Thud

This is the transcript of the President's speech yesterday about the Middle East and North Africa.

I thought the speech was too long and poorly crammed two different issues into one speech, and the speech never really found a way to link the different issues effectively.

The Arab Spring is a unique event, and the White House needs to be smarter and understand that it is a big enough event that it doesn't need to tie into Israel and Palestine. Had these two issues been treated separately, the President would have resonated with more people on each issue. Instead I believe the message intended got lost.

The President tried to spread it around too much, and my sense by the reactions I have read by those in the Middle East and North Africa, this speech hit with a resounding thud of 'ho-hum' to many target audiences while leaving the President exposed politically on Israel.

I find some of the Israel related political criticism by the Presidents political opponents very legitimate, and I believe that criticism could have been avoided. It is hard to be Presidential in credibility when the President issues hollow warnings of possible UN sanctions to government leaders in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria regarding the killing and imprisonment of their own civilians when the only real substantial action advised to Middle Eastern nations by the President was his instruction to Israel to concede land for peace.

Threatening governments with possible UN sanctions that may not even be attainable politically is hardly the stuff of a bully pulpit by the President of the United States in the defense of people seeking freedom and liberty from tyrannical regimes, and yet that was the substance of the speech to the Middle Eastern government leaders dealing with the Arab Spring by killing or rounding up their own people. I was underwhelmed.

There were so many mixed messages in the President's speech that it is difficult to believe the message communicated was the same message delivered. What exactly is the message to the Middle East when on one hand the President asks Arabs to quit blaming Israel for their problems, and on the other hand the President tells Israel the path towards peace with a neighbor that rejects the existence of Israel as a starting point is land concessions of major population centers?

Everyone knows Israel must make concessions for peace, but if the policy of the United States in addressing the issue doesn't begin with the concession by Palestine for 2-state, peaceful mutual existence with Israel as a starting point - then any US policy related to Palestine and Israel is going nowhere.

While I think the part of the speech that focused on Egypt and Tunisia was very well done, I'm not sure the rest of the speech did much to forward American foreign policy objectives in the Middle East or North Africa, nor did much to build American credibility with the various folks engaged in the Arab Spring movements throughout the Middle East. I wouldn't call the speech a strike out, but with that speech the President never made it to first base.

The Ungoverned African Coastline is Becoming Enormous

As I continue to observe the events unfold in Libya, allow me to play the role of Captain Obvious and raise a bit of concern regarding what we have been watching over the last several weeks.

If we just look at a typical map of Africa, like the one in this blog post, allow us to look closely at how much Africa is transforming before our eyes and why now is probably the right time to get the US Navy over there in force.

Start at southeast Africa at the border between Somalia and Kenya and start tracing Africa around the HOA, and we find Djibouti, then we find Eritrea, then Sudan, then Egypt, then Libya, then Tunisia until we get to the Algeria border. The tiny country of Djibouti is now the most stable country along that enormous coast line. Eritrea and Sudan, both of which contribute nothing positive to security of the region, are the next most stable (unless you count South Sudan, which I'm not), but ultimately Somalia, Egypt, and Tunisia currently have no functional government today. The actions by the government in Libya on Monday were very disturbing, and we should keep in mind that Algeria and Morocco could be next.

That is a lot of coastline to be ungoverned along major sea lines of communication trade routes for Europe. I find it a bit disturbing that the EU isn't calling for a surge of European naval power to the Mediterranean Sea, because the US Navy may have one, possibly two ships, in the entire Med right now while the entire northern coastline of Africa is suffering from government revolts? I keep thinking any day now Russia is going to announce a huge naval deployment to the Med, because Putin has a history of seeing political opportunity in the midst of chaos.

I was thinking about that when I read the last two paragraphs in this Navy.mil article titled: USS George H.W. Bush Strike Group Certified Combat Ready.

"The scenarios [the crew] experienced during COMPTUEX/JTFEX are based on real-world operations today's carrier strike groups can expect to face in the deployed environment," said FitzPatrick. "Geo-political situations are fluid and ever-changing across the globe, and leadership needs the multi-mission flexibility a strike group brings to their area of responsibility. The mission of our carrier strike groups can change at a moment's notice depending on real time events, and the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group Sailors are ready to deploy and accept any mission given to them."

"The Navy's carrier strike groups are critical to the nation's maritime strategy," said Tyson. "Our combined capabilities allow us to deploy to any region around the globe to lend support, whether it's to U.S. forces on the ground or to mariners in distress or to countries reeling from natural disaster. We are a powerful force for good, and our success during COMPTUEX and JTFEX is proof that this Strike Group is ready to take on any tasking we are given."

When that much coastline of Africa is in turmoil, I just don't see a scenario where NATO can stand by and watch. For all the talk about how NATO doesn't have a mission, I'd suggest it might be time to shelve such talk; because the mission just popped up on Europe's southern lawn. The hit to the European markets is likely to get much bigger before it gets smaller, particularly when there were quite a few unconfirmed reports going around on Monday night that several oil rigs off the Libyan coast were on fire. Libya is an important oil producer for Europe, or at least was until now.

The next 6 months in the southern Mediterranean Sea is going to be very important to shaping the next several years of what could be a renaissance in North Africa, but the same region could also become a complete meltdown of security and stability. Engagement is going to be key in deciding the outcome there, and not being engaged politically is absolutely the worst approach.

It seems to me that if the George H.W. Bush (GHWB) Carrier Strike Group has indeed been training for this mission, now might be the time to send them on their mission.

The GHWB Strike Group ships and units include, USS George H. W. Bush, USS Mitscher (DDG 57), USS Gettysburg (CG 64), USS Truxtun (DDG 103), USS Anzio (CG 68), the squadrons of Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8, as well as Spanish frigate ESPS Almirante Juan de Borbon (F 102), French Frigate Primauguet (D644) and French Submarine Perle (S606). Carrier Strike Group TWO is led by Rear Adm. Nora W. Tyson.

If one was to add Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 with additional ships from contributing European countries under a NATO flag, I believe naval power can be leveraged to diplomatically and economically support the region to buy time until the election periods in Egypt and Tunisia, and potentially even prevent a colossal bloodbath in Libya by enforcing a No-Fly zone and other potential UN mandated assistance.

There are many good reasons not to get involved in the activities taking place in North Africa today, but when one considers the sheer size of the coastline of Africa we are dealing with that has fragile littoral governance and security - at best, one glance in the direction of Somalia informs what happens when you don't engage in the stability of volatile regional issues. NATO and the UN must engage, and the US must contribute, at least initially.