The First Six Months

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                A half year of the presidency of Joe Biden has passed and the good news is that the republic has survived, even prospered by some accounts. The Covid-19 pandemic  has abated, at least in the U.S., and the economy is roaring back to life. Our vaccines have worked well, thanks largely to former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed and the work of the pharmaceutical industry, but President Biden deserves credit as well for the roll-out.

                While I miss some of Trump’s policies, I don’t miss his tweets and claims of a stolen election at all. The Biden administration offers a welcome respite from his bombastic style. In fact, the thing I like best about Biden is that he isn’t Trump. But in his effort to pander to his liberal, Trump-bashing base, he has gone too far by half and at least half a dozen bad decisions will, I predict, come back to haunt him. And he will own the consequences.

                First, of course, was the decision on day 1 to reverse many of the Trump policies on immigration and asylum, resulting in entirely foreseeable chaos at the border as immigrants concluded that they were welcome to come by any means. His administration had no plan in place for dealing with the chaos and chose to dispatch Vice-president Kamala Harris to Guatemala and Mexico to examine the “root causes for why they come”, as if that were a mystery. It was a classic example of evading the actual problem which was the chaos and security threat at our southern border.

                Second, he failed to forcibly condemn the rioting, looting, arson, anarchy and assaults on police that occurred last summer and the drastic increases in violent crime that followed calls to defund and repurpose police departments. Violent crime is surging in our cities as police morale plummets, mostly in democrat-run municipalities. Far from improving the safety of minorities, these measures have made their communities much less safe, increased private gun ownership as people lose confidence in the ability of police to protect them and actually increased the cost of policing because of additional training and recruiting expenses and higher salary demands. And additional funding alone won’t solve this problem.  What is urgently needed is a restoration of respect toward laws and law enforcement personnel by people of all colors and that needs to be initiated at the very highest levels of government, Mr. President, starting with you. People are sick of the violence and they will surely express their displeasure at the next election.

                Third, Biden’s decision to stop completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline to pander to the climate warriors’ war on fossil fuels, including clean natural gas, was bad for the economy, bad for our energy independence and bad for relations with our Canadian neighbors. It cost about 10,000 jobs and denied safe pipeline transportation of Canadian crude to our Gulf Coast refineries. At the same time, he waived sanctions on the builders of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, ensuring Europe’s access to Russian natural gas, enhancing the Russian economy and taking market away from our own natural gas exporters and the Ukrainian pipeline.

                Fourth, rejoining the Iran nuclear agreement to please Europe will result in the easing of sanctions against the world’s biggest exporter and supporter of terrorism and do nothing to stop the future acquisition by the mullahs of nuclear weapons. It has endangered Israel, our democratic ally, and our Arab allies who fear Iran’s domination in the region. Iran is opposed to Israel’s very existence and Israel will almost certainly act alone if necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nukes. This flawed agreement would do absolutely nothing to enhance stability in this region and would, in fact, diminish the gains we achieved through the Abraham Accords.

                Fifth, in a departure from his practice of routinely opposing everything that Trump supported, Biden agreed with Trump’s decision to pull all remaining U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and, in fact, moved up the timetable. This was a bad decision when Trump made it and it’s a bad decision now, whatever one might think of these endless conflicts. Except now Biden will own responsibility for the bloodbath that will occur when the Taliban finishes its takeover now in progress. The loss of Bagram, our largest air base in the region, complete with millions of dollars in military equipment which we have abandoned there, required the only aircraft carrier strike group in the Seventh Fleet to redeploy to the Indian Ocean to support the evacuation of U.S. nationals, embassy staff and others fleeing the Taliban should that becomes necessary which will likely be soon.

                Finally, in spite of rising tensions with China and the likelihood that Beijing is preparing to occupy Taiwan by force, the Biden defense budget doesn’t provide enough even to maintain our navy at its present inadequate size, let alone increase it. The navy will decommission more ageing or problematic ships this year than it will gain. Meanwhile, China is expanding its navy, which is already larger than ours by 63 ships, at an impressive rate in an obvious effort to surpass ours in capability as well.

                This, of course, is only a partial list but there’s plenty of opportunity still remaining for some more really bad decisions.

July 31, 2021

Fit to Fight?

Is the Navy Ready for War?————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Is the U.S. Navy ready to fight? The short answer is that we won’t really know until we’re in a fight and that uncertainty alone should be a major cause for concern. We do know that a conflict with China, perhaps over an attempt to occupy Taiwan by force or attempting to enforce sovereignty over the South China Sea by interfering with freedom of navigation, would require the best efforts of a navy prepared to prevail in such a conflict. Would ours be so prepared?

                A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Journal editorial writer Kate Bachelder Odell asks that question. She cites a report prepared for Congress by retired Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle and retired Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery which concludes that the surface navy is not focusing on preparing for war and is suffering a crisis in leadership and culture.

                The study, entitled “A Report on the Fighting Culture of the United States Navy Surface Fleet,” draws on input from 77 current and recently retired members of the surface forces of various ranks and rates regarding the culture of the service and how it relates to recent accidents including the fatal collisions of 2017 and the fire that resulted in the loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard last year. When asked if these and other accidents were related to a broader cultural or leadership problem in the navy, 94% replied in the affirmative.

                One recently retired senior enlisted leader said, “I guarantee you every unit in the navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training”. I can comment on the latter later but what’s this about diversity training? The navy promotes and assigns based on qualifications and the needs of the service, not diversity concerns. At least I hope it still does. Other respondents complained about a focus on administrative programs and bureaucratic matters rather than on preparing for combat which is their mission. Diversity training is not part of that mission.

                Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has expressed his concern regarding a culture of risk aversion in the navy that the report believes is corroding readiness.  Lehman has noted that the fleet admirals that won WW II in the Pacific, including Chester Nimitz, who ran his first ship aground and William (Bull) Halsey, who often bent the rules, would never have made flag rank in today’s culture.

                And speaking of culture, I have previously written of the need, in my opinion, for a cultural transformation in the surface navy. The creation of the surface warfare specialty and the surface warfare commands at the three-star level were a result of the 1973 Fleet Staff Reduction and Reorganization Study Group recommendations which included my proposal, as a member of that study group, to combine the several surface “type” commanders in existence at the time into a single surface warfare command on each coast.  My intent was, in addition to eliminating redundant staffs which was our tasking, to establish a surface warfare community equal in status and prestige to the aviation and submarine warfare communities. That objective was never, in my opinion, fully achieved and the mindset today remains largely as it was then, that it takes special people with the right stuff to become an aviator or submariner and lots of training before they ever set foot in a submarine or cockpit, but just about anyone can be taught to drive a ship in a relatively brief period of time.

                And it seems almost every officer on board a ship gets a chance to try. Many of our ships are overstaffed with ensigns, more of them than there are mission-related jobs on board for them to fill. This is mostly in order to provide a large enough base from which to select department heads because of low retention rates, especially among women, who leave in large numbers after their tour of sea duty in order to start a family. The superfluous ensigns, many of whom have job titles that would seem to have little relation to the ship’s mission, dilute the limited training opportunities which should be reserved for those who show the most promise for advancement to command and are surface warfare career-motivated. Our simulator and classroom training is excellent, except for the lack of training craft to complement the simulator training, but some of it seems wasted on those who do not aspire to command and have no intention of staying in the navy or in surface warfare if they do. (By way of disclosure, I teach ship handling, seamanship and navigation at a navy simulator facility.)

                Surface warfare officer career patterns seem more about building careers than building professionalism. Command of a warship and its crew is a unique, demanding and complex responsibility requiring expertise not only in ship handling, contact management and resource management, but warfighting skills as well. To acquire the requisite competence requires years of experience, yet our commanding officers spend a relatively small percentage of their time in service actually at sea. There is no substitute for actual experience at sea. That competence does not automatically convey with rank and it atrophies through disuse while ashore. To improve professionalism, increase readiness and reduce the risk of avoidable accidents we should select for command only the best who have demonstrated excellence at sea and who are obviously comfortable and confident in command and focus the bulk of our training on them. We should keep them in command for at least three years if they are performing well, not two, and they should be offered follow-on commands. This obviously would involve a lot of sea time and is not a career for anyone who does not love ships and going to sea and is not willing to sacrifice time with family. Command of our warships is too important to be influenced by a perceived need for more command opportunity or be regarded primarily as a stepping stone to promotion.

                There are many factors other than culture, of course, that are cause for concern regarding the readiness of our navy for war but that will have to await another column. These factors include: the urgent need for a much larger fleet, assurance that we have the industrial capacity and funding to build it rapidly enough to deter and keep pace with China’s massive naval buildup and how to prevent the flawed ship designs that have produced, for example, the LCSs with their problematic propulsion systems, lack of warfare modules  and survivability issues, the DDG 1000 class which was limited to an expensive three-ship buy and which still lacks ammunition for its gun batteries and the USS Ford (CVN 78) which has been in commission since 2017 and has yet to deploy.

July 25, 2021         

The Brief Reign of Superpowers

The Rise and Decline of the Dominant World Powers—————–

                A Commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                In “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000”, first published in 1987, Yale Professor Paul Kennedy traces the interrelationships of politics, economies and military power within the world’s dominant powers from the Ming Dynasty to the emergence of the United States in WW II. He analyses the reasons for their decline and concludes by predicting the future roles of the former Soviet Union (USSR), the European Union (EU), Japan and The People’s Republic of China (PRC). Now, 34 years later, it’s instructive to take a look at how these predictions turned out.

                The Soviet Union, obviously, is no longer with us, having lost the Cold War to the U.S, because it became clear after the Cuban Missile Crisis that our vastly superior economy could support a military, especially a navy, that was much stronger than they could afford. Our navy, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s defense build-up and 600-ship goal, was the most capable in the world. Russia emerged from the breakup of the USSR as a largely regional power with an austere economy based heavily on the export of fossil fuel. It remains a nuclear power and cyber warfare threat but it will not become the dominant world power.

                The European Union remains largely a trading bloc and its 27 member nations constitute the world’s largest economy but the EU never lived up to its promise of becoming a cohesive union of member states with a unified military. The respective military forces of the welfare states that comprise the union are mostly underfunded, hollow forces and Europe relies largely on NATO, which is to say the United States, for its defense umbrella.

                Japan, once the dominant military power in Asia and the Western Pacific and a formidable threat to the U.S and the European colonial empires, is constrained by its postwar constitution to limited self-defense forces but they are highly capable of much more offensively. Japanese leaders are fully aware of the threat posed by the PRC. Their naval forces are compatible with ours and Japan will be our closest and most important ally in any future conflict with the PRC. They have indicated that they would regard the PRC’s attempt to occupy Taiwan as a threat to the security of Okinawa and other Japanese territory in the Ryukyu Islands. The Republic of China (ROK), now commonly known as Taiwan, was never governed by the PRC and was formerly ruled by Japan as Formosa. Taiwan is an important trading partner with the U.S, Japan and the west and a leading producer of semiconductors and other technology.

                China, of course, became the world’s fastest growing economy and is building a military, especially a navy, consistent with the size and growth of that economy. It continues to gain ground on the U.S. both economically and militarily and is expanding its sovereignty in the South China Sea, plus its economic reach and diplomatic influence globally. As the U.S. celebrated its 245^th birthday on July 4^th, the Communist Party of China  was celebrating its 100^th anniversary by challenging America’s claim to world leadership, insisting that the PRC now be treated as our equal, confident that it will soon surpass us as the world’s leading economy and military power.

                At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at an annual event at which he takes questions from Russian citizens, also challenged American leadership in world affairs, saying that the era of U.S. world hegemony has come to an end. “The world is changing dramatically,” said Mr. Putin, characterizing the U.S. as a waning power. Leaders of both Russia and China say that The U.S. has no standing to lecture them on human rights violations, given the racial strife, social upheaval, disrespect for authority and crime we are experiencing.  Despite differences of their own, Moscow and Beijing appear to be drawing closer together both economically and militarily. Russia benefits from China’s strong economy, seaports and market for Russian energy which China needs.     

                Meanwhile, the U.S. its navy spread thin with increasing global commitments, is not spending nearly enough on its navy and the industrial infrastructure necessary to maintain or expand it. As increased entitlements and welfare spending, plus interest on the ballooning national debt, eat up more of our revenue, less is left for discretionary spending including defense. Soon there will not be enough to stay even with China, let alone stay ahead.

                So will the U.S. remain the world’s dominant economy and military power or will it cede that tile to a rising China? It’s more than just a title, of course. China is governed by the Communist Party of China which is eager to export its values and conditions for peaceful co-existence and harmony .Can we afford what it takes to maintain our position of leadership and influence in world affairs or will we just settle for becoming another welfare state, just like the former colonial powers that preceded us. I predict that we will not enjoy that status. The choice is ours. World leadership doesn’t come cheaply, nor does freedom.

-30-

The Rise and Decline of the Dominant World Powers—————–

                A Commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                In “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000”, first published in 1987, Yale Professor Paul Kennedy traces the interrelationships of politics, economies and military power within the world’s dominant powers from the Ming Dynasty to the emergence of the United States in WW II. He analyses the reasons for their decline and concludes by predicting the future roles of the former Soviet Union (USSR), the European Union (EU), Japan and The People’s Republic of China (PRC). Now, 34 years later, it’s instructive to take a look at how these predictions turned out.

                The Soviet Union, obviously, is no longer with us, having lost the Cold War to the U.S, because it became clear after the Cuban Missile Crisis that our vastly superior economy could support a military, especially a navy, that was much stronger than they could afford. Our navy, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s defense build-up and 600-ship goal, was the most capable in the world. Russia emerged from the breakup of the USSR as a largely regional power with an austere economy based heavily on the export of fossil fuel. It remains a nuclear power and cyber warfare threat but it will not become the dominant world power.

                The European Union remains largely a trading bloc and its 27 member nations constitute the world’s largest economy but the EU never lived up to its promise of becoming a cohesive union of member states with a unified military. The respective military forces of the welfare states that comprise the union are mostly underfunded, hollow forces and Europe relies largely on NATO, which is to say the United States, for its defense umbrella.

                Japan, once the dominant military power in Asia and the Western Pacific and a formidable threat to the U.S and the European colonial empires, is constrained by its postwar constitution to limited self-defense forces but they are highly capable of much more offensively. Japanese leaders are fully aware of the threat posed by the PRC. Their naval forces are compatible with ours and Japan will be our closest and most important ally in any future conflict with the PRC. They have indicated that they would regard the PRC’s attempt to occupy Taiwan as a threat to the security of Okinawa and other Japanese territory in the Ryukyu Islands. The Republic of China (ROK), now commonly known as Taiwan, was never governed by the PRC and was formerly ruled by Japan as Formosa. Taiwan is an important trading partner with the U.S, Japan and the west and a leading producer of semiconductors and other technology.

                China, of course, became the world’s fastest growing economy and is building a military, especially a navy, consistent with the size and growth of that economy. It continues to gain ground on the U.S. both economically and militarily and is expanding its sovereignty in the South China Sea, plus its economic reach and diplomatic influence globally. As the U.S. celebrated its 245^th birthday on July 4^th, the Communist Party of China  was celebrating its 100^th anniversary by challenging America’s claim to world leadership, insisting that the PRC now be treated as our equal, confident that it will soon surpass us as the world’s leading economy and military power.

                At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at an annual event at which he takes questions from Russian citizens, also challenged American leadership in world affairs, saying that the era of U.S. world hegemony has come to an end. “The world is changing dramatically,” said Mr. Putin, characterizing the U.S. as a waning power. Leaders of both Russia and China say that The U.S. has no standing to lecture them on human rights violations, given the racial strife, social upheaval, disrespect for authority and crime we are experiencing.  Despite differences of their own, Moscow and Beijing appear to be drawing closer together both economically and militarily. Russia benefits from China’s strong economy, seaports and market for Russian energy which China needs.     

                Meanwhile, the U.S. its navy spread thin with increasing global commitments, is not spending nearly enough on its navy and the industrial infrastructure necessary to maintain or expand it. As increased entitlements and welfare spending, plus interest on the ballooning national debt, eat up more of our revenue, less is left for discretionary spending including defense. Soon there will not be enough to stay even with China, let alone stay ahead.

                So will the U.S. remain the world’s dominant economy and military power or will it cede that tile to a rising China? It’s more than just a title, of course. China is governed by the Communist Party of China which is eager to export its values and conditions for peaceful co-existence and harmony .Can we afford what it takes to maintain our position of leadership and influence in world affairs or will we just settle for becoming another welfare state, just like the former colonial powers that preceded us. I predict that we will not enjoy that status. The choice is ours. World leadership doesn’t come cheaply, nor does freedom.

July 8, 2021

The Mission of the Military

Milley and the Mission of the Military—————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                At a recent House Armed Services Committee Hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley reacted rather testily to criticism of efforts within the military to encourage its members to learn more about critical race theory. His reaction came in response to a question on the subject from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R, Fla.). Gen. Milley responded, “I’ve read Mao Zaedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read (Vladimir) Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding—having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?”

                Here’s what may be wrong, sir. Recommending reading materials for the military that actually endorse, or appear to endorse, wokeism and critical race theory is not really the kind of indoctrination that we want young and impressionable members of the military to receive. They probably have already gotten enough of that in high school and college, including the so-called elite universities. Soon they will have gotten it in grade school as well, if progressives have their way. Indoctrination has no place in our public education system and indoctrination in critical race theory or wokeism has no place in our military, either. Its training and indoctrination should stress the importance of teamwork, cohesion, patriotism and love of the country they have sworn to defend with their lives if necessary.

                If they wish to read about Marxism and wokeism, members of the military are certainly free to do so but the mission of the military, as I understand it, does not require teaching them about wokeness which is the very antithesis of patriotism. Wokeism is a slang term that became popular incident to the Black Lives Matter movement. It refers to an awareness of current issues regarding racial and social justice. It sounds cool in some circles to say, “If you’re not woke, you just don’t get it.” Wokeism replaces core values like patriotism, equality, teamwork and colorblindness with supposed virtues like inclusion, diversity and equity which value race and identity over merit and qualifications.

                Critical race theory, which is based on Marxist principles, and wokeism have become highly-divisive cultural and political issues in America and the military has enough challenges ahead to face in an increasingly dangerous world than to become engaged in identity politics. The armed services strive to maintain a uniform, colorblind culture in which race, ethnicity or any other accident of birth has nothing to do with performance appraisals, promotion, screening for command or selection for special duty. Merit, qualifications and the needs of the service are all that matter, period. The U.S. military was among the first institutions in America to become fully racially integrated after WW II. It is probably the most racially diverse institution in America today. It provides countless opportunities for young men and women of all races to serve their country, further their education and learn valuable skills.  However, some promoters of inclusiveness and equity, few of whom seem to know much about the military culture, criticize the military because, for example, the percentage of black senior, general and flag officers may be less than the percentage of black service members overall.

                But that’s not the way it works in the military Promotion is based on merit, qualifications, experience and the needs of the service at a particular time. Race simply is not a factor. There is no affirmative action program for promotion or assignment to duty requiring special skills or to command. nor are there racial quotas. These things would set some people up for failure and the consequences could be deadly.

                One of the books recommended for inclusion in the professional reading list for Navy members by Chief of Naval Operations Mike Gilday, according to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, is titled “How to Be an Anti-racist.” The editorial says that the book proposes future discrimination, “ostensibly against white people”. Why, the editorial asks, should a book “promoting sectarian racism (be) on the reading list…” Why, indeed?

                The U.S. military still enjoy the highest public trust and approval ranking among American institutions. It won’t for long if it becomes involved in polarizing, divisive political issues. There is no place for critical race theory or any form of identity politics or racial quotas in an institution that has a singular purpose, that being to deter wars through strength if possible and if not, to win them by whatever it takes. To execute that mission in the face of formidable threats to our nation’s safety, requires a dedicated, cohesive team of brothers and sisters of any color who have each other’s back and are focused, not on political or cultural issues, but entirely on their mission of defending the country they love and the flag they honor and for which they would give their very life if necessary. It’s not just another job and it’s certainly not for everyone.

July 1, 2021