A Global Navy for a Global Mission

My boss, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, published two pieces last week on Seapower issues. While I think many came across the one he co-authored on attack submarines with Rep. Courtney (AOL Defense), I also wanted to highlight the second piece he did for the new RealClearDefense website. American Seapower: A Global Navy  for A Global Mission is written as a foundational piece that Rep. Forbes hopes will be part of a broader thesis he continues to expand on for why the Nation should prioritize a larger Navy. You can find it here.

Why does the United States maintain such a robust Navy? It's a fundamental question we should be asking because the answer has both major economic and national security implications. Many assume we have a strong Navy simply because others states that may do us harm also have strong Navies or because the U.S. is flanked by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, waterways potential enemies may use to bring war to our shores. But if we maintained a Navy just to defend our coasts than our current battle force fleet of 285 ships would be more than sufficient for the task. 

A better question, then, might be to ask what the Nation expects its Navy to provide. A number of enduring American interests present themselves.... 

2014 Navy Budget Share Predictable, Not Newsworthy

Searching for any real evidence for a rebalance to the Pacific and a concomitant shift in national military strategy as reflected how the budget is allocated among the Services continues to be unsatisfying.  

Here is a table I put together of how the base defense budget has been allocated in the recent past (actual budgets 2010-1013) and projections for how the pie would be split up from 2014-2017.  The figures in this table for future years are from the 2013 budget.  All figures were rounded up or down to the nearest whole number, which is why some years do not equal 100:

	Army	Navy	Air Force	DoD
2017	24%	29%	28%	19%
2016	24%	29%	27%	19%
2015	24%	29%	27%	19%
2014	25%	29%	27%	19%
2013	25%	29%	26%	19%
2012	26%	29%	27%	18%
2011	26%	29%	27%	17%
2010	26%	29%	27%	17%

Next, I took figures from the 2014 Budget Submission as reported by DoD Buzz in an article trumpeting that fact that the “Navy” hauled in the largest budget share.  Putting aside the fact that the “Navy” has two Armed Services in its budget, the Navy has been receiving the largest slice of the pie for several years and the size of it has been fairly consistent.  Here is the table above with the 2014 line showing both the pre-FY 14 budget line and post FY 14 budget line, using the figures from the DoD Buzz story:

	Army	Navy	Air Force	DoD
2017	24%	29%	28%	19%
2016	24%	29%	27%	19%
2015	24%	29%	27%	19%
2014	25%/24%	29%/29%	27%/27%	19%/19%
2013	25%	29%	26%	19%
2012	26%	29%	27%	18%
2011	26%	29%	27%	17%
2010	26%	29%	27%	17%

Again, in the second table, the 2015-17 budgets have not been updated with figures from the 2014 budget input.  It is entirely possible that the 2014 line is just the beginning of more important shifts of money among the Services and DoD.  But don’t let anyone fool you; the 2014 budget—from the perspective of how budget shares reflect priorities—is business as usual. 

Same Lyrics, Different Beat

The plan is to create chaos and force political rivals to work together as they struggle to wrap their mind around what is happening. The plan includes ignoring laws and discarding good governance to achieve desired political objectives. The plan is to create as much fear and uncertainty as possible to cloud the judgment of the various parties involved. The hope is that by creating enough chaos everyone eventually gets tired and agrees to concessions.

This is North Korea's plan, right?

Nope. This looks to be Barack Obama's plan with the FY14 defense budget sent to Congress. Now political rivals, no not China and the US, but Republicans and Democrats - must find a way to work together as they struggle to wrap their mind around a budget that ignored - outright - the statutes related to sequestration. The last couple years suggest that's unlikely.

This is the worst possible way to govern, but good governance towards stability that would save the taxpayer money be damned, because political objectives must be met - the primary political objective apparently being to avoid making tough choices. Congress will fight it out, eventually get tired (probably sometime in Q2 next fiscal year), and will concede to concessions.

Don't tell me North Korea is acting irrationally unless you are ready to say the same about the way the President is handling sequestration. North Korea is playing games with the lives of others in the region, but Barack Obama is playing games with the jobs of Americans. Either way, the objective is political instability until everyone is worn out.

Kim Jong Un and Barack Obama are basically executing the same political strategy under different contexts. Worth noting that Kim Jong Un will likely ultimately lose because the world elites are not stupid and refuse to put up with people who create dangerous instability, but Barack Obama will likely ultimately win because American elites choose to act stupid and will put up with a President who creates dangerous instability.

Thinking Americans might want to ask themselves why the President of the United States is executing political strategies and tactics in America targeted at Congress that have everything in common with the political strong arm tactics being used by North Korea today, and whether that political standard is good enough.

Asia Pacific Integrated Air and Missile Defense

I will be a panelist at today's AUSA LANPAC 2013 Symposium Panel entitled "Integrated Air and Missile Defense in the Pacific Region".  It will be livestreamed here, with our panel beginning at 2:40 PM Eastern time.  Although I will be focusing on land based IAMD forces, implications for the Navy are easily discerned.

Bryan McGrath

Post Vacation Links

Some bits that may be of interest:

• Colin Snider and I talked about Maggie Thatcher's legacy in Latin America, especially how the conflict is remembered in Argentina:  
•  Along similar lines, some enduring strategic (as opposed to tactical and operational) lessons of the Falklands War. 
• Why accidental war on the Korean Peninsula is unlikely. 
•  Doubt that this will be of interest to anyone who's not a political scientist, but some thoughts on blogging and the discipline. 
• And in case you're interested, this is the latest iteration of our work on intellectual property and military diffusion.