Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts

Sunday, March 18, 2018

A Hollow Navy

When the Cold War ended. the U.S. Navy consisted of 594 ships. By 9/11 the U.S. Navy consisted of only 316 ships. According to the Naval Fleet Register, the U.S. Navy consists of 282 ships, of which 242 are active in commission. Despite the shrinking size of the U.S. Navy, it is being called upon to deploy more frequently than ever before. 

Since the cold war, the Navy has been cut in half, but the number of ships deployed overseas has remained almost unchanged: 100. That means less time for crews to train and more wear and tear on the ships themselves. In 2014 the average sailor spent 108 hours a week standing duty. Is it any wonder that the Navy has started wreaking ships into things? 

I think not.

Seablindness, judging by the sample, is an excellent book that tackles this important subject and more. I look forward to reading it in the coming weeks.

Friday, March 16, 2018

Defense on the Cheap: Off-Shore Balancing

According to many, the United States is an off-shore balancer. It plays regional powers off one another, preventing any one power becoming a regional hegemon. America dislikes regional hegemons, believing them to be the only powers capable of successfully challenging American sea power.

American proponents of Off-shore balancing generally believe that only hegemons arising in Northeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, or Western Europe pose a threat to American power. This is why we spend so much of our time worrying about China's influence in Northeast Asia, Russia's influence in Western Europe, and the growing influence of Iran in the Persian Gulf. 

The United States is planning to spend $686 billion on the DoD in FY 2019. Furthermore, the Department of Energy is performing life extension work on 5 types of nuclear warheads, and developing Columbia-class nuclear reactors for the Navy.

As mentioned a few days ago, the Air Force is short 2,000 pilots, most of those unfilled billets being for fighter pilots. 

China is increasing it's military budget, shrinking our relative advantage. Iran is applying increase pressure, and the DPRK has threatened to test its nuclear warheads in the atmosphere. 

In other words, it hardly seems like the time to cut defense spending. What we need to do, however, is keep defense spending from increasing. This means focusing on essentials: Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf. Europe needs to pull more of its own weight. Yes, Russia is quite frightening--which is all the more reason why Europe ought to be spending more on it's own defense. 

We need to make the Pivot to Asia more than just a rhetorical shield for American absenteeism. The best way for America to save money is by embracing a strategy and stop winging it.



Thursday, March 15, 2018

After ISIS: Dealing with Foreign Fighters

I've been reading through the testimony of Gen. Votel, Commander of Central Command, before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Lots of things on his plate. Amazing success fighting ISIS. As a consequence, we need to deal with foreign fighters being captured.

According to Gen. Votel's written statement (page 21):

A significant challenge we face as we complete the defeat of ISIS is the repatriation of hundreds of foreign fighters to their home countries. The SDF and ISF are both holding several hundred fighters from a number of different countries in prisons or temporary detention facilities, with no clear process for prosecution or repatriation. The longer these fighters remain in detention together, the greater danger they pose as they form new connections, share lessons learned, and prepare to re-establish networks upon their release or escape. This urgent problem requires a concerted international effort involving law enforcement, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic agreements.
A little while ago, Rory Stewart, a junior minister in Britain, said that the best solution was to give no quarter, to do our utmost to kill them on the battlefield. He said that in October. He received a lot of flak for his remark.

Gavin Williamson, the British defence secretary, has also expressed similar views. As I mentioned in a previous post, according to the Spectator, more Muslim Britons have flocked to ISIS's standard than serve in the British Armed Forces.

What are we going to do about this? The longer we wait, the more dangerous these foreign fighters become.

Corruption in the Middle East at all time high

General Joseph L. Votel (USCENTCOM)

 According to a statement by General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of U.S. Central Command, 90% of countries in the Middle East receive a failing grade from Transparency International Corruption Index and corruption is at an all time high.

Global Security lists 22 countries as falling within Central Command's area of responsibility. Here they are in ranked order. From most corrupt to least:

Syria (178)
Afghanistan (177)
Yemen (175)
Iraq (169)
Turkmenistan (167)
Tajikistan (161)
Uzbekistan (157)
Lebanon (143)
Kyrgyzstan (135)
Iran (130)
Kazakhstan (122)
Djibouti (122)
Pakistan (117)
Egypt (117)
Bahrain (103)
Kuwait (85)
Oman (68)
Jordan (59)
Saudi Arabia (57)
Seychelles (36)
Qatar (29)
United Arab Emirates (21)
   

Monday, March 5, 2018

Trash or Treasure: The Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg



The Doomsday Machine, despite the source, seems to be well worth reading. Thankfully, you don't have to. Given the importance of the topic discussed, and my own keen interest in the topic, I have decided to start a series of posts dedicated to examining the book in depth and fact checking the claims made.

Frankly, I've always been interested in Nuclear deterrence. My grandfather spent his last few years in the Air Force at NORAD as a staff officer, specifically Joint Systems Integrations Officer, he took a leading role in developing the Minimum Essential Communication Network among other things.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he was still flying interceptors, he was sent up with a nuclear air-to-air rocket, the AIR-2 Genie, to launch at potential Soviet bombers. I always remember this particular story because of he described the maneuver he would have to preform to get out of the blast radius in time. If I recall correctly it was a Split-S.

This brings me to an important point made by Mr. Ellsberg. Many Americans, suffering from the illusions produced by Hollywood, assume that only the president can approve the use of a nuclear weapon. Ellsberg challenges this. I think he's right. The book is well-written and full of interesting details.

Verdict: I'll read it for you.
Read Instead: My blog

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Budget Analysis: Foreign Affairs Spending

In an old lecture given by Rory Stewart, from when he was chair of the Commons Defense Committee, he says that despite all Syria's growing importance at the time, and all the talk the Foreign Office was putting out, the British Diplomatic Service only had 2 civil servants over D7 rank, that's equivalent to an army captain, working on the problem.

Simply amazing, I thought to myself. And it made me wonder, how much are our NATO Allied spending on their foreign ministries? Every year, lots of outlets publish rankings of defense budgets, but no one publishes a ranking of foreign ministry spending. This is my attempt at compiling a ranking for 2017.

Why is it important? Lots of our allies like to talk big, but we should judge our allies according to their actions, not mere talk. An interesting thing to note is that most countries spend more on overseas development aid than on their foreign ministry. Below, I have tried as best I can to exclude that aid spending.

P5 Foreign Affairs Spending for 2017

Country..................................Budget.................................In 2017 Dollars 
US.................................22,669,987,000 USD.....................22,669,987,000
Russia.....................................???..............................................Will Add
France...........................3,028,400,000 EUR........................3,724,053,764
China............................8,500,000,000 USD.........................9,500,000,000
UK................................2,000,000,000 GBP.........................2,784,280,000

Select European/NATO Foreign Affairs Spending 

Country..................................Budget.............................Year
Germany.............................5.232 Billion EUR.........,,,...2017
Canada................................63,614,791 CAN.................2017
Holland...............................8 Billion EUR......................2018
Finland................................1.92 Billion EUR................2018

Take this data with a bit of salt. For instance, I don't think Holland is outspending Germany. And despite the Canadian Prime Minister's appalling performance in India, I'm being overly conservative with their figure. Canada just happens to provide a much more detailed breakdown of departmental expenditure.

Foreign Affairs Spending of American Allies in Asia

Country.................................Budget.......................Year
Japan.........................................???...........................Will Add
Korea...................2,068,320,000 Billion USD..........2017

Of course, what exactly is this measuring? What I want to measure is the capacity of a country to understand other countries. I'm interested in this because of Amy Chua's book Political Tribe, which I reviewed in a earlier post. In this book she makes a passing claim that the British understood tribes better, using that understanding to divide and conquer the subject peoples of its Empire.

I think this is true. The French did it, too. And the French have retained some of that knowledge, which they have employed to good use in Mali. That said, I think it is a very expensive capacity to develop. Given that we're spending far more than any other country, I doubt they're able to do a better job than us, except in countries they specialize in. For instance, the French with certain parts of Africa. The Nordic countries with Russia.

In conclusion, we spend a lot of money on our foreign policy apparatus, not just our military.