America As a Declining Maritime Power

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                It’s time to acknowledge what is becoming increasingly obvious to our adversaries. We no longer have a navy fully capable of safeguarding all our vital world-wide interests. Most of the world’s trade moves by sea and ours in particular is dependent upon freedom of navigation. China, unfortunately, is intent on colonizing and militarizing most of the vast South China Sea connecting the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans through which over half of world trade transits daily.

We simply don’t have a large enough naval fleet to protect these vital interests and we still lack the defense industrial base to build what we need in time to make a difference. Moreover, there appears to be little sense of urgency regarding this need on the part of the public and the risks it poses, pre-occupied as we are with election politics and domestic issues, in spite of repeated warnings by defense experts. Indeed, the nation seems to be lapsing back into the isolationism of its past. This would create a vacuum in world leadership that China and the Chinese Communist Party would be delighted to fill. We would not prosper in such a world. Also, the oceans no longer insulate us against threats such as cyber warfare. It’s important that the American people are made to understand this. When you fall to second place among the world powers, life is never the same again. Ask the British.

America won the war in the Pacific as a naval power; the greatest the world had ever seen. Although we were slow to get involved until our hand was forced by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we ended with a naval force of more ships and aircraft than we could use and we won the Cold War that followed by convincing the Soviet leaders that they could never match our ability to mobilize rapidly for any contingency.

Those days are over and if we are unable to deter wars in the near future, we are going to have to fight them with the forces we have, not those we wish we had built. We don’t know what the future will bring and can’t say for certainty whether or not our military forces are properly sized and prepared for all types of warfare. We appear to be relying on our ability to deter war but the deterrence must be credible and ours may no longer be. Future wars will likely be fought differently from past wars but it’s been a long time since we actually won a real war. If it is with China, however, it will be a naval war and the stronger maritime power will have the advantage.

The United States ranks as a maritime power only by virtue of its powerful but undersized navy. China’s navy is growing rapidly from its current 370 ships to a projected 435 by the end of the decade. Ours will shrink below 300 and we will lack the defense industrial capacity to build what we need to meet even current commitments and keep up with maintenance. In a conflict with China, for example, we would need about twice as many nuclear-powered attack submarines as we currently have but lack the capacity to build more than one and a half per year. Eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are insufficient to provide for a reasonable tempo of operations and time for maintenance. It’s taking two carrier strike groups just to cover the Israel-HAMAS war. Imagine what an expanded war on multiple fronts would require. Navies are not sized to match an opponent’s but rather to cover commitments and ours is overcommitted.

But sea power requires more than warships. A large and modern merchant fleet will be required to keep our homeland and deployed military forces supported. China is the very definition of a maritime power. It is the world’s largest shipbuilder by far, followed by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The United States isn’t even a player. Most of our trade is carried in foreign-flagged and foreign-owned ships the availability of which, once the shooting begins, is far from assured. We lack a significant merchant fleet of our own. We have exported so many functions and products that characterize a maritime power that it is ludicrous to assume that good, old American ingenuity and can-do spirit will figure out a way to mobilize for the next conflict if deterrence fails. And it is obviously failing as Iran proxies use our warships in the Red Sea for target practice.

Asian shipyards are profitable with steady customers and funding. We are among the customers. So are our allies. Meanwhile, our shipyards and other repair facilities struggle just to keep up with maintenance and can’t count on long range funding or planning as administrations come and go. In the event of a conflict, there would be no need for China to mobilize. They already have.

The truly alarming part of all this is that Americans no longer seem overly concerned. They seem bored with foreign affairs and endless wars. They are pre-occupied with domestic issues concerning which they are deeply divided. They assume that our military will always figure out a way to prevail, no matter what the odds. The British felt the same about the Royal Navy and the durability of the British Empire. They have already made the classic choice of economists between guns (defense) and butter (benefits). Butter won big.

Brush up on your Mandarin.

February 22, 2024

The LNG Pause

                A Commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                It has been said that every nation will usually act in its own best interest to which it might be added, “except the United States”. Winston Churchill once said, however, that you can count on the United States to do the right thing—after they have tried everything else. Was the United States acting in its own best interest to temporarily pause the pending approvals of liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities? Was it the right thing to do to yield to the demands of the climate change warriors in his party in an election year and deny our European allies the benefits of a more reliable supply of cheaper, clean LNG instead of being reliant on Russian sources or reverting to dirtier fuels like coal or oil? Is it the right thing to do to continue demonizing the oil industry when it is clear that we will be relying on it for decades to come before we ae able to rely on all renewable fuels?

                Is it the right thing to do to wage a virtual war against an industry still vital to our economy to satisfy the left wing of one’s political party? The United States is now the world’s leading producer, processor and exporter of LNG. Conveniently, our nearby, friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, ranks fourth as an exporter of petroleum products and is connected by rail and pipeline to our export facilities. They are insufficient, however, to handle the volume needed to meet growing demand.

 The days of our dependence on Middle East oil are over. Acting in our best interest would be to increase our export capacity by building port facilities and other infrastructure, adding tens of thousands of great-paying jobs. It would also be doing the right thing by lowering the price and availability of fuel for everyone including poor and developing nations, as well as decreasing reliance on dirtier fuels like coal and oil. Pausing or delaying approval of these facilities will result in upward pressure on fuel prices in our export and domestic market. This is neither acting in our own best interest or doing the right thing.

                The Biden Administration simply caved in to the demands of environmental groups. It said it would “take stock” of the country’s new status as number one in exports. Instead, it should take comfort in this gift from God which provides added insurance that our economy will continue to grow, providing jobs and a reliable source of fuel in the decades it will take to convert to renewable sources. The pause reflects the dismal and by no means universal view that the climate “crisis” is the existential threat of our times. But reducing our exports of clean LNG will have zero effect on net global emissions so long as China, India and other emerging nations with a majority of the world’s population continue to burn coal which they must for decades to come.

                Meanwhile, the pause extends to every new and pending permits for LNG export terminals in the U.S. Several are pending in Texas and Louisiana. One of them, the Calcasieu Parish (Louisiana) port terminal, would be the nation’s largest, according to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), writing in The Wall Street Journal. Cancelling its permit could eliminate thousands of jobs, he says. Accordingly, he says he will block every nominee by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for a position at the state and energy departments.

                Biden’s pause on permitting this needed infrastructure to be built is extremely bad policy and is unnecessary.  America leads the world in reducing carbon emissions and the primary reason is its use and promotion of LNG. There is no environmental justification for this action, especially in an election year for political purposes. Beside being a fuel of convenience and choice, LNG is a needed backup fuel as we transition to renewables. By the way, the European Commission now recognizes LNG as a sustainable energy source. Again, the fact is that as long as China and India and the rest of the developing word burn coal, what the Unites States does or doesn’t do will have little of no effect on net global emissions. Why aren’t we reaping the benefits of our good fortune?

                                                                         *                 *              *

In the seventh paragraph, first sentence of last week’s column, I wrote that the Houthis are located in Lebanon. They are located in Yemen. Please excuse the error.

February 9, 2024

Underfunding Defense Is Dangerous

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                A continuing resolution is a short-term piece of legislation passed by Congress to keep the government from running out of money and shutting down, at least in part, for a specified period of time. It happens when annual final budget appropriation bills have not been approved by Congress in time and it happens much too often. It may happen yet again which will limit defense and other spending to current levels which are insufficient and constrain needed growth. It would have a devastating effect on the armed forces, amounting to a cut in spending when inflation is taken into account. If you think, say, eggs and used cars, have gone up in price, look at the cost of ammunition and tanks.

                The Biden Administration is trying to get Congress to push through funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as a package. Republicans are insisting that the package include funding to regain control of our southern border. It has been said that the Biden Administration cares more about the integrity of the Ukraine-Russian border than our own southern border and that the Mexican cartels exercise more control over what and who crosses our southern border than we do. The Biden Administration disagrees and charges that the GOP-controlled House has failed to propose legislation to change asylum rules.

                The disagreement has resulted in paralysis in this deeply divided Congress and once again the House has failed to pass appropriation bills. Appropriations are decisions made by Congress on how to allocate funds within the budget. Since we are running out of time, another continuing resolution is being discussed to give Congress more time and to keep the government running at current spending levels until a specified date. It would also be a disaster for the military.

                When one doesn’t have enough assets to satisfy all spending priorities, it’s usually a good idea to re-prioritize them. I believe that if the public were to do this, they would re-prioritize in the following order: first regaining control of our southern border by whatever it takes; second aid to Israel; third aid to Taiwan; fourth aid to Ukraine.

                Enough has already been said and written about our southern border. A nation which loses control of its borders is a nation in decline. It is not a safe nation.

                Israel is fighting a war of survival of the Jewish State. According to news reports, Israelis in the north fear a surprise attack by Hezbollah forces similar to the one by Hamas on Oct. 7. Hezbollah forces are better trained and armed than Hamas. Hezbollah has said that it will continue to fire missiles at Israel as long as Israelis are fighting in the Gaza Strip. Israel says that the situation has become intolerable and that it will have no choice but to drive the Hezbollah forces back from the border. This would almost certainly expand the war.  

                Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, is funded by Iran which also funds the Houthis in Lebanon. Recently, re-classified by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, it has been firing rockets and missiles at merchant ships and their naval escorts in the Red Sea, between the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Oman, an act of war. Some of these vessels ae sailing under the U.S. flag. Although we have launched retaliatory attacks, they have not been sufficient to deter the Houthis who say that they will continue to do so as long as Israeli forces are fighting in the Gaza Strip.

                The entire area is ripe for an expanded war in which the United States will inevitably be involved. at least to defend our ally, Israel, to maintain freedom of navigation and to ensure the safe transit of food and fuel.

                The Chinese economy is in trouble with massive layoffs reported and the real estate market in shambles. That doesn’t reduce the risk to Taiwan of an attack aimed at gaining complete control of the island democracy they claim is part of China. Authoritarian nations in economic trouble often turn to military action to distract the population and promote patriotism. Taiwan has never been a part of Communist China and was in fact ceded to Japan at the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese War.

                Finally, there is Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine which has devolved into a war of attrition. Ukraine cannot conceivably win a war of attrition against its much larger neighbor under the current rules of engagement. Additional military aid at the current level will only prolong the war, continue the bloodshed and result in a negotiated settlement.

February 2, 2024