The Other Aspect of Seapower

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                There is little doubt that we have the most powerful navy in the world. China may boast a higher ship count, but in terms of ability to project power, ours is clearly superior, at least up to now now. But there is also little doubt that China aims to catch and surpass us as the world’s predominant naval power. There is, moreover, another aspect of being a maritime power and that has to do with our respective merchant fleets, shipping and shipbuilding industries and the infrastructure that supports them. In this regard, we hardly even rank as a major player.

                President Joe Biden celebrated his signing of the $1 billion infrastructure bill by embarking on a tour to promote its benefits which began with a stop at the Port of Baltimore to discuss what the bill would supposedly do to ease the congestion at our seaports that is strangling our supply chain. Baltimore may be convenient to Washington, D.C. but it scarcely qualifies as a major port. Perhaps he should have first visited the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the adjacent west coast ports that handle an estimated 40% of our nation’s imports. If he had, he might have observed that both ports were operating at capacity, clogged with shipping containers, some full and some empty, waiting to be either loaded, unloaded or transported. He would have observed 70 to 90 loaded container ships, anchored or loitering offshore for days waiting for berthing spaces to become available which increases the cost of shipping. If you’re wondering where those items you ordered online are, they’re probably in one of those ships or shipping containers waiting to be transported and unloaded.

                Of the top twenty seaports in the world in terms of cargo handled, fifteen are in Asia and eight of those are in China. America’s largest, the Port of Los Angeles, ranks only seventeenth, handling just one-fourth the volume handled by China’s Port of Shanghai which handles well over twice the volume of Los Angeles and Long Beach, our two largest, combined. Of the fifty largest seaports in the world, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has seventeen. We have four, the other two being the Port of New York/New Jersey (24^th) and Savannah (40^th). None of these is currently capable of accommodating some of the largest container ships because of draft constraints and other issues.           

                When it comes to warships, we may be superior but as far as merchant fleets, which move about 90% of our imports, we are also hardly even players. Of the fifteen largest maritime shipping companies in the world, nine are based in Asia and China has two of them, including shipping giant COSCO. Three of the top fifteen, incidentally, are in Taiwan.

We rely on foreign shippers and foreign merchant ships, many of which are Chinese-owned, to transport most of our essential imports, At a time of heightened tensions, this is not a great idea. So why don’t we expand our merchant fleet and use American shippers? Obviously, because it’s less expensive to use Asian shippers. As for expanding our merchant fleet, I’ve lamented in previous columns that we may have forgotten how to build reliable warships, but as for building giant container ships, tankers and other large merchant vessels, we’ve apparently given up altogether because we’re simply not competitive in those industries.

Most of the problems with our supply chain backup are at our terminals, not the ports of origin. As our population grows and post-pandemic demand increases, they will likely grow worse. Just-in-time deliveries as an inventory management strategy probably isn’t going to work any more. Mr. Biden says that the delays are temporary and will soon be eliminated but these problems are not amenable to quick fixes like increasing hours of operation. Expanding port capacity in high-cost coastal metropolitan areas is expensive and subject to strict zoning, building and environmental restrictions, especially in California. Acquiring land for increased warehouse capacity and worker shortages are also problems as is the lack of adequate surface transportation serving the ports.

The infrastructure bill reportedly allots only $17 billion to ports including about $11 billion for new construction which will take years to complete. It’s a step in the right direction but only a baby step. A recent assessment by the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $637 billion will be required for seaports, airports and inland waterways of which only $440 billion is currently funded. Of the remaining $197 billion, at least half needs to be devoted to increasing seaport capacity including associated transportation, staging areas for containers and other related infrastructure.

Reliable sea transportation of cargo is essential to our economy, security and living standards. Being a maritime power requires more than just a large fighting fleet. It requires a large merchant marine that reduces our dependance on other nations.

November 28, 2021

How Much Is Enough?—————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                A wise and highly-respected reader and friend queried me about a recent column (Guns vs. Butter, Oct.22). He pointed out that the United States spends more on national defense than the next eleven countries combined (China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Australia), according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. He noted that in 2020, the U.S. reportedly spent $778 billion on defense while China spent about $252 billion and that while China may have more ships than our navy does, the bulk of them are coastal patrol types and include only two aircraft carriers (two more are under construction and more are planned) compared to our eleven. They also have far fewer cruisers and destroyers than we do (but more are planned).

                In asking why we needed more, he suggested that perhaps increasing the defense budget was not the best solution but rather spending it more wisely was. It’s a fair point and no doubt we could spend it more wisely. I recently wrote that we may have forgotten how to build warships, citing among other things, the problems with the littoral combat ships (LCSs) leading to their early retirement and the delays in getting the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford ready for deployment.

                Navies in particular, however, should not be sized, structured or funded by comparing them to other navies including those of potential adversaries. Rather these factors should be based on the missions, responsibilities and challenges we expect them to deal with successfully and which may differ significantly, especially in the case of ours and China’s. A future conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, North Korea or Iran is not likely to be decided by major sea battles between fleets such as in World War II in the Pacific. An armed conflict with the PRC, should there be one, would probably be very different from past conflicts and involve non-traditional warfare such as cyberwarfare, autonomous systems and possibly even biowarfare. It could be over in a short time or drag on, perhaps without resolution.

                The National Counterintelligence and Security Center’s Michael Orlando, whom I quoted in that column, has said that artificial intelligence, quantum computing, semiconductors, biotechnology and autonomous systems are now the drivers of both economic and military growth and losing world leadership in these fields could mean losing our role as the world’s dominant superpower. A much larger navy will, an any event be required in any such conflict in order to project power, protect vital shipping and provide logistical support over vast ocean spaces and possibly to blockade China’s numerous seaports.

                We need a larger navy than China’s also because we are essentially an island nation bounded by three oceans with island territories, bases, troops and other vital assets accessible by ocean throughout the world. China, on the other hand, has a single coastline facing a single ocean and can concentrate and support its naval forces without having to first deploy them hallway around the world. We probably don’t know for certain how much the PRC is spending on defense and its heavily-subsidized defense industries but you can be pretty sure its what the ruling communist party wants to spend and it’s now abundantly clear it’s not just for homeland defense or the invasion of Taiwan.   

                China’s successful testing of hypersonic missiles greatly changes the nature and degree of the threat and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, has described this development as a Sputnik moment. The best way to avoid an armed conflict with the PRC is to deter it through strength as we did in leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. That requires convincing the PRC’s communist rulers that they cannot win such a conflict and whatever the outcome we will survive and prevail and that it would devastate China’s economy. It would cause immense suffering to its restive population and certainly end its grip on power, the retention of which is the leadership’s top priority.

                To convince Beijing will require a much larger and wiser-spent investment in defense on our part, including long-overdue improvements to the infrastructure essential to both our economy and our defense. Whatever that would cost would be cheaper by far than fighting a war. So how much is enough? I once asked a friend and insurance guru, “How much do I need to spend on insurance?” His response was, “Before I can answer that, you need to tell me how much you can afford to lose.”

                Reasonable people can differ over what we can afford for new or increased entitlements or whether we can afford any more at all, given the fact that social security, Medicare and Medicaid are on track to run out of money. Reasonable people can also disagree over how much we need to spend on defense. But everyone should agree that we can’t afford to lose a war. That reality should inform your answer to the first two questions.

November 21, 2021

Guns vs. Butter

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                With China determined to surpass us as the world’s preeminent economy and military superpower, it’s increasingly important that Americans and, for that matter, the rest of the western world accustomed to our leadership, understand what that would mean for us and for our children and grandchildren. This isn’t just a friendly contest for international bragging rights. It’s become quite clear that the issues which divide us can result in much more than friendly economic competition. Life would be much different for us in a world influenced by Chinese economic and military superiority.

                It should go without saying that our problems are not with the Chinese people but with the ruling Chinese Communist Party which controls every decision and policy of importance in the People’s Republic and whose principal objectives are to retain power, crush dissent and project its influence and values throughout the world. Unfortunately, many Americans and most of our European allies appear to view China as an indispensable trading partner and source of affordable products that they have become accustomed to having. They see Russia as their principal threat as do many Americans of liberal persuasion, thanks largely to lingering Democrat collusion fantasies, and seem oblivious to China’s massive military buildup, including a large blue-water navy.

                That buildup is far from just defensive in nature nor is it limited to preparations to re-unite Taiwan by force. China recently tested a hypersonic missile capable of orbiting the earth before homing in on a target of its choice which could be an American city. Hypersonic missiles are more difficult to track than ballistic missiles and more capable of evading defensive systems. They are obviously not just intended for China’s own defense. Meanwhile, hundreds of missile silos were discovered in China’s interior desert areas which probably contain nuclear missiles. These developments strongly suggest that the PRC intends not just to match but to substantially exceed our military capability and to prevail in an armed conflict.

                Clearly, neither the United States nor the PRC desires an armed conflict but, given our differences over vital interests, the risk nevertheless exists. The best way to deter armed conflict is to maintain sufficient military capability to convince Beijing that it would be devastating, not just to China and its people, but to the Communist Party and its leaders. This will require a significant increase in our defense budgets and in the infrastructure and underlying economy that can afford and sustain a strong military.

                The nation’s top counterintelligence official, Michael Orlando, said recently that his National Counterintelligence and Security Center will narrow its focus to five fields: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, semi-conductors, biotechnology and autonomous systems. These are now the drivers of economic and military growth, he said, and losing world leadership in these areas could mean the loss of our role as the world’s dominant superpower.

                It’s past time for more serious discussion on our future defense posture. Do we wish to invest enough in a military that will convince Beijing’s leaders that they cannot surpass us or do we wish to cede global leadership to the People’s Republic and transition into an entitlement state like our European allies and just try to get along with an increasingly aggressive China in pursuit of its destiny?

                As we learned in Economics 101, Guns vs. Butter was the name given by economists to a simple model used to show the relationship between investment in defense and investment in civilian goods. In a modern major economy, civilian goods would include benefits and entitlements. We are at a ‘Guns vs. Butter’ moment. We can continue to spend lavishly on entitlements as the Biden Build Back Better Bill proposes or we can spend enough on defense to ensure that we won’t have to actually use it. Beijing’s leaders may be ruthless but they aren’t suicidal.

                We can survive a reduction in free stuff and cradle-to-grave benefits. For most of our history, there was no economic safety net but we still managed to become the world’s strongest economy and only superpower. But will our nation continue to prosper if the PRC succeeds us in that role? Alas, maintaining world economic and military leadership does not come cheaply.  We can have both guns and butter but not unlimited amounts of both.

November 11, 2021

School Boards and Politics

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Advisory boards, commissions and various other volunteer groups of public-minded citizens often launch careers in politics. It’s been said that even leadership roles in homeowners’ associations do as well. But school board membership is the preferred entry level position for many who aspire to careers in politics. That’s unfortunate, in my view, because political polarization is contributing to widespread school board dysfunction. Membership on a school board or board of trustees should not be viewed primarily as a stepping stone to higher elected office nor a platform for professing one’s own political or social biases.

                Obviously, I like to write about politicians but never actually wanted to be one. After retiring from two rewarding careers and having more free time, I spent a decade serving in leadership roles on various service clubs, committees, commissions and advisory groups plus a term as foreperson of the county grand jury before being urged to run for a seat on a community college district board of trustees. Since I had a bachelor’s degree and doctorate in education and a master’s degree in management plus teaching experience and the endorsement of the incumbent, I figured I’d be a slam dunk to get elected. Silly me. I ran as a non-politician and accepted no campaign contributions. Big mistake, a politically-savvy friend told me. I was running for a political office which makes me a political candidate, he said. He was right. It was all about politics. It shouldn’t be, though. It should be all about the students and responsible management of the responsibilities that came with the position the voters entrusted you with.

                In the runup to this week’s gubernatorial election in Virginia, Democrat candidate and former governor Terry McAuliffe, who started his campaign as a heavy favorite in blue Virginia, instead lost largely because of what was described as a slip of the tongue. He was caught saying that he “didn’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach”. That enraged parents who were protesting classroom time being devoted to controversial social issues so in the final stages of the campaign he felt compelled to claim that Republicans were taking his words out of context. I’m no fan of Mr. McAuliffe and I may be taking his words out of context as well, but I believe he was right, at least if his words are taken literally. Parents should really not be telling schools what to teach.

For one thing, parents may have their own personal biases and axes to grind. For another, they shouldn’t have to tell schools what to teach. It should already be well understood that public schools should focus on academics, especially the STEM subjects, reading skills, civics and history without rewriting it to fit the liberal narrative du jour. They should be preparing students to live productive lives. They should maintain order and decorum in the classroom and provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Teachers should leave their political and social justice views at home where parents should be in charge of instilling such values. They should not usurp the parental role. They should not teach children to hate their country or their race or to feel guilty about either or to teach children to be victims. And when the schools fail in these responsibilities, parents have every right to object, peacefully, but emphatically.  

Families across the nation have lately taken more notice of what is being taught to their children in our public schools and many are not pleased at what they’re seeing. Many, to be sure, have themselves to blame because of years of failing to notice, just plain disinterest or failure to provide a home environment where academic achievement was valued and encouraged. That’s all changing. If school board members or trustees let their political biases affect their responsibilities and objectivity and act like politicians, then they should be treated like politicians and voted out of office or urged to resign. There is no place for politics, theatrics, emotional outburst, threats or insults in school board meetings nor indoctrination of impressionable children in the schools. They’ll get enough of that in college where at least they’ll be old enough to start to think for themselves.

Given the influence of teachers’ unions in states like California, I am not optimistic that much will change in spite of parental protests unless they take their dissatisfaction to the polls and vote out of office those school board members who take it upon themselves to preempt parental rights to instill their own political and social values in the children they teach. Too many of our public school graduates today are deficient in math and verbal skills and therefore uncompetitive in the job market. More time needs to be devoted to developing these skills and less to trying to turn them into young socialists. Meanwhile, more parents are giving up altogether on the public schools. Those who can afford to, including many prominent politicians, are sending their kids to private or parochial schools. Home schooling is increasing rapidly and charter schools have seen the largest increase in five years.

My advice to parents is to worry a little less about what elite university your children will get into and a lot more about what they’ll learn in the schools they’ll attend before they get there. 

November 4, 2021