Multiple Threats to Our Security

Multiple Threats on Several Fronts———————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

World War II was sometimes called the Two-Ocean or Two Hemisphere War. We fought it successfully in both theaters with the help of our allies and by mobilizing on the home front to create the most powerful military and industrial-defense complex the world has ever known. Today we are again faced with threats to our security on multiple fronts. This time, however, we face them with a much smaller, all-volunteer military that is stretched about to the breaking point by growing commitments and a naval fleet that is the smallest in 85 years. Moreover, our industrial capacity may be insufficient to expand it rapidly enough to deal with the threats.

 

The threat at home is from radical Islamic terrorism, the latest episode, at least as of this writing, being the Halloween massacre perpetrated by a 29-year-old Uzbeck immigrant who drove his rented truck down a New York bicycle path, leaving a trail of dead and injured. The immigrant, Sayfullo Saipov, who was in this country legally, having won a lottery intended to increase diversity through our immigration policies, claimed allegiance to Islamic State. He showed no remorse and even asked for an Islamic State flag to display in his hospital room.

 

That we still permit programs that allow people from countries with large radical Islamic populations and without proper vetting in spite of repeated terrorist attacks on our home soil since 9/11, boggles the mind. It is the result of an ultra-liberal culture that insists that the welcome mat must always be out for just about anyone who wants to come here, just as it was over a century ago when we were sparsely populated and actually needed immigrant labor to grow. It is a byproduct of that progressive creed that holds that diversity must always be a goal that must be pursued at any price and under any conditions because to do otherwise would somehow be racist or bigoted, even though we are already far more racially, ethnically and religiously diverse than most other nations..

 

Mr. Saipov, being a legal resident, will now be charged with a criminal offense and will be tried by a civilian court where he will no doubt be permitted to proclaim his status as a soldier of Islamic State. Fellow radicals will venerate him as a martyr and he will inspire others to commit similar acts of terror against us. Why, then, shouldn’t he be treated as an enemy combatant rather than a common criminal?  Instead of reading him his Miranda rights and allowing him to lawyer up, why shouldn’t he be turned over to a military tribunal for trial, prior to which, he would be interrogated so that perhaps we could learn of other planned attacks and save American lives? That we continue to treat such acts by enemies of our country as law and order issues rather than acts of war shows that we simply aren’t taking the so-called war on radical Islamic terrorism seriously enough and more Americans will die because of it.

 

The other potential front is, of course, the western Pacific, from whence President Donald Trump has recently returned, apparently without any firm assurance from China’s XI Jinping that Xi will do what is necessary to defuse the North Korean nuclear threat, namely by shutting off all trade with the rogue nation including food and fuel until it abandons its nuclear programs and submits to verification that it has done so permanently. Failing to get this deal done, Mr. Trump has said previously, means the United States will “do what is has to do”. We understand that the president does not wish to telegraph his moves and wants to keep Kim Jong Un guessing but unfortunately that leaves the rest of us guessing, too. Should Americans and those in the region prepare for the consequences of armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, or will it just come as a big surprise?

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about a mighty military buildup still remains mostly rhetoric. We await some signs that it is actually happening. I haven’t noticed any.

November 21, 2017

Navy Surface Force Lacking in Professionalism and Experience at Sea

Surface Navy Builds Careers, Not Professionalism—————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

In 1973, while serving in the Pentagon, I was assigned to a study group charged with reorganizing the Navy’s fleet staffs to accommodate a 25% cut in staffing. Hoping to achieve something positive out such a reduction, I proposed combining eight surface ship type commands into two surface force commands at the three-star level, one on each coast. My intent was to create a navy surface warfare community equal in prestige, professionalism and influence in the competition for resources to the naval aviation and submarine communities. The two combined staffs, replacing eight others plus support units, would also eliminate redundancy.

 

After the usual resistance to major change, the recommendation was approved and Commander Naval Surface Force, based in Coronado, became the surface “boss”, as he is called, with maintenance, training and administrative responsibilities for all cruisers, destroyers, amphibious and service force ships plus associate staffs and support units. At the time, we were optimistic that the change would result in a highly professional surface warfare specialty that would attract and accept only the best.

 

Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out that way because of a culture prevalent in our Navy that perpetuates the mindset that while it takes special skills and intensive training to fly or crew an airplane or command or crew a submarine, nearly anyone can learn to command a ship or serve as an officer in charge of a bridge watch underway (Officer of the Deck, or OOD). If an unrestricted line officer doesn’t have the right stuff to be an aviator or submariner, we can always find something for him or her to do on a ship.

 

Aviators and submariners are extensively trained before assigned to an aircraft squadron or submarine. Things are different in the surface navy. New officers report onboard their first ship with little or no training in ship handling and seamanship which they are expected to learn onboard in addition to their “regular” duties with occasional sessions in a simulator. Our Navy ships are, essentially, training platforms. Merchant ships, which comprise most of the traffic on the seas, are, on the other hand, staffed with professional, licensed mariners on the bridge who are already trained. The difference in professionalism and experience is significant.

 

There was a time in our Navy when ship handling and seamanship were prized above all other skills. That time has passed as the complexity of combat and engineering systems and other shipboard equipment has increased. The emphasis now is on warfighting skills, division or department responsibilities, collateral duties and administrative programs, some having little to do with the Navy mission. Ship handling, seamanship and watch standing duties have been relegated to the level of collateral duties.

 

In contrast with licensed civilian mariners, driving our complex and expensive warships is a part time job with the average career surface officer spending at least half a career ashore and much of the sea duty in port. Experience matters at sea in today’s crowded seaways and surface warfare officers don’t get enough of it. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our fleet, the smallest since the Great Depression, is stretched almost to the breaking point by increasing commitments. This is becoming more and more evident as demonstrated by three collisions and a grounding this year resulting in three anti-ballistic defense ships based in Japan out of action at a time of greatly increased tensions.

 

In reviewing the recent collisions, there has been reference to a “culture” in the Navy ships involved that contributed to the collisions. But Navy commanding officers (COs) are hardly onboard long enough to establish a culture which is part of the problem. A two-year command tour is too short. Adm. Hyman Rickover at one time insisted that COs in his nuclear-powered ships and submarines stay at least four years in command.

 

Our surface warships have an abundance of new ensigns onboard, most of whom will not remain in the surface Navy but still will receive shipboard, simulator and classroom training, diluting the training effort which should be concentrated on those who will remain. We should focus the training on the very best of these. But the emphasis in the surface Navy has been more on building career paths rather than professionalism and experience and now we have 17 dead sailors to show for it. We must do a better job of preparing OODs and COs and providing them with the requisite training and experience. It is not enough to fire people and replace them with more of the same. We have to change the culture navy-wide. Our sailors, their families and the taxpayers deserve nothing less.

(Kelly, a retired Navy Captain who commanded three San Diego-based Navy ships and a naval laboratory, is a freelance writer based in Coronado, California.This Op-ed appeared in the Nov. 10th edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

 

Trump’s Mission to Asia

Mission to Asia————————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

North Korea will dominate the agenda during President Donald Trump’s ten-day Far East trip as well it should. The rogue state’s rapid progress in acquiring the means to deliver nuclear weapons capable of reaching the heartland of the continental United States is an existential threat to our security and therefore the security of the western world which largely depends upon America’s defense umbrella. Already the  Democratic People’s Republic (DPRK) claims it is targeting American forces and bases in the region.

 

U.S. policy, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, is still focused on diplomacy and sanctions. These show few signs of success in persuading beloved leader Kim Jong Un to abandon efforts to become a nuclear power and Trump has described them as a waste of time and energy. Kim continues to threaten to use nuclear weapons against us. The prime reason that sanctions aren’t working is that China, which provides about 90% of North Korea’s imports and shares a lengthy border with the isolated nation, refuses to cut off trade entirely which could force Kim to capitulate. With China controlling this land border and U.S. naval forces imposing a quarantine or blockade, the rogue state could probably be starved into submission.

 

China has not done so, presumably because it fears that a collapse of the Pyongyang government would result in hoards of refugees crossing into northern China. China is a country of 1.4 billion people. Surely it could deal with a few million North Korean refugees. It would certainly be preferable to a war on China’s own doorstep that could escalate to a nuclear exchange that would affect the entire region. China also does not want a unified Korea with the possibility of American military forces based across its border. But the United States has said repeatedly that it cannot permit a hostile and unpredictable state like North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons against us, to acquire them. This, we have said, is non-negotiable.

 

Pyongyang, seeks, in addition to becoming a nuclear power, two other objectives which we cannot accept. The first is the unification of the two Koreas under terms favorable to the north, i.e., a communist state ruled by Pyongyang. The second is the removal of U. S. forces from the peninsula and preferably from the entire region. But the very reason why U.S. forces are there is to prevent the former.

 

Since there is no apparent military solution that would not entail enormous risks to South Korea, our forces stationed in the region and perhaps Japan, we must force Kim to abandon his nuclear weapons programs by non-military means. China, as we have repeatedly said, is key to this but China, despite unprecedented levels of cooperation, is simply not doing what it has to do, that is to close its border with North Korea and cutting of all, repeat all trade. Mr. Trump, in his meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping must convince him that it is in China’s interest to do so. A military conflict on the Korean peninsula would certainly not benefit China and its economy and could quickly escalate, resulting in millions of casualties and refugees.

 

Given the threat to peace in the Far East, this is not a time to focus on trade imbalances. It is a time to bring pressure on North Korea’s patron, China to take the necessary steps to defuse this situation. We can increase this pressure by strengthening our alliances with Japan, our strongest ally in the region and the world’s third largest economy. It is time for Japan to step up to a larger military role in the region and take its place among the world’s military powers. We need to strengthen alliances as well with other friendly nations in the Indo-Pacific region including Vietnam and Taiwan.

 

Mr. Trump needs to make it clear to Mr. Xi that America intends to remain a Pacific power and that includes the Western Pacific, and while it earnestly desires friendly relations with China, that will depend upon the latter doing whatever it takes to defuse the serious North Korea problem. This is the main mission to Asia and much depends upon it because time is running out..

November 8, 2017