5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

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

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group

USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)


Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Kearsarge (LHD 3)
USS Ponce (LPD 15)
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44)
USS Vicksburg (CG 69)
USS Porter (DDG 78)
USS Carr (FFG 52)
USS Miami (SSN 755)


Task Force 150

FGS Augsburg (F 213)
FS Commandant Blaison (F793)
FS Dupleix (D 641)
PNS Tippu Sultan (D 185)


In Theater

Ocean 6
USS Wasp (LHD 1)
RSS Persistence (L 209)
HMS Richmond (F 239)
HMAS Anzac (F 150)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)

There are Many Forms of Cyber Warfare - Updated

This is a strange first strike.

Reports have been coming in that people trying to reach Google, Yahoo and Microsoft from within China or via Chinese ISPs are being redirected to Baidu.

Some have accused Baidu of hijacking the traffic, but we think it's likely that China is upset with the US over the award it granted to the Dalai Lama and is retaliating by hurting US-based search engines.

Back in 2002, when China was upset with Google, it similarly redirected traffic.

It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on our side, or a backlash on theirs. Google's stock has been sailing through the roof lately, I wonder if this even dents it.

As of 3:40pm EST, up 1% to 640.03. Worth watching.

If someone took away my Google, I'd be pissed. This isn't new though, background here and more here. For those wondering wtf, this is what 21st century cyber warfare between national powers looks like in its infancy, this is a public version, but it takes many forms.

Duncan Riley has a suggestion.

The Chinese Government is clearly using its censorship regime to the economic
benefit of a Chinese owned (but NASDAQ listed) company. Although the United
States Government is a poor WTO member (Antigua anyone) given that China is a
recent member the US Government should lodge a complaint with the WTO. China
expects free and open access to Western nations but is now not only blocking,
but also redirecting domestic traffic away from Western internet sites
that compete with local firms.

Update 1: I just went through a series of tests as of 4:07pm EST with some clients in China, and there may be some holes in China's firewall. It does not appear to effect every ISP, and may be limited to China Online (COL http://www.col.com.cn/). This will be interesting to watch as the details come out.

A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower - Updated

The US Navy released its Maritime Strategy today. I've read it three times, and get a different set of thoughts each time. This blog is taking the advice of wise instruction, and will not be discussing the specifics of the Maritime Strategy until Monday, and will join the discussion at CDR Salamanders.

Like we did with the old Maritime Strategy with Maritime Strategy Monday Week 1, we are going to give everyone, especially the regulars, all the time they need to read it over and ponder their thoughts. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, we are going to interrupt the review of the '86 bit and shift our focus on the new Maritime Strategy.

Run off a copy of the new one and read it over between now and next Monday. Next Maritime Strategy Monday will be focused on the whole document. As before, I will pull out a few of the items that seemed to be of interest to me, and then open comments for everyone else.

I am not interested in being the first out of the block with comments on the web - but the one with the best comments - and not comments just by me - but by all the regulars and those who decide to join in.

Same rules apply; no getting ahead of your shipmates and posting your opinion on other posts before Monday. I look forward to it.

In the spirit of Maritime Strategy Monday, I offer up a quote to think about as you read through the new strategy.

Guided by the objectives articulated in the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy and the National Strategy for Maritime Security, the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard will act across the full range of military operations to secure the United States from direct attack; secure strategic access and retain global freedom of action; strengthen existing and emerging alliances and partnerships and establish favorable security conditions.

In that spirit, I offer the following materials as background and reference in developing the discussion.

A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower

Background Materials:

1986 Maritime Strategy

National Security Strategy

National Defense Strategy

National Military Strategy

National Strategy for Maritime Security

National Fleet Policy

Quadrennial Defense Review

Naval Power 21

Sea Power 21

Naval Operational Concept

...From the Sea

Forward...From the Sea

Maritime Strategy for Homeland Security

Marine Corps Strategy 21

One final thought. SJS started a discussion on Wednesday about the new strategy. He and I traded a few initial observations, but after we had a short word a commenter who claims to be involved in writing the document added something about a classified Navy Strategic Plan.

Update 1: Commander Bryan McGrath, USN, Director, Strategic Actions Group (OPNAV N3N5) who helped develop the new Maritime Strategy offers additional information.

To address your final thought, I am the poster to SJS that you cite. I will be working with SJS to post to his site some thoughts on the development of the strategy, etc. As for the Navy Strategic Plan, the September 2007 version was derived from this strategy. It is classified due to the risk guidance contained therein. Comparing the Maritime Strategy just released to the May 2006 version of the NSP would not make sense. Additionally, while the 2006 NSP was largely unclassified, the 2007 version is mostly classified. This is not due to a mania for classification, rather an increase in the effectiveness and relevance of the document. I realize there is a bit of frustration by some that implementation details of this strategy are classified, but I'm sure you can understand why. If readers are looking for a self-contained vision/roadmap/resources/tactics kind of corporate strategy, they won't find it here.

Commander Bryan McGrath, USN
Director, Strategic Actions Group (OPNAV N3N5)

For those interested, keep an eye on SJS's place for additional information. I intend to continue this discussion Monday over at CDR's place. Do your homework and join us there.

Meaningless Gestures and the Politics of Symbology

No I do not support genocide, and I have nothing wrong with the intentions of Congress, but I have a serious problem with Congress making untimely symbolic gestures that are inconsistent to any meaningful foreign policy objectives. It is a fair statement to say the US government is too often engaged in meaningless gestures and the politics of symbology, and does not conduct the affairs of US foreign policy guided by a strategy based on national interest.

It is why I see this as another meaningless gesture inconsistent with the priorities of the foreign policy of the United States.

President Bush, raising Beijing's ire, presented the Dalai Lama on Wednesday with the U.S. Congress' highest civilian honor and urged Chinese leaders to welcome the monk to Beijing.

The exiled spiritual head of Tibet's Buddhists by his side, Bush praised a man he called a "universal symbol of peace and tolerance, a shepherd of the faithful and a keeper of the flame for his people."

"Americans cannot look to the plight of the religiously oppressed and close our eyes or turn away," Bush said at the U.S. Capitol building, where he personally handed the Dalai Lama the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal.

The Dalai Lama, chuckling as he stumbled over his remarks in English, said the award will bring "tremendous joy and encouragement to the Tibetan people" and he thanked Bush for his "firm stand on religious freedom and democracy."

If timing is everything, then why is the United States drawing the ire of China at the exact time we supposedly need them to solve two difficult diplomatic issues facing the United States?

China, which called on Washington to cancel the events and the "so-called medal," responded Monday by pulling out of a meeting in Berlin this week at which its representatives were to have met with those from the USA, Great Britain, France, Russia and Germany to discuss U.N. sanctions against Iran over that nation's nuclear efforts.

Earlier, Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, told the Associated Press that honoring the Dalai Lama amounts to "gross interference in China's internal affairs."

Look, I get it, what China is doing in Tibet is a terrible thing. China has massed enormous numbers of armed forces in Tibet, and offers economic rewards to Chinese who migrate there. It is the systematic destruction of a society and in every way religious persecution. I get it. The question is, do you see what is happening here?

This administration sends Rice to Russia just prior to the arrival of the Dalai Lama. With the US pissing in China's cereal, we have relieved any pressure that could be applied to Russia on the Iranian situation, because Russia stands confident that they don't stand alone. What a coincidence that on the same day we poke another finger at China, relieve Russia of any pressure, the president also uses the phrase "World War III." I'm sure this will do wonders in our diplomacy with North Korea as well.

Do you feel better about the situation in Tibet? Are we now comfortable that we have taken a moral high road in full knowledge we will offer zero, none, zilch assistance to the people in plight? I hope so, because while our government is performing political symbolisms despite recognition of consequences, we are further adding separation between ourselves and the nations we need to take action the most, specifically Russia and China.

Jokers on my left and Jesters on my right, I stand in the middle wondering why our nation can't form a consistent strategy in foreign policy. We honor the gods of symbolism to the disadvantage of our national interest, thus further eroding our credibility when approaching diplomacy with honesty in intention. It is absolutely true that Turkey takes verbal insults too seriously, and the Dalai Lama represents persecution in Tibet, but timing is everything and this is bad timing.

If the US is going to stand up for our ideology and beliefs, lets do it consistently regardless of the consequences, but if we are going to consider the consequences of standing up for our ideology, lets do it consistently. Otherwise our inconsistent foreign policy leaves us without vision. Vision without a strategy is a nightmare. It is time for the US, on both the left and the right, to put away the meaningless gestures and the politics of symbology and get back to the business of the nation. We are approaching serious times, and there is an apparent lack of seriousness in our nations leadership on all sides.

6th Fleet Focus: Early Victory for AFRICOM

When the USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) deployed on Tuesday, the nations expecting to participate in the African Partnership Station Initiative included Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon, and Sao Tome & Principe. Other nations have been invited, but no official interest from other nations had been announced.

There are two African nations specifically that have been critical of the US efforts to stand up AFRICOM, South Africa and Nigeria. Nigeria specifically was a hopeful for the African Partnership Station Initiative to take place in Global Fleet Station initiative in the Gulf of Guinea, but as of yesterday Nigeria hadn't expressed interest. Today, we have news otherwise.

The top U.S. Navy official in the African region says Nigeria, long opposed to the slowly developing increased American military presence on the continent, has accepted an invitation to participate in a new maritime security program.

U.S. officials, as they were planning the “Africa Partnership Station” (APS) effort, extended an invitation to a long list of African nations, including Nigeria and South Africa, which have both signaled opposition to the new U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Both nations’ governments also have raised concern about Washington’s intention to focus more on the long-troubled continent.

South African leaders have not yet responded to an invitation “to at least send observers” for the first APS activities off the continent’s western coastline; Nigerian officials “initially showed no interest,” said Adm. Henry Ulrich, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and the Sixth Fleet.

But the Nigerian leaders recently altered course, the soon-to-retire four-star said during an Oct. 16 Center for Strategic and International Studies-sponsored forum in Washington, indicating the African nation will take part. The “level of that participation,” Ulrich said, has not yet been determined.

This comes off news earlier this month of the USS Doyle (FFG 39), already in the region, conducted exercises with the South African frigate SAS Mendi (F 148) and 4 patrol boats of Ghana. The Navy has found mutual interest with the critics and is bringing them into the fold.

Time to eat crow. I have been especially hard on Ulrich, who I have not been impressed with in affairs of Europe. However, when it comes to Africa, Ulrich continues to produce big. This blogs author, and his staff of support who is wiser than he, extends its apology to the Admiral for our unfair criticism to date. While this blogs position is the good Admiral says things that are quite disagreeable, actions speak louder than words.

All the credit here goes to Admiral Ulrich, and I would forecast that following the good PR following successful SNMG1 tour of Africa from the last few months, South Africa will ultimately be involved in some way. When you look at Ulrich's record of just the last few months, whether it is the SNMG-1 African Cruise, Maritime Domain Awareness initiatives in the Mediterranean Sea, or this African Partnership Station Initiative the US Navy 6th Fleet is doing good work with joint, international cooperation on every level.

But it doesn't end there, the article goes on to cover this tidbit:

From Washington, Ulrich is heading to a sea-power conference featuring naval chiefs from across the globe. There, he said he wants to explain why the next ship that sails into the Gulf of Guinea for the APS effort “isn’t flying an American flag.” To that end, five European nations already have signed on, and “Spain, Italy, France are all very interested,” he said.

U.S. officials have been in early talks with nations along the east African coasts about bringing APS or a very similar initiative to that side of the continent, Ulrich said, adding nothing has yet been nailed down.

It will be interesting to see what types of ships European nations send to the region. Noteworthy though, because there has been some discussion that France is interested in leading the next Global Fleet Station Initiative to East Africa, specifically rumored to be willing to deploy a Mistral class. I thought that was rumor only, but maybe there is some truth to it?

The Global Fleet Station concept is an extension of the Sea Basing concept in Sea Power 21, and in my opinion the best Sea Basing idea to come out yet. What I am impressed by is how the US Navy has already influenced allies with this idea to get them on board. When one considers the potential of international Sea Bases of maneuver in maritime regions with security problems, the 1000-ship Navy vision is realized.