Posted by CDRSalamander in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
From its inception as the “1,000 Ship Navy,” the “Global Maritime Partnership” has been a classic example of self-delusional hope triumphing over experience.
Ignoring the clear lessons of NATO’s performance (national caveats et al) in Afghanistan and other lesser known coalition operations over the last century, we decided to make this false hope a cornerstone of our Maritime Strategy. A thinly painted cover to make up for our horrid stewardship of the Fleet’s shipbuilding programs and the resulting shrinking of displacement pierside, the GMP – if not seen for what it is – will create the false impression that a Frigate is a Frigate is a Frigate – regardless of what nation it comes from. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Perhaps if we are willing to learn by present experience what we ignore from history, we can mitigate avoidable Maritime Strategic Risk resulting from putting our nation’s security in the fickle hands of fair weather allies.
Pushing through the fog of bad theory and responding to the operational reality, we have a very good move on the piracy front with CTF-151′s creation from the failure of CTF-150 to note that water is wet and fire is hot. Here is the tie in to my ramble above;
“Some navies in our coalition did not have the authority to conduct counter-piracy missions,” said Vice Adm, Bill Gortney, CMF Commander. “The establishment of CTF-151 will allow those nations to operate under the auspices of CTF-150, while allowing other nations to join CTF-151 to support our goal of deterring, disrupting and eventually bringing to justice the maritime criminals involved in piracy events.”
Uncle Sam is stepping in to fill out the Varsity team, just like we are in the south of Afghanistan. Non-swimmers, the JV squad is over there.
Remember, unlike ground forces committed to combat – it is much easier for ships to leave formation when things get tough. You thought the Elector of Bavaria at Blenheim could turn quickly, ships from other nations can and will turn around on a moment’s notice if their nation decides that is in their interest to do so. We must always work with allies – but you need to be ready to go on your own. To paraphrase a great man; you go to war with the Fleet you have, not the Fleet you thought your allies would show up with.
The ocean can get real big and real lonely; real fast.
18 Responses to “Preemptive failure of the Global Maritime Partnership”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
CDR,
Wow, the one shining example of this “Global Maritime Partnership” is already coming apart at the seams….
http://blog.usni.org/?p=554
URR
January 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pmUSNI Proceedings has a good essay on Piracy vis-a-vis International Law as promulgated by the UN. However, like anything else the UN kacks up, only signatories and their warships can execute the law.
Personally, I like the old anti-piracy statutes in place to curb the Caribbean Ocean – capture a pirate in the course of piracy, their lives are immediately forfeit. Bring that to modern day, catch a pirate, send his remains back home.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pmAmen CDR,
Expecting the GMP to succeed in “real” situations is something akin to counting on the United Nations to do the right thing. Its not going to happen.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pmAmen CDR,
Expecting the GMP to succeed in all “real” situations is akin to counting on the United Nations to always do the right thing. Its not going to happen.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pmWhen he was Commandant, Al Gray often observed that ‘there are no crowded battlefields.’
Eight years of downright dumb go-it-alone has left us … lonely in the world and carrying an excessive burden with fewer allies than we should have, or used to. A return to collaborative defense with allies has strong and successful precedence in our nation’s history. We need it. It works. The alternative is feckless and unaffordable.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:29 pmDucky,
What, exactly, would you cite as examples of collaborative defense with any more than a small handful of allies that did not revolve around the US providing the vast preponderance of combat power?
Al Gray might have a different statement were he commander of an “international” maritime task force that vanishes like a fart in a whirlwind when trouble starts.
Collective security failures are legion throughout the 20th century, and the concept has performed no better in the 21st. It is NOT administration-dependent, contrary to what you imply.
URR
January 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pmDucky, hate to say this, but the record is geting kinda old. Can you put another one on?
CDR S: dead on target as usual.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pmURR: Cite examples of collaborative defense? Three instantly come to mind:
- Desert Storm
- The Cold War
- World War Two
And they share a useful characteristic: we won! Am not sure how you count contribution. Russia had 20 million dead in WWII (and provided “the vast preponderance of combat power” in Europe), London was bombed throughout the war, etc. We coughed up a lot of cash, but we also emerged from the Great Depression and found ourselves on the path to superpower status.
I stand with the majority of citizens and historians who regard Bush-43 as a failed president; many serious scholars have declared him the worst president in history. Unilateral military action, preemptive wars of choice, doctored intelligence, torture, our Guard and Reserve shattered for a generation, our military unable to take on challenges elsewhere, and, on the resource side, a shift from budget surplus to record deficits and an economy in tatters. Oh, and 9/11 happened on his watch … five weeks after he ignored specific threat information in his PDB. The current sad state of our military (and our nation) is direct result of this feckless twit in the White House for the past eight years — where we are IS administration-dependent.
And, having heard Al Gray make his statement many times in many contexts, I never heard him put qualifiers on it.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pmDucky,
The notion that the US didn’t hold almost all the cards for NATO in the Cold War is rather a dubious one. As for WWII, the Soviets began to act rather “un-ally-like” as soon as they saw the issue in Europe decided. Yes, we put on a show of solidarity, but the truth was much darker. And neither England nor Russia would have held without the mind-boggling American industrial power squarely in their corners.
As for Desert Storm, subtract US air power, combat power, sea power, strategic lift, and logistical capabilities, (not to mention will to fight) and there wasn’t much.
URR
January 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pmDon’t confuse collective deterrence, i.e. no warfighting, and that was the Cold War, with actual warfighting. Even in the Korean War, outside the Anglosphere and the Turks – few did very much to help out the Americans and South Koreans. Those who did help out even with minimal troops were laden with caveats more often than not even then.
Discount that most of Europe was still digging out of WWII at the time, you can cut them some slack. When the Cold War got hot in Vietnam and a few other garden spots – who fought with us? Australia, South Korea and a little side help now and then – but no conviction once France retreated from Indochina in the 50s. Who resisted with force Communist aggression in the Americas? Middle East? Asia? Who then, as now, was content to let the English speaking nations do the dirty work while they created unionized garrison forces that by design were impossible to deploy on their own in an expeditionary manner beyond company sized light UN peacekeeping?
How has that changed since the fall of the Warsaw Pact? Which nations spend more than the minuscule 2% of GDP on defense? Who is supplying the maneuver forces in AFG at Battalion size and larger? What do these lessons tell us?
As for WWII, Belgian and Dutch forces landed at D-day with the Brits, Canadians, USA (plus a few French and others) – but they landed and fought under mostly caveat free ROE – though (especially the Canadians in this regard) they had some interesting C2 arrangements and reporting through national channels, they were a unified force inside their AORs. The brave army-without-a-nation Polish infantry and armored forces fought along the line with everyone else as everyone else on the Western Front on the race to the Oder.
No, WWII is the way it should be – but isn’t and hasn’t been since. False comparison on Ducky’s part.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:41 amIsolationism is a resonant theme in American life. One cannot find a single period in our history lacking those nativist simpletons who would face the world alone, reluctantly, on the world’s terms and timing.
Isolationism fits the Mencken observation: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Going it alone requires little diplomacy, little of the messy business of fitting forces together operationally, little real understanding of the real world. One can see its appeal to little minds.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:59 amGoing it alone also means that you stand ready to do that which MUST be done, when no one else has the balls to do it.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:28 amCDR,
WRT World War II, you raise a good point. Those nations’ forces fully integrated into SHAEF and fought bravely. But they represented a small fraction of the combat power on the Western Front. Even the Brits saw their contributions wane to a small minority as the war continued, the Royal Navy able to offer only a moderate carrier task force in the Pacific, when the US Navy deployed 27 CTFs.
Point being (it’s about time, huh?) that our immense resources put us in the position of being the big kahuna in even successful coalitions. In such cases, as your blog so eloquently points out, we must always be ready to be the varsity. Other nations may be of some assistance to us, but much more likely the situation will be reversed. They CAN’T go it alone, but we need to be able to.
There. I think I have flattened the cat.
URR
January 9th, 2009 at 8:35 amI dub thee Troll.
No soup for you.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:37 amThee=Ducky; BTW.
URR & Byron get a plate lunch with extra Portuguese sausage.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am“URR & Byron get a plate lunch with extra Portuguese sausage”
Stand by for some Global Warming!
January 9th, 2009 at 9:07 amArguing in favor of the broad theme of American defense policy for the past 100 years – effective, successful, and time-proven again and again – may seem troll-like to fellow trolls. Am actually counseling wisdom in an otherwise silly and tendentious discussion. YMMV. GAS.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:21 amCDR Sala: Thanks!
URR: no sweat, I can hold my own, speak for yourself
Ducky: it was thin soup anyway. Try another record though, he might up it to stew.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am