountainrunner has been one of my daily reads for years, and Matt has been a good friend and trusted mentor regarding the influence potential of Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications, helping me understand how to shape ideas and activities into a maritime context.

For you folks on the Hill, if you don't know Matt Armstrong, it is worth your time to talk to him - you will learn a lot.

Photo by me. Left to right is Rob Holzer, Matt Armstrong, Paula Trimble, and Jack Holt after a few glasses of red on a summer night somewhere in Crystal City.

China Releases National Defense 2010 White Paper

China has released a white paper titled: China's National Defense in 2010. A key quote:

In the first decade of the 21st century, the international community forged ahead in a new phase of opening up and cooperation, and at the same time faced crises and changes. Sharing opportunities for development and dealing with challenges with joint efforts have become the consensus of all countries in the world. Pulling together in the time of trouble, seeking mutual benefit and engaging in win-win cooperation are the only ways for humankind to achieve common development and prosperity.

China has now stood at a new historical point, and its future and destiny has never been more closely connected with those of the international community. In the face of shared opportunities and common challenges, China maintains its commitment to the new security concepts of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination. By connecting the fundamental interests of the Chinese people with the common interests of other peoples around the globe, connecting China's development with that of the world, and connecting China's security with world peace, China strives to build, through its peaceful development, a harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity.

Looking into the second decade of the 21st century, China will continue to take advantage of this important period of strategic opportunities for national development, apply the Scientific Outlook on Development in depth, persevere on the path of peaceful development, pursue an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy that is defensive in nature, map out both economic development and national defense in a unified manner and, in the process of building a society that is moderately affluent on a general basis, realize the unified goal of building a prosperous country and a strong military.

A few articles already here and here. This is a high level paper claimed to be in the spirit of transparency, but it basically reveals nothing as one might expect. It is likely I'll have a more detailed post on a few subjects at a later date.

Hornet Engine Explosion on USS John C. Stennis

I suspect that by the time most of you read this, the Navy will have more information out in the media. Until then, from the Washington Post.

A jet fighter’s engine exploded and caught fire Wednesday as it prepared to take off from an aircraft carrier off California, injuring 10 sailors, the military said.

The F/A-18C Hornet was starting a training exercise when the accident occurred about 2:50 p.m. on the flight deck of the USS John C. Stennis, according to Cmdr. Pauline Storum.

Four sailors were flown to Naval Medical Center San Diego where they were in stable condition. The six others were treated for burn injuries on board the carrier. None of the injuries was life threatening, Storum said.

The pilot was not hurt.

The fire was quickly extinguished, and there was no significant damage to the ship, Storum said. The cause of the fire was under investigation.

Storum said the Hornet sustained at least a million dollars’ worth of damage.

First and foremost, lets keep these sailors in our prayers this morning.

Will War For Water

Remember all those predictions about how the world will go to war over peak oil? Well, those predictions never came from the US government. However, the US government has been predicting that we could, in the future, see war over water - and this is an example.

Ethiopia on Wednesday said it planned to build a huge dam on the Nile despite a long-running row with Egypt over use of the river and concern the dispute may spark a war.

The nine countries through which the river passes have for more than a decade been locked in often bitter talks to renegotiate colonial-era treaties that gave Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of the river’s waters.

However, six of the nine upstream countries — Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and Burundi — have signed a new deal stripping Egypt of its veto.

“The Great Nile dam construction is scheduled to commence presently near the Ethio-Sudan border,” Water and Energy Minister Alemayehu Tegenu said.

In November, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi told Reuters that Egypt was backing rebel groups in his country because of the Nile dispute and that if it went to war with upstream countries over the river it would lose.

More background on the issue here. Worth noting the timing as Nile River nations are moving against Egypt while their government is at the weakest point in several decades.

This could turn into a legitimate election issue in Egypt.

Operation Tomodachi: Fukushima Plant Still Struggles

Luis Martinez of ABC News is reporting that a US nuclear emergency response team of Marines is being sent to Japan.

Approximately 155 Marines from the Marines' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) received their deployment orders for Japan earlier today and are scheduled to arrive on Friday.

The team is being sent as what a Defense Department official calls "an initial response force" because they are only a portion of the much larger CBIRF unit.

Based at the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland, CBIRF is a Marine unit specially trained to counter the effects of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incident. Usually, that entails being available to assist local, state and federal agencies with domestic emergency responses to CBRNE incidents.

The unit's deployment to Japan "will provide the U.S. on-scene commander a rapid response capability and, if requested, [allow the commander to] assist Japanese authorities by providing advice and expertise in the areas of agent detection and identification, casualty search, rescue, personnel decontamination and emergency medical care," a defense official said.

The deployment of the initial response force is not of an emergency nature, but more as a precautionary move in case they are needed, another defense official said.

The report goes on to note they will operate from Yokota Air Base outside of Tokyo, which is outside the 50 mile exclusion zone. Also reported today was news that seawater around the Fukushima plant is 4,385 times more than the legal limit, and radiation is potentially entering directly into the seawater from an unknown source.

Also important, Wednesdays update from Operation Tomodachi.

Seventh Fleet forces continue support of Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF) in Operation Tomodachi. With Sendai airport now open for military flights - and soon to be opened for commercial flights as well -- 7th Fleet’s focus has shifted to harbor clearance, consolidating relief supplies at airfields ashore, and preparing to assist with clean-up of debris.

USNS Safeguard (ARS 50) and USS Tortuga (LSD 46), Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 1, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5 and Underwater Construction Team 2 conducted additional surveys in preparation for port clearance operations at the port of Miyako. Visual surveys show extensive damage including commercial and pleasure craft sunk, concrete pier supports washed ashore and a permanent pier destroyed. Tortuga launched a Landing Craft Unit (LCU) equipped with side scan sonar to survey additional areas of the port. The side scan sonar provides detailed visuals of the harbor bottom to identify and prioritize dive sites for clearing. During today’s survey, the dive team discovered the remains of a victim of the tsunami of March 11. The Navy team immediately communicated the discovery to the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, whose divers retrieved them.

Sailors and Marines from the USS Essex amphibious ready group and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are planning for Operation “Field Day”, a clearing and clean up mission on the remote island of Oshima off the coast of Kessennuma. In conjunction with the Japan Ground Self Defense Force, the effort will include clearing the port, and clearing debris from local schools and government buildings. The island is dependent upon ferry service to and from the mainland, is the primary method for travel to/from the island and clearing the port allows this vital lifeline to resume. Clearing and opening of schools and government buildings is a significant step towards restoring the island to normal.

Helicopters from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 262 moved an additional 13 pallets of relief supplies from USS Essex (LHD 2), USS Germantown (LSD 42) and USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) to Misawa, where they will moved via C-130 aircraft to Sendai. From there, JGSDF and civilian relief authorities will able to distribute the items to disaster areas as needed. The JGSDF has opened most roads in the disaster areas, and are able to move most goods to displaced persons via ground transportation.

USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) and USNS Pecos (T-AO 197) arrived at the port of Yokosuka today. The Rappahannock transported 312 pallets of water it picked up from the port city of Gwangyang, South Korea. The water will be used by Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) to support ongoing relief efforts. USNS Carl Brashear (T-AKE 7) arrived in Sasebo. Both Pecos and Carl Brashear are taking on fuel and ships stores prior to returning to the fleet to support relief operations.

A P-3 “Orion” aircraft from the Skinny Dragons of Patrol Squadron Four (VP-4) conducted a search and rescue flight down the east coast of Japan to search for debris or objects at sea that could interfere with shipping. The P-3 returned to Kadena Air Force Base (AFB) upon completion of the mission and will stage from there for continued relief efforts.

The first of two U.S. Navy barges containing 500,000 gallons of fresh water from Commander, Facilities Activities Yokosuka (CFAY) was moved to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant today. The second will arrive tomorrow. Japanese authorities will use the fresh water to replace salt water currently in some of the reactors.

USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10) conducted resupply at sea (RAS) activities with USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Preble (DDG 88), USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), USS Mustin (DDG 89), USS Cowpens (CG 63), and USS Shiloh (CG 67), ships of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), supplying fuel and additional supplies. Most of the relief supplies on these ships have been moved ashore to airfields in Misawa or Sendai where the JSDF can better access them to deliver to people in need.

Currently 16 ships, 130 aircraft and 13,076 personnel are actively engaged in operation Tomodachi. Those ships include USS Tortuga (LSD 46), USNS Safeguard (T-ARS-50), USS Essex (LHD 2), USS Germantown (LSD 42), USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49), USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Preble (DDG 88), USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), USS Mustin (DDG 89), USS Cowpens (CG 63), USS Shiloh (CG 67), USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10), USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) and USNS Richard E. Byrd (T-AKE 4).

Since Operation Tomodachi started, U.S. 7th Fleet forces have delivered more than 250 tons of relief supplies to survivors of the tsunami and earthquake in support of Japan Self Defense Force efforts.

A few thoughts.

1) I am still blown away by the magnitude of the disaster in Japan. It isn't just the regional damage that has probably killed more than 20,000 people. The ongoing struggle at the nuclear reactor adds uncertainty to just about everything. Radiation concerns apply to their food sources, water supplies, and the wind has been blowing radiation all over their land. Many people are still struggling for electricity, and oh btw it's been snowing. Yet, the people of Japan move forward. The picture above reads "To everybody in the U.S. 7th Fleet: Thank you. The Japanese people will not be beaten."

2) The PAOs in the Pacific are doing a fabulous job. Seriously... they have been outstanding in their efforts in matching the efforts of those in field. There is only one example of stupidity by a PAO on Facebook, and it has been scrubbed from all official sites although not before the poor guy was torn a new asshole on SailorBob. It was a good story (see Google cache here while it lasts), but the guy made an error by speaking in an official capacity with those opinions regarding Americans - even if they aren't necessarily disagreeable opinions.

3) It was controversial when the Navy elevated humanitarian assistance and disaster response to a strategic priority in the Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. Does anyone still have any lingering doubts about that decision? I've been thinking about how many officers there are in Navy Medicine, perhaps one of the most underrated Federally funded health care organizations in America. I've been thinking about the Continuing Promise deployment of USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) and the Pacific Partnership 2011 deployment of USS Cleveland (LPD 7), and I think about Haiti, the Pakistan floods, and now Japan...and I think the maritime strategists got it right. HA/DR is strategic, HA/DR is influence, and HA/DR is one of the best peacetime defense investments per dollar the United States government is making today.

TMI

From today's DoD contract announcements.

PAE Government Services, Inc., Arlington, Va., is being awarded an $87,621,822 modification under a previously awarded cost-plus-award fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N33191-07-D-0207) to exercise option four, which provides for base operating support services at Camp Lemonnierand forwarding operating locations, i.e., Camp Simba, Manda Bay, Kenya. The work to be performed provides for general management and administration services; public safety (harbor security, security operations and emergency management program); ordnance; air operations (airfield facilities and passenger terminal and cargo handling); supply; morale, welfare and recreation; galley; housing (bachelor quarters and laundry); facility support (facilities investment, janitorial, pest control services and refuse services); utilities (water, waste water and electrical); base support vehicle and equipment; and environmental. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $379,157,194. Work will be performed in Djibouti, Manda Bay, and Kenya, Africa, and is expected to be completed by March 2012. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe Africa Southwest Asia, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity.

A few rules. First, I don't want to hear about your sex life, it's just too much information. Second, I don't want to read about contracts for forward operating bases used by special forces near Somalia in the contract announcements.

Less is more people, less is more. Carry on.

NSW in the PI

Here's a nice video featuring SEALs in the Philippines. Also see JSOTF-P's blog here.

I agree the nearly decade old operation has gone well and been cost effective. But frankly, comparisons to the scope and cost of JSOTF-P's COIN (really FID) efforts to COIN/CT efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan are apples and rocks. The nature of the insurgencies are fundamentally different as unlike the primary AQ affiliates, the Mindanao insurgents are of limited importance to al Qaeda's overall strategy and lack external support and an influx of foreign jihadists fighters.

Criticism aside though, the NSW (SEAL and SWCC), NECC forces (primarily maritime civil affairs), and various USN/USNS ships have done a tremendous job in supporting the PI military in combating Islamic insurgents since 2002. (And yes, there are non-Navy SOF and GPF involved also, but this has been a maritime-centric operation). Aside from the obvious COIN lessons learned, some take-aways from a naval IW perspective include the experience gained operating and sustaining distributed SOF in an archipeligo, use of small tactical UAS in a maritime environment, and long duration afloat staging of SOF.

Update: try this link at SWJ. For some reason (probably my technical ineptitude), the above video link isn't working.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

Muddling

I'll have more thoughts on the subject later in the week, especially in response to Galrahn's "Obama Doctrine" posts, but for today I've written my WPR column on grand strategy and "muddling through."

None of this is to suggest that we should avoid grand strategic thinking. Such thought helps clarify the values upon which we construct our interests and, consequently, how we go about securing those interests. However, grand strategy offers neither a template nor a roadmap for dealing with particular foreign policy events. Rather, it highlights certain values and gives some indication of how those values relate to one another. As such, a grand strategy gives guidance to policymakers in specific crises without dictating a particular response. Instead of thinking of the "Obama doctrine," whatever that might be, as dictating that we should pursue certain policies, we should think of it as creating a framework for weighing the available options. Every individual application of a doctrine will inevitably involve the messy compromises that constitute muddling through. That's why becoming adept at muddling is every bit as important as creating a coherent grand strategy.

An Option for Short Range, Accurate Naval Fires

I have been thinking about this picture a lot. This is a slide found on page 13 of this Powerpoint, and in it the USS Tortuga (LSD 46) apparently loaded 16 CB-90s during an exercise back on February 27, 2002. I have a very high opinion of the CB-90, and note the US Navy is using the CB-90 on a limited basis with our Riverine Squadrons.

I've also been thinking about Libya. In a Congressional Research Report dated March 28, 2024 done by Jeremiah Gertler titled Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress (R41725), there are some interesting charts on costs. For example, the 3 B-2 bombers that flew from Missouri to Libya cost $2.3 million in flight hours, $800K in refueling costs, and if we assume each aircraft dropped 15 JDAMs (45 total), they delivered roughly $1.575 million in payload. That means those three B-2 strikes cost an estimated $4,675,000. If we assume the US Navy has fired 210 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles to date, and each TLAM costs $1.4 million, that is roughly $294 million in war costs.

It was recently reported that one of the submarines moved away from Libya, scaling down US Navy presence. That news was received with a big yawn. I'm not really sure why, but I think it might in part be due to the reality the US Navy lacks capabilities for taking the fight to land below that of the $1.4 million Tomahawk. It seems to me the US Navy is missing a few critical pieces if seapower is to take a leading role in influencing the enemy from an offshore position in situations where military action on the land side of the littorals is required.

As I see it the US Navy is missing two important pieces. First, the US Navy needs an accurate weapon system for deploying fires up to a range of about 10km from a position offshore of about 2km. This needs to be a low tech, low cost rapid fires capability that can be supported and maintained from existing platforms at sea. Second, the US Navy needs an accurate weapon system for deploying fires up to a range of about 50km from a position offshore of around 25km. Again, this needs to be a low tech and low cost, selective fires capability that can be leveraged from existing platforms at sea.

It appears the Navy believes that long term, the Griffin missile will be capable of filling the role of the second weapon system. Obviously there will be a development process towards that conclusion to increase the capability of the Griffin, but since NLOS was going to be that short range offshore precision fires capability and the Griffin is intended to replace that weapon system long term, at minimum we can acknowledge the Navy is investing in a solution.

But that still leaves the gap at the very low tech, low cost, short range level... and when facing adversaries that are using low tech capabilities to drive our costs up, it is important that we too seek low tech solutions for those environments where we can keep our costs of conducting the business of war down. The cost difference between MRAP and IED demonstrates how long term, the US loses the cost equation in warfare if we too aren't looking for low cost solutions.

Again, that is why I have been thinking about the CB-90, and in particular the AMOS or Advanced Mortar System, a 120 mm automatic twin barreled, breech loaded mortar turret. If the USS Ponce (LPD 15) had 6 or so of these CB-90s with 120mm mortars, and was configured to fire the GPS Roll-Controlled Guided Mortar shell, your talking about a CB-90 being able to put up to 26 GPS guided 5 lb shells on top of several targets in a single minute out to 7-9 km and at a cost of $7,000 a shell. The nice thing about this capability is that it would fit in nice working with UAVs from LCS, and the low yield of the shell would make this capability useful in urban areas where civilian casualties are a critical concern.

High end missions like Ballistic Missile Defense are requiring resources to be concentrated towards capabilities that simply don't translate into the dirty work of littoral warfare. The LCS is coming, and with the LCS comes a significant number of ISR capabilities that will create opportunities for the US Navy to take the fight to the enemy. Part of that fight needs to be sustainable firepower capabilities that can move in and out of the littorals from 50 miles offshore, be moved forward quickly and maintained in the field. In times of tight budget resources, sometimes those capabilities will be poor man solutions.

The CB-90 with a 120mm mortar firing GPS rounds is an example of a poor mans solution to short ranged fire support, but I would point out that operating at night off the Libyan coast right now they would be a lethal, low cost uniquely naval capability that allows the US to use the sea as a maneuver space and sustain coverage over land areas with a much greater capacity for fires than UAVs will now, or in the future when LCS and other UAV platforms are fielded.

Who Else Reads Your Facebook Page?

From March 22, 2024 - Hey AT&T customers: Your Facebook data went to China and S. Korea this morning…

The author raises several questions:

• Should Facebook and or AT&T have notified their customers that their personal information was flowing over a network that they may not trust?
• Should Facebook enable SSL on all accounts by default?
• Was this actually a privacy breach or just the way the Internet functions?
• Does Facebook have an ethical responsibility to buy additional IP connectivity to major broadband and mobile networks to prevent routing mishaps?
• Is it time to focus on new options within BGP to prevent high profile sites from routing to non-authenticated networks?

This happens all the time — the Internet is just not a trusted network. Yet, I prefer to know that when I am on AT&T’s network, going to US located sites, my packets are not accidentally leaving the country and being subject to another nation’s policies. I guess that’s why you should not use Facebook in “bareback” mode and use HTTPS (SSL) any time you can.

The organizational power of technology tools like Facebook has been heavily utilized by those protesting across the Middle East the last few months. If a nation can reroute the AT&Ts network from the US, a nationally owned network can be rerouted too...

There are over 500 million Facebook users. It is the worlds largest community. Whether it was intentional or accidental that Facebook traffic was redirected to China, there is a lot to think about here.

An At Sea Working Model

I think this is worth highlighting. From the GW Facebook page:

PACIFIC OCEAN (March 29, 2024) -Aviation Boatswain’s Mates (Fuel) aboard the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) accomplished an unprecedented undertaking at sea by moving a massive fuel purifier seven decks below with help from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard workers, March 29.

The 4,000 lbs. jet propellant five (JP-5) fuel purifier being moved is responsible for separating the usable, raw fuel from water and sediment. JP-5 is repeatedly refined via the purifier to remove contaminants that have accumulated while the fuel sits in storage containers for later use.

The JP-5 fuel is extremely important to the functionality of an aircraft carrier. The fuel is used to perform a variety of functions including controlling the ship’s balance; fueling the fighter jets on the flight deck and the tractors that move stage them; and running the emergency diesel engines and auxiliary generators.

“We are replacing this critical piece of equipment while at sea because we did not have an opportunity to do it in port,” said Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Fuel) 1st Class (AW/SW) Nelson Lubin, leading petty officer of George Washington’s Air Department, V4 division. “Under normal conditions, the unit would be replaced by qualified shipyard workers while the ship is in port. A large hole in the ship is generally cut to facilitate the installation of the unit—so us getting it done at sea, on our own, is an incredible feat.”

George Washington recently deployed from her homeport of Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka due to complex nature of the natural disaster that struck Japan on March 11. The turnaround time from under maintenance to fit for sea occurred in just five days. This resulted in some open projects and installations to be postponed until she was first safe and sea-worthy.

“I continue to be amazed each and every day we are at sea by what our Sailors and these civilian craftsmen are accomplishing,” said George Washington’s Commanding Officer, Capt. David A. Lausman. “They are working around the clock, putting their heart and soul into their work and I couldn’t be prouder to call them shipmates.”

The team of Sailors and their Shipyard counterparts successfully relocated the now-disassembled fuel purifying unit— similar in size to a Volkswagen Beetle—from the ship’s open hangar bay, down seven decks to a pump room via a ladderwell in less than eight hours time.

“I’m really proud of what our team did today. It might be the first time something like this has ever been attempted—at least for us it is,” said Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Fuel) 3rd Class Richard Bell from Syracuse, N.Y.

“I really have to hand it to the civilian riggers. Without their help we would not have been able to accomplish this,” said Bell.

George Washington is the Navy’s only permanently forward-deployed aircraft carrier, ensuring security and stability across the western Pacific Ocean.

-GW-

The first thing I thought of when I read this story was how much work is being accomplished at sea vs at port. Japan isn't a war zone, but it looks like one, and while the USS George Washington (CVN 73) isn't exactly a causality of war... given the work being done on her, she might look like one.

I suppose I am wondering if what is being done on the USS George Washington (CVN 73) translates into a model for battle damage repair in the future. I don't see a scenario where battle damage can be done on an aircraft carrier at sea without civilian counterparts, so I do wonder if there are lessons here for developing an at sea battle damage recovery capability for our nuclear aircraft carriers.

Because quite honestly, in a major war where carriers are being damaged, I don't think the US is going to be in a position return a carrier to the US to put in dry dock for any length of time, and most battle damage will have to be repaired very quickly while the ship is avoiding the enemy at sea.

P-3 and A-10

Call me juvenile, but if they ever make a movie of the Libyan intervention, this has to be in it:

A U.S. Navy P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft, a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft and guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG-52) engaged Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller crafts after confirmed reports that Vittoria and accompanying craft were firing indiscriminately at merchant vessels in the port of Misrata, Libya, during the evening March 28, 2011.

The P-3C fired at Vittoria with AGM-65F Maverick missiles after multiple explosions were observed in the vicinity of the port rendering the 12-meter patrol vessel ineffective and forcing it to be beached.

Two small crafts were fired upon by an A-10 using its 30mm GAU-8/ Avenger gatling cannon, destroying one and forcing the other to be abandoned.

Barry provided situational awareness for the aircraft by managing the airspace and maintaining the maritime picture.

The P-3C, A-10 and Barry are currently supporting operations for Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn.

The Obama Doctrine: Part III

The Obama Doctrine is consistent. As previously highlighted the President has remained consistent from the Speech in Cairo, to the Speech at West Point, to the National Security Strategy.

The President tied it together in the context of Libya with Monday nights speech.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States - in a region that has such a difficult history with our country - this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith - those ideals - that are the true measure of American leadership.

I think most political opponents of the President will ignore the significance of what it means when President Obama discusses American values, but it is very important when it comes to the Middle East. America has been at war on the ground in Muslim countries for nine and half years. The battle is not solely of military power, rather it has been since 2004 a battle that competes western values against those espoused by extremists.

When the Costs are all Financial, We Aren't Really Thinking

I just don't know that I am finding much value in these quick print Policy Briefs from K-Street. I was quick to point out the silliness of a recent Policy Brief by CSBA, and I will also point out the silliness of this policy brief by CNAS (PDF). What really annoys me about this brief is how it describes opportunity costs as if they are all financial.

But the military operations in Libya are also incurring opportunity costs. As the United States once again intervenes militarily, competing spending priorities, both foreign and domestic, are ignored. Such operations shift the U.S. focus away from countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (which still include over 130,000 U.S. troops), South and East Asia, and other strategically and economically critical regions. This leaves many to question why the United States and its allies are devoting resources to a country of relatively low strategic importance in North Africa. Though the Department of Defense allocates money in its budget for contingencies, operations in Libya will likely erase whatever cuts in domestic spending have been made by the U.S. Congress in 2011.

The problem I'm having here is that there is no analysis at all regarding the opportunity costs had the US done nothing. Yeah, I do have high expectations, because I for one will publicly demand better analysis from the Think Tanks I believe matter.

It was recently suggested to me, from folks in another think tank that like CNAS mostly opposes action in Libya, that the US could have legitimately suffered a significant strategic defeat in Libya by doing nothing, potentially the biggest set back for the United States in the GWOT to date. The Arab League called on the international community to act on behalf of Libyan citizens, and the Libyan citizens themselves were pleading for the United States to help. Had the US done nothing, and Al Jazeera covered a massacre in Libya and a stream of refuges into Egypt, what would the value of American values be on the Arab street in that context? How big a set back would it have been for the US to do nothing and allow Al Jazeera to frame the narrative of US inaction to the Arab street?

Given how much attention CNAS has given the GWOT, shouldn't that question at least enter into their thinking? CNAS was hard core behind the recent surge in Afghanistan, and they don't believe opening a 3rd military front in the Muslim world might have strategic effects in the region that influence existing theaters? Come on, think tanks can never afford to treat each campaign in isolation.

By taking action, the US took control of the communications and narrative, and while there may be little the US can do to influence the narrative inside Libya (there is no such thing as hearts and minds with airpower alone), if the target audience is the rest of the Middle East - limited US military action in Libya carries with it the potential to take a strategic defeat by doing nothing and turn it into a strategic victory over the narrative of al-Qaeda and other extremist challengers who cannot overcome the Al Jazeera coverage that shows the US as a partner, rather than an oppressor.

Some might suggest that the US still faces problems with protests in other places. That may be true, but it still requires significant steps to become similar to Libya. Should, for example, the Arab League side unanimously with a rebel movement in another country, that will be the first threshold by which to expect US action - but given our better relationships with many in the region, military action may not be necessary at all to exert a great deal of power and influence.

The CNAS paper makes the claim that resources devoted to Libya is drawing away "proper US attention" from other movements across the Middle East. Uhm... can anyone name one such example? Is the Arab League calling for action in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain? Is the USS Florida (SSGN 728) shooting cruise missiles into Libya that should be used somewhere else? Jeez, you can get snarky with this CNAS analysis no matter how you feel about US policy in Libya.

CNAS has done a fantastic job with their deep analysis papers highlighting the importance of communications in US policy in the Middle East. This paper seems to have forgotten that aspect of their previous analysis. I find myself struggling to fit the Presidents Libya policy into the context of the big picture. For me, this CNAS Policy Brief contributes nothing to some of the most important strategic and policy questions that have been raised elsewhere, and to be real honest - doesn't explain what the US policy of regime change accomplishes in any strategic context towards advancing US interests.

Varyag's island is almost complete

Having just got back today from an one week vacation, I found that Varyag's island is almost complete. It has been completely painted and the scaffolding have been taken down. The only obvious missing part are the four MFR panels. Although, it does look like some other sensors will be installed before all is said and done.

Instructive

One of too many to messages to count after one week.

Libya BH

Spencer Ackerman and I talk about Libya:

Maritime Weapons Interdictions

As “UNIFIED PROTECTOR” kicks off, it’s worthwhile to look at some recent interdictions of sea-born smuggled weapons. The Emiratis displayed excellent intelligence fusion and interagency cooperation in last week's seizure of thousands of weapons headed for the Houthis. The last thing Yemen needs is more small arms fueling one of the three or four (depending on how you count) ongoing insurgencies there.

Here is an interesting video on Israel’s interception of weapons probably bound for Hamas. As alluded to in the video, six C-704s represent a serious sea denial capability that fortunately was disrupted before reaching the hands of terrorists.

Judging by the destinations, Iran was probably responsible for both of these shipments... And to complete the trifecta, earlier this month, the Malaysians seized possible nuclear-related cargo sailing from China to Iran.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

Strategy and Airpower

Reading and listening to political scientists discuss policy for Libya, I was sure I had been exposed to everything stupid that could be stated in a strategic context regarding airpower.

I was wrong.

It turns out the fantasy land filled with political science majors touting decisive airpower tactics like No-Fly Zones in foreign civil wars is potentially more coherent than what is being printed these days in Air and Space Journal, Air University Press.

Strategy and Airpower (PDF)
Col John A. Warden III, USAF, Retired
Air University's Air and Space Power Journal
Spring 2011
Vol XXV, No. 1

Selected Excerpts:

"Airpower enables us to think about conflict from a future-back, end-game-first perspective as opposed to one based on the battle obsession of Clausewitz and his followers. It also opens another very exciting possibility: conflict with little or no unplanned destruction or shedding of blood."

"So here is a proposition: let us resolve to expunge the words fighting, battle, shape the battlefield, battlespace, and the war fighter from our vocabulary, to relegate the "means" of war to the last thing we think about, and to elevate the "end" to the pedestal of our consideration. In other words, let's bury thousands of years of bloody battle stories, as heroic as they were, and start looking at war-and eventually airpower-from its end point, which by definition means from a strategic perspective."

"Movement from the parallel domain to the serial domain causes the probability of success to begin to fall dramatically. Taking a very long time decreases the chances considerably. It isn't impossible to win a long war, but the odds are very low-and this applies to both sides, despite significant differences in their centers of gravity. Since good strategy depends heavily on understanding probabilities, deliberately embarking on a low-probability, long serial war does not make much sense."

"Very simply, whether in war or business, our normal approach to the time element is exactly backward: we ask ourselves how long something will take rather than decide how long it should take in order to create parallel effects and succeed at an acceptable cost."

"We should take a page from business, which long ago learned that selling a product had to involve much more than touting its technical goodness. Products sell because customers see them as filling a real need in their lives; airpower advocates have not done well in this regard. If airpower is something different, we must highlight its differences and show convincingly that it fills a vital need."

"Airpower exponents not only need to connect airpower directly to strategy and market their product well, but also need to start believing in it. Those who begin a discussion by noting that airpower "can't do everything" do themselves and their listeners a real disservice."

"Of course, espousing the unlimited concept of airpower exposes the advocate to charges of airpower zealotry, a lack of "jointness," or some other nasty label. But we need to become confident enough to shrug off these labels."

Everything I want to say about this article is negative, so I'll let readers lead the analysis here.

But I will make a side observation, particularly in light of that last paragraph which has been thrown at me lately in another discussion regarding the advocacy of seapower...

With professional articles like this, the United States Air Force continues to project themselves as unlearned Borg drones carpet bombing legitimate strategic thought with absurdity in the name of self relevance. Air Defense Press is struggling for legitimacy primarily because they have sacrificed everything to the alter of airpower advocacy.

Don't laugh Navy thinker, because if the Navy leadership ignores the Board of Directors at the US Naval Institute, this type of self-service incoherent bullshit sold to the alter of cash cow interests is exactly what people following USNI closely legitimately believe will begin happening to Proceedings starting this year. If you doubt what I am saying, you had better do your own research into the subject - indeed I encourage it.

The Navy cannot under any condition allow their strategic thought institutions, both inside and outside the Navy, become focused content shops shaping the message towards a specific point of view. To understand why, simply look at the Air Force.

The Missing Capabilities from Sea

Some comments by the CNO.

Roughead said the Navy can continue supporting operations as long as it takes.

"That's what you get when you have a global Navy that's forward all the time," he said. "We don't surge, and we don't ride to the sound of the guns. We're there, and when the guns go off, we're ready to conduct combat operations, or, as you see in Japan, ready to conduct some pretty extensive humanitarian operations."

In the run-up to the operations, the admiral told the group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff deliberated on the military actions that would be required. Roughead said he was particularly concerned about Moammar Gadhafi's integrated air and missile defense system. Though the system was old, he said, "I don't take any of that for granted. If someone is going to put a missile in the air, you don't say, 'Oh, it's an old one, I'll worry about it later.'"

Roughead said logistics was another concern, but the Navy's robust presence in the Mediterranean comes with re-supply ships afloat and depots ashore. The global supply chain has worked well, he said, adding that he anticipates no problem in keeping operations going.

The Navy has done everything right, including not bringing an aircraft carrier into the fight. However, I have not heard anyone point out yet that the Navy is missing one capability that would sure be handy right now for Libya. If you pull out a map of the nation, you will notice a coastal road the runs all the way across the country through many of the largest cities in the country, and it includes all the cities right now that are seeing the most combat.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of all these air strikes to slowly plink targets outside the town, the Navy could shell those positions with naval gunfire from sea? Clearly the DDG-1000 could do it, but the cost of those shells will make the Tomahawk missile strikes look like monopoly money.

Lets ask the tough question. What role would the Littoral Combat Ship play in the Libya scenario? Would the LCS be for interdiction operations for the embargo? Isn't the bigger issue here that the Littoral Combat Ship lacks the combat capability to influence activity on land from the littorals?

I am all for the LCS as an unmanned mothership, but I am also unaware of any unmanned system deployed by the LCS that will add credible combat capability for supporting operations on land. What is the legitimate Naval Gunfire Support alternative that was supposed to come as part of the truncated purchase of DDG-1000s, and why isn't it being tested in Libya?

And by the start of the 5th day...

Worth reading.

The Obama Doctrine: Part II

This is going to be a multi-post topic. See previous post here.

This speech was often discussed and I am not quoting all that applies to the Obama Doctrine for Foreign Policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East and North Africa, but most of this speech was politicized beyond the ability for most Americans to actually read it, think about it, and understand how America was changing policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration regarding how America would confront the challenges of the long war against violent Islamic extremism.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

President Barack Obama, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2024

More than any President since Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama emphasizes the values of America, specifically freedoms, in virtually every foreign policy speech. Even in Cairo when discussing democracy, he emphasizes the values that form the foundation of a healthy democracy.

The United States cannot defeat violent extremist movements in the Islamic world with military power, it can only contain it, restrict it, and deny those movements sanctuary. Strategic victory over violent extremism will only be obtained when Islamic nations integrate values counter to violent extremist beliefs into Islamic culture. The Cairo speech was specifically crafted to communicate that message - read it again if you haven't since 2009 and think about it.

Long-term security requires Arab states committed to internal modernization and liberalization, aggressive pursuit of extremist Islamic terrorists and those that support them, and peaceful co-existence between Islamic nations and Israel. The values required for a stable and healthy democracy align with the requirements for long-term security in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Obama Doctrine would, in theory, seek out and support the people in states legitimately seeking democracy from internal uprising - the same kind of internal uprisings we are seeing in the Arab Spring movement. President Obama would support those movements he believed were seeking legitimate democracy despite the US being in two wars, and equally true President Obama would support those movements because the nation is in two wars.

The Obama Doctrine was developed on the theory that only through internal popular change by people legitimately seeking values counter to violent extremism will genuine strategic progress towards long-term security be achieved in the long war against violent extremism.

Questioning the Efficacy of a Libyan Maritime Embargo

Italy announced today that it will lead the NATO embargo against Libya with 16 ships/subs. Preventing the smuggling of weapons at sea to the regime while allowing some modicum of trade and humanitarian support to continue will be a significant undertaking. The challenges include:

1) Geography: Libya's coastline is over 2000 km. Assuming even spacing of naval assets (a big assumption) hopefully supported by some overhead ISR, patrol sectors of about 125 miles per vessel will be needed to ensure that no ships or boats infiltrate any of the nooks and crannies along the coast, much less the major ports held by regime forces. This force/coast ratio is optimistic, at best. For some historical context, research the UK's 1966-1975 Beira Patrol against Rhodesia or our middling MIO efforts against Iraq in the '90s.
2) C2: Recent complicated NATO and non-aligned C2 arrangements with varying national caveats don't have a good track record at mission accomplishment. To wit, reference ISAF's struggles in Afghanistan and multi-coalition counter-piracy efforts.
3) Intel: Without good intelligence on the ground, it will be challenging to determine exactly when and where these shipments are bound.
4) Duration: How long will smallish NATO navies be able to support this mission, a counter-piracy campaign in the Indian ocean, and their own national requirements? What mission will give first?
5) Rat lines: Most importantly, even if the maritime embargo is air tight, Libya's land borders certainly are not. Like in any irregular conflict, if there is a demand for weapons -- notwithstanding that there is no shortage of them now in Libya -- smugglers will find a way to meet it. The Tuaregs and other smugglers have been running legitimate and illicit goods (primarily guns and drugs) across the Sahara for eons and could easily support either or both sides of this war.

Stopping Qadaffi from re-arming isn't impossible, but those embarking on this counter-smuggling mission should enter it with eyes wide open.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

The Cost Value of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

From Sandra Erwin at the National Defense Magazine Blog.

In the Libya operation to enforce a no-fly zone, the Navy so far has launched 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles that, according to a senior U.S. Navy official, cost between $1.4 million and $1.5 million apiece. The Navy is so well stocked that it can fire up to 255 of these weapons a year without making a significant dent in its budget, or its capabilities to replenish supplies, said the official, who was speaking off-the-record at a private meeting. The Navy purchases 196 Tomahawks each year. In economic terms, the official said, the missiles are “sunk costs” that already have been incurred and could not be recovered.

From a military tactical standpoint, the Tomahawk is the perfect weapon to use in the initial stage of a conflict such as this one, says Eric Wertheim, military analyst and author of "Combat Fleets of the World."

“That’s where the risk is the highest” and the military wants to avoid putting airplanes in harm’s way, he says.

When million-dollar weapons were used in the past, complaints about their price tag didn’t make headlines the way they are now. That may be one reason why the Pentagon did not deploy a Navy aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya, says Wertheim. “It sends a strong message that we are not going to be dominating for the duration of this campaign and we do not want to hold the lion’s share of the burden.”

According to the Navy.mil website, a Tomahawk missile has a Unit Cost of approximately $569,000 in FY99 dollars. They are indeed "sunk costs" because of the multi-year purchase nature of the contracts that keep stores current - contracts that I have been led to believe kept costs for Tomahawks down. There is a pretty wide difference between $569,000 in FY99 dollars and between $1.4 million and $1.5 million today, in fact in FY11 dollars the difference is somewhere around $600 million a unit if my green book math is right.

Two destroyers and three submarines have put 161 Tomahawks in Libya. I'd be curious if every other nation in the coalition combined has conducted 161 strike sorties in Libya to date, because I bet the answer is no. In that context, I'd like to highlight the value of Tomahawk missiles, rather than just focus on the cost.

In my opinion, all of these discussions on Tomahawk missile costs are missing the mark if the subject is operational costs for Libya. Just wait until Congress gets the gas bill for all the tanker sorties. I'll wager any fool who wants to bet that energy costs will be a major budget discussion in defense sooner rather than later, because the gas bill for the DoD in 2011 is going to be enormous.

TwitterFightClub Round of 64

Busy tonight from 0900 to midnight EDT? If not, help a brother out. See here for all the details, and I believe the voting can be done here at that time. (it not, I'll update).

The voting schedule is as follows:

Super 64: Wednesday 3/23, 0900 to midnight EDT
Round of 32: Thursday 3/24, 0900 to midnight EDT
Sweet Sixteen: Monday 3/28, 0900 to midnight EDT
Elite Eight: Tuesday 3/29, 0900 to midnight EDT
Final Four: Thursday 3/31, 0900 to midnight EDT
Extended Finals Voting: Friday 4/1, 0900 to Sunday 4/3, midnight EDT

The Twitterfight Champion and the Bracket competition winner will be announced Monday 4/4.

Follow on Twitter here. I expect a lively discussion... or 32.

The Obama Doctrine: Part I

This is going to be a multi-post topic.

The Politico is in search for The Obama Doctrine. They aren't alone, I sense many are confused. I can only answer that the confusion comes from information overload - with so many sources for information we have avoided going to the primary source.

Doctrine is the principle, position, or policy advocated by his administration. If you seek this for Barack Obama, you must seek it in the Primary Sources.

I have already highlighted the National Security Strategy of the United States by the Obama administration dated May 2010. Now allow me to highlight the words of Barack Obama himself.

You know, in an age of instant access to information, a lot of cynicism in the news, it’s easy to lose perspective in a flood of pictures and the swirl of political debate. Power and influence can seem to ebb and flow. Wars and grand plans can be deemed won or lost day to day, even hour to hour. As we experience the immediacy of the image of a suffering child or the boasts of a prideful dictator, it’s easy to give in to the belief sometimes that human progress has stalled -- that events are beyond our control, that change is not possible.

But this nation was founded upon a different notion. We believe, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Applause.) And that truth has bound us together, a nation populated by people from around the globe, enduring hardship and achieving greatness as one people. And that belief is as true today as it was 200 years ago. It is a belief that has been claimed by people of every race and religion in every region of the world. Can anybody doubt that this belief will be any less true -- any less powerful -- two years, two decades, or even two centuries from now?

And so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be America’s support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding. And we will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it’s hard; even when we’re being attacked; even when we’re in the midst of war.

And we will commit ourselves to forever pursuing a more perfect union. Together with our friends and allies, America will always seek a world that extends these rights so that when an individual is being silenced, we aim to be her voice. Where ideas are suppressed, we provide space for open debate. Where democratic institutions take hold, we add a wind at their back. When humanitarian disaster strikes, we extend a hand. Where human dignity is denied, America opposes poverty and is a source of opportunity. That is who we are. That is what we do.

We do so with no illusions. We understand change doesn’t come quick. We understand that neither America nor any nation can dictate every outcome beyond its borders. We know that a world of mortal men and women will never be rid of oppression or evil. What we can do, what we must do, is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek -- all of us, those in uniform and those who are not.

And in preparing for today, I turned to the world -- to the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes. And reflecting on his Civil War experience, he said, and I quote, “To fight out a war you must believe in something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching.” Holmes went on, “More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhaps a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out.”

America does not fight for the sake of fighting. We abhor war. As one who has never experienced the field of battle -- and I say that with humility, knowing, as General MacArthur said, “the soldier above all others prays for peace” -- we fight because we must. We fight to keep our families and communities safe. We fight for the security of our allies and partners, because America believes that we will be safer when our friends are safer; that we will be stronger when the world is more just.

Barack Obama, President of the United States, West Point, May 22, 2024

The Obama doctrine is not a mystery. I believe the reason Americans do not understand the Obama Doctrine is because until now, no one cared - including the media.

The Arab Spring

Two viewpoints.

Mark Lynch at Foreign Policy

Phyllis Bennis at Al Jazeera.

The premise of both authors is that the world will be a better place if change takes place at all. Said another way, both authors believe in the Arab Spring as a net gain for not just the people in that part of the world - but for everyone. I'm not a believer, but I want to be an optimist.

There is a movement taking place in the Arab world in 2011, and it has already changed the future. How much of our strategic thinking and planning got it wrong in the face of rapid regional change? For example, did the US Navy really believe the offshore AFRICOM commitment in March 2011 would exist to this extent during 2008-2010 planning?

I doubt it.

Airplanes For The No Fly Zone

UK:

• 4x Tornado GR4 2/9/15 sqn
• 14x Typhoon FGR4 3/11/29 sqn (from Italy)
• 4x VC-10C1K/K4 tanker 101 sqn
• 2x Tristar K1/C2 tanker 216 sqn
• 1x Sentinel R1 5 sqn
• 1x Nimrod R1 51 sqn
• 2x E-3D Sentry 8 sqn

NATO:

• 3x E-3A AWACS (from Geilenkirchen, Germany)

France:

• 6x Dassault Rafale B/C
• 2x Dassault Mirage 2000-5
• 2x Dassualt Mirage 2000 D
• 2x C-160NG Transall/Gabriel
• 6x KC-135FR tanker
• 2x E-3F Awacs

Charles de Gaulle

• 6x Dassault Super Etendard
• 8x Dassault Rafale M
• 2 E-C2 Hawkeye

Canada:

• 6x CF-188 Hornet No. 3 Wing
• 2x CC-150 tanker 437 sqn

USA:

• 3x KC-10A tanker
• 8x KC-135R tanker
• 2x EC-130J Hercules
• 3x B-2
• 14x F-15E Eagle (Lakenheath, UK)
• 12x F-16CJ (Spangdahlem, Ger)
• 5x EA-18G Growler
• 4x AV8B Harrier

Belgium:

• 4x F-16AM 10 Wing (Araxos)

Denmark:

• 6x F-16 (Sigonella) (of which 2 on reserve)

Spain:

• 4x F/A-18 Hornet (Decimannu, Italy)
• 1x Boeing 707 tanker (Decimannu, Italy)

Italy:

• 4x AMI Tornado ECR (Trapani)
• 4x AMI Typhoon (Trapani)

Greece:

• 4x F-16 (Souda Bay)

Qatar:

• 2x Mirage 2000-5 (Souda Bay)
• 1x C17(Souda Bay)

Though some sources say 6 Mirages and 2 C-130's, the above planes have actually been seen after making an emergency landing in Malta.

Norway:

• 6x F-16 (Bodø sqn, Souda Bay, Greece)
• 2x C-130J-30

Not in action yet, the Norwegian defence minster has said they will come into action when the leadership issues surrounding the implementation of the NFZ are resolved.

The Netherlands:
Started a ministerial meeting a hour ago, are expected to send the following

• 6x F-16's (of which 2 in reserve)
  
• 1x KDC-10 (tanker)
  

UAE:

• 12x F-16
• 12x Mirage

Requested refueling at Souda base, but when or even if they will arrive is not clear.

Feel free to update.

H/T to Marcase

Operation Tomodachi update - 21 March

This was the Navy update yesterday for Operation Tomodachi.

Residents of Hadenya load essential supplies delivered from a MH-60 helicopter from HS-4.

A total of 12,750 personnel, 20 ships, and 140 aircraft of U.S. 7th Fleet are continuing to participate in Operation Tomodachi. Today, utilizing 14 helicopters, the fleet delivered more than 47 tons of relief supplies bringing the total of aid delivered to Japan since the beginning of the crisis to 227 tons.

USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49), USS Germantown (LSD 42), USS Tortuga (LSD 46) along with USS Essex (LHD 2) and the embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit are off the coast near Hachinohe to assist humanitarian aid efforts along the affected northeastern coast to reach people in remote areas where the tsunami hit hardest. Ships of the Essex ARG conducted underway replenishment today with the USNS Matthew Perry.

Helicopters with Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 262 (Reinforced), 31st MEU, flew two CH-46 helicopters from the USS Essex to deliver humanitarian aid supplies including blankets and fresh water to Miyako city. The pilots also conducted aerial surveys of 200 miles of the affected coastline between Miyako and Ofunato.

A P-3 from VP-4 deployed to Misawa conducted reconnaissance of coastal areas to continue the search for displaced people and to find new landing zones to service them.

USS George Washington got underway from Yokosuka today to assure the ship can sustain a state of readiness in the long term for the defense of Japan. The forward deployed carrier is scheduled to remain in the local waters off Japan. Moving USS George Washington is a precaution given the capabilities of the vessel and the complex nature of this disaster. USS Lassen also departed Yokosuka today.

The USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group to include USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), USS Preble (DDG 88), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Mustin (89) and USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) along with USS Cowpens (CG-63) and USS Shiloh (CG-67) continued operations north of Sendai. Strike group helicopters carried 17 tons of supplies to 24 separate sites, and identified 16 additional sites where groups of people are isolated to be serviced with supplies in the coming days. Aircrews report that people on the ground are particularly interested in receiving shipments of gasoline, kerosene or diesel fuel.

USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19), flagship for the United States Seventh Fleet, conducted a connected replenishment with USNS Pecos today in the vicinity of Nagasaki.

The commander, U.S. Pacific Command, directed that precautionary measures be taken due to the potential of future radiological exposures, including directing the distribution of potassium iodide (KI) tablets to military personnel and their families in Yokosuka and Atsugi. Personnel in Yokosuka and Atsugi will not actually take KI unless advised to do so by U.S. or Japanese authorities. Seventh Fleet personnel conducting disaster relief missions inside of 100 nautical miles from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant continue to take KI as a precautionary measure.

Families of Seventh Fleet Sailors are continuing to voluntarily depart Yokosuka and Atsugi as part of the Military Assisted Departure for Department of Defense personnel.

If you have not seen it, you should also check out this dispatch over at the US Naval Institute blog.

A Few Thoughts on Libya

These are some random thoughts on Libya.

1) Robert Farley posts the results of his wargames on this blog. I think they are useful posts, but blogs are still an untested medium for discussing wargames. If you give this just a little thought, you will note what is taking place in Libya might be the most played wargame in all of gaming theory. Here we have a scenario where a dictator faces a popular uprising, begins committing atrocities to his own people, and comes under UN sanctions with a broad authority to use military power up to the point of no occupation force. There is no definition of "occupation force" so that alone gives the coalition tremendous flexibility for ground operations, should politics demand it be exercised.

Also noteworthy in this scenario, a broad coalition of nations signs up to enforce the UN resolutions, and with that comes several internal political power struggles. The wargame scenario asks the question how Red Cell stays in power and how Blue Cell overthrows the regime. I'm betting hundreds of you reading this post have played this wargame manifested in some similar way - because I have. We really are dealing with quite a few predictable outcomes in Libya, which means we can plan for a much broader set contingencies than most scenarios the US or any military finds itself in. I see evidence in the open source of preparation for those contingencies taking place almost everywhere I look, and if you look closely, you'll see it too.

2) Some have suggested over Twitter that we are seeing the inherent weakness of Offshore Balancing on display in Libya. I would argue that what we are seeing manifest with US military operations in Libya is the result of an intentionally restricted US policy that desires limited sea power and air power footprints. Offshore balancing can scale up or down to meet the requirements of policy. I beleive everything that is being seen by the US military is in line and represents a reflection of the Obama administrations policy.

3) The rifts between France and Italy suggests the EU nations were supportive of military actions for the UN resolution about 24 hours longer than the Arab League. Italy wants NATO to lead, and has threatened to pull out basing support if operational command is not shifted to NATO. France wants operations outside of NATO, and is offering to lead themselves. Turkey does not want NATO to participate at all.

The reason Italy wants NATO is because they know NATO adds an extra layer of political bureaucracy to operations and will almost certainly result in Gaddafi remaining in power. The likely result is an insurgency movement inside Libya, and this becomes a long term stalemate. NATO comes with significant military advantages though, because NATO is organized in a way to seemlessly integrate operations from all the participating NATO members. There is a lot to be said about the high level of C2 NATO enables for military operations.

France on the other hand knows that NATO will restrict the flexibility of nations to act unilaterally in Libya. While this has not been officially stated, France would like to kill Gaddafi, and like the US has a policy of regime change. By operating outside the restrictions of NATO, France can be much more flexible with their interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolution when taking military action. France believes they can reset the security conditions inside Libya by decapitating the government of Libya, and set conditions for Libya towards reforms. I am uncertain why this also wouldn't lead to insurgency, but some very smart French folks I know believe conditions similar to Tunisia and Egypt will emerge once Gaddafi is gone. Their better argument is that it won't guarantee an insurgency outcome like a NATO led operation almost certainly does.

4) President Obama has provided virtually no leadership for his policy, and the support for the military is proportional to the support of the political policy. There is some irony here though, because a lot of political critics of the administration are about to lose their biggest complaint. We are days, if not hours, from the United States dropping their last bomb on Libya for awhile, and the media is going to lose interest in refueling and electronic warfare sorties with no ordinance delivered pretty quickly. US military operations are going to be very long in tail, very short on tooth, and almost invisible from the perspective of Libya.

The question is, when the US disappears out of sight and out of mind in the military activities related to Libya, how will that impact the US 24/7 news cycle? How will that impact public opinion? The political policy rhetoric by the administration is about to be the only visible connection between the United States and Libya. Words, not actions, will be all that anyone in the media can use in the context of the United States and Libya. The Obama administration is not stupid, they know this is about to happen. We have already delivered 90% - 95%, if not all 100% of all US ordinance to Libya that we will for awhile. There will be nothing to see but actions by our coalition partners, and the political support of the administrations policy.

This abrupt change in military activity by the US is going to have a significant impact on the 24/7 media narrative and cycle, and will leave people like Glenn Greewald and Andrew Sullivan and policy critics on Fox News or MSNBC complaining about... what exactly? Our strategic support for coalition partners in the form of aerial refueling?

Red Cell activities and Blue Cell activities (other than those of the US) are about to become the global media narrative for Libya, because the actions of those players is all anyone is going to see to report on. What will Gaddafi do now that all eyes in the world are watching his actions instead of US military actions? What are the British and French going to do to protect civilians if Gaddafi decides, as he appears to have already done, to violate multiple Geneva Conventions? Tell me what the critics will be saying when all the news cycle shows over the next several weeks is limited bombing campaigns by French and UK forces on obvious military targets while Gaddafi attempts to commit multiple massacres with civilian clothed mercenaries?

There are a lot of bumpy roads ahead for Americans specifically because the US is not taking control - conceding that control to our partners while supporting them in their efforts. Right now the President is being criticized for what the US is doing. I suspect by next week he will be getting criticized for what he is not doing - even though everything that is being done and not done was part of the original plan.

The Obama administration is not stupid. They know that all they have to do is exactly what their critics want - stop bombing (which has been the plan all along as I have already posted) - and the combination of events surrounding Libya and the associated 24/7 media narrative will lead to one of several predictable outcomes.

People are acting like what is unfolding in Libya is spur of the moment. It isn't. The political leadership is damn near criminal with its absence, but the military planning driven by clear policy objectives is a lot better than people think and has been going on a lot longer than anyone realizes. Remember, it takes more than 1 week, and often more than 2 weeks notice for military units (like the Bataan ARG) to be moved to a forward theater as part of an operational surge. Libya is only on day 4, so clearly the planning for Libya has been taking place for awhile now.

I suspect over the next two weeks people will actually start to hear the President talk about US policy for Libya. As he discusses the policy and events that have taken place, my guess is that he will find his policy will gain support, even among current critics. That will probably be about the time he goes to Congress.

I am still very conflicted on the President's Libya policy. If this wasn't an operation layered on top of Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be one of the best developed military coalitions we have seen in a long time. As a layer on top of existing priorities, it still seems to be a bridge too far for me. With that said, I do appreciate that President Obama has been honest and open about what the US policy is from the beginning, even if almost no one in America is actually listening to him.