On Midrats 23 July 2017 - Episode 394: A Midsummer's Thucydides with Kori Schake

Please join us at 5pm EDT on 23 July 2017 for Midrats Episode 394: A Midsummer's Thucydides with Kori Schake:

For a man who last walked the Earth almost 2,500 years ago, 2017 has been a great year for Thucydides.

The old Greek historian is having quite a renaissance. Of course, he's always been there, but the Whitehouse is interested in him, so everyone else is as well, especially with regard to the often mentioned, "Thucydides’s Trap."

For those not familiar with his work, The History Of The Peloponnesian War, in her article, "The Summer of Misreading Thucydides" earlier this month in The Atlantic, our guest this week outlines where people should focus.

Thucydides is often associated with hard-edged realism, as in the quote “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.” ... But it’s important to remember that those views are one thread in a tapestry—Thucydides recounts the views of the war's combatants, but he doesn’t endorse them. In fact, the states that profess those hard-edged sentiments are plunged into ruin by them.

When and how they take the plunge has, at the crucial moments of decision, everything to do with rambunctious crowds or ambitious usurpers of their betters egging on policies that result in the destruction of their state’s power.

For this and related topics, please join us this Sunday with our guest

Kori Schake for the full hour.

Kori is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. She teaches Thinking About War at Stanford, and with Jim Mattis edited Warriors and Citizens: American Views on Our Military. Her book on the Anglo-American hegemonic transition comes out from Harvard in the fall.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here. Or you can pick the show up later by clicking that link or by visiting either our iTunes page or our Stitcher page.

Neither "Horses or Bayonets" - Why the Size of the Navy Matters

From the Third Debate:

ROMNEY: “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”

OBAMA: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. ”

Well,  I am counting ships. The Navy has, in fact, said this country needs a minimum of 313 ships to fulfill all the missions assigned to it. That 313, by the way, includes those marvels described by the President - aircraft carriers and submarines.

What do we actually have?

I put up a post that talked about the size of the fleet the other day. You can visit it here. In that post I discussed the size of the surface combatant force, which is on its way down to something under 108 ships. There are at least two more ships in commission today than at the end of the period shown in the chart above. One is a new LCS, USS Fort Worth, and one is USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112).

Now, for those you who might think a ship is a ship, let me suggest that there is a rather large difference between a ship intended to take the fight to an opposing force (a combatant) and the other ships which are intended to either support the combatants (the auxiliary force consisting of refueling and ammunition ships) and the "follow on force" designed to deliver land combat power from the sea (the amphibious force).

The total includes, as I have indicated, submarines (67 of which 14 are ballistic missile boats or strategic assets, the others are definitely combatants), aircraft carriers (10 after the Enterprise is decommissioned and before the Ford enters the fleet). We have 31 amphibs, 47 auxiliaries.

So, how do we use our fleet? From the Navy's own website::

Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 287
Total Ships Deployed/Underway Ships Deployed: 114 (40%)
Ships Underway for Local Ops / Training (USFF / 3rd Fleet) Ships Underway for Local Ops / Training (USFF / 3rd Fleet): 45 (15%)
Ships Underway
Underway Aircraft Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - port visit Naples, IT
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - West Pacific
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - 5th Fleet
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Atlantic Ocean
Underway Amphibious Assault Ships:
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - 5th Fleet
USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - port visit Subic Bay, RP
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - 5th Fleet

Aircraft (operational): 3700+

USS Enterprise is on her way back home to be decommissioned after a zillion years of good and faithful service with a crew none of whom were born when she was commissioned in 1961.

Okay, 287 total ships.

And, as noted in my earlier post, plans are to shrink warships while slowing the building of new ones.
What does it mean if we have fewer than 313 ships?

It means longer deployments for aging ships. It means a greater demand on a shrinking sailor "workforce" - it means that our carrier fleet, so condescendingly described by the President to Governor Romney, goes to sea with escorts that cannot then be used for other missions. It means the ships we do have are ridden hard. It means maintenance slips.

It means that, as many us who are former Navy officers keep saying, that at some point the Navy will have to tell the President that there are missions we cannot do because we don't have the ships, despite the language of the poster nearby.

We don't have the ships because we cratered to the Russians on anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and decided to put ABM ships into the Black Sea or off Spain or someplace where they cannot be diverted to other missions.

We are scheduled to build 55 Littoral Combat Ships which are proclaimed to be the "Swiss Army Knives" of multi-mission warships, but only if they have their modules (which they don't quite yet), their helicopters and a logistics support system that, in my view, has not yet appeared. We will use these under-gunned, undermanned but expensively high speed ships to show the flag.

Whoopee.

They may have a great potential - but do a Google search on "LCS" and then decide how you will feel when you or your son or daughter is assigned to one to "show the flag" to the growing Chinese fleet which, while it has problems of its own, has hardly under-armed the ships it obviously perceives it needs to push into the Cow's Tongue of the South China Sea.
.
As shown in my earlier post, of the 287 (+/-) ships of the U.S. Navy, less than 1/2 are meant to be combatant warships capable of gaining sea control by force. Amphibious ships and the auxiliary ships are "follow on forces" - they come in after the sea and air space are ours. Leave out the 10 carriers remaining after the Enterprise retires and we are scheduled to have 107 war fighting surface ships next year.

We are more than a "two-ocean Navy" - we operate world-wide, in the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf. We keep 40% of our force deployed; 15% in training for deployment; and the remainder in the shipyards for repair or in port doing other maintenance.

Why the heavy maintenance schedule? The sea is a harsh operating environment. And, unlike a company that operates a fleet of trucks or cars, we can't just pick up a bunch of the new model year from the local dealer. You have to have a plan - have a strategy and build a fleet to match that strategy.

I guess shrinking your fleet because you can't budget to keep the minimum you need is a sort of strategy. Just not a winning one.

Gasoline prices

Gasoline prices up over 60% - Chart of the Day:

So while gasoline prices are currently well below the record high levels of 2007, this recent rally has brought prices to a level well above what was witnessed from 1984-2004 ñ a two decade span of relative energy price stability.

Why are gas prices increasing? WSJ says it's due to the possibility of increased consumer demand:

Oil prices are jumping on the hopes of an accelerated economic recovery.

The kindling for that flame came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which talked about the U.S. economy “leveling out.” It was fueled further by euro-zone economic data, as Germany and France are growing again (and a 0.3% growth rate is almost boom-time for those two).

But, as the article notes, this may be "irrational exuberance" -

Never mind that crude oil inventories in the U.S. are still growing (what summer driving season?) or that retail sales are still falling.

One way to curb your enthusiasm - looking into the future:

According to NSWA, by the end of President Obama’s current term in office (2012), restrictions put in place will likely reduce future oil output by 1.32 million b/d (15.4 percent) and natural gas by 8.9 percent annually. By 2019, restrictions and new taxes could have reduced the federal take from oil and gas production by more than $118 billion, or about 4 times the expected yield of the new taxes. By 2030, these proposed policies will have the effect of lowering oil production in the United States by over 3 million b/d (approximately 28 percent) and natural gas by 30 percent.
Also, by 2030 the cumulative reduction in federal tax take from the oil and natural gas industry could be more than $780 billion, under current administration policies.

“The decreased production that will result from the proposed tax increases will have a catastrophic effect upon the American consumer since less domestic oil means higher prices,” said Dewey Bartlett, Jr., chairman of the National Stripper Well Association. “The OPEC leadership will have almost exclusive control over the world-wide pricing of crude oil as well as all products refined from crude oil such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel. Each of the thirtyplus states that have oil and natural gas production will experience a sharp decrease in tax revenues and significant job losses. A vital domestic industry that today helps fuel our national
economy will become an insignificant creator of American jobs much like the shipbuilding, electronics and clothing industries. The consequences of the demise of our domestic oil and natural gas industry are beyond imagination.”

Lower tax revenue in a time of growing deficit spending, higher fuel costs and an increase in dependence on foreign crude - what a change!

Of course, if the current administration believes that all of the dire warnings of the NSWA chairman will come to pass but the result of higher oil prices will be to unleash a huge increase in demand for alternative fuels, more fuel efficient cars, more green technology - all of which would lead to a decrease in domestic oil consumption and a resultant "energy independence" from OPEC as demand for overseas oil goes down, the result of which will eventually be an increase in tax revenue and more green jobs, then, well, in the long run these tax increases may make some sort of sense. As in "forcing change" from above - by raising energy prices so high that alternatives make economic sense. In effect, "taxing" Americans into going green.

From an environmental view, however, it seems to me that the administration would have to be very naive to believe that global warming, if it exists, would be reduced by reducing U.S. consumption of crude oil. Dumping onto the market large amounts of oil that the U.S. isn't using simply means a lowering of crude oil prices for the rest of the world, and encourages other countries to replace the U.S. as a consumer. The worldwide demand for oil will not decrease. Indeed, with lower prices, there may be more development in countries without the U.S. standards for air and water quality and there may be an increase in "greenhouse gasses" as a result of the U.S. going "green." The law of unintended consequences may rear its ugly head yet again for this Administration.

On the other hand, there are only about 2 years before the next presidential election cycle kicks in, 6 months before Congressional campaigns start - and short term pain at the pump may cause the American people to vote a different vision of the future into place.

China's "Maritime Chess"

Some analysis of what China is up to in deciding to join in the anti-Somali pirate effort found at China plays maritime chess | The Japan Times Online:

Today, taking on pirates under the placard of internationalism offers China a welcome opportunity to add force to its global power ambitions. The antipiracy plank earlier made it handy for Beijing to agree to joint patrols with Pakistan in the Arabian Sea and extend cooperation to ASEAN. Another Chinese objective is to chip away at India's maritime dominance in the Indian Ocean — a theater critical to fashioning a Sino-centric Asia. If China can assert naval power in the Indian Ocean to expand its influence over the regional waterways and states, it will emerge as the preeminent Asian power.

The geopolitical importance of the Indian Ocean today is beginning to rival that of the Pacific. Much of the global oil-export supply passes through the Indian Ocean rim region, particularly through two constricted passageways — the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, and the piracy-plagued Strait of Malacca.

In addition, the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the nuclear standoff with Iran undergird the critical importance of the Indian Ocean region. Asserting naval presence in the Indian Ocean and expanding maritime power in the Pacific are part of the high-stakes game of maritime chess China is now ready to play. Its buildup of naval forces directly challenges Japan and India and impinges on U.S. interests.
***
There is a clear strategic shift under way in China on force planning. Historically a major land power, China is now putting the accent on building long-range maritime power to help underpin geopolitical interests, including winning new allies and safeguarding its energy and economic investments in distant lands. China has been in the lead in avariciously acquiring energy and mineral assets in Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, Burma, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and other states that have a record of showing scant respect for international contracts. Through naval power-projection force capability, Beijing intends to dissuade such states from reasserting control over Chinese-held assets.
***
India, with its enormous strategic depth in the Indian Ocean, is in a position to pursue a sea-denial strategy, if it were to adopt a more forward-thinking naval policy designed to forestall the emergence of a Beijing-oriented Asia. It has to start exerting naval power at critical chokepoints, in concert with the Japanese, U.S. and other friendly navies. In essence, that entails guarding the various "gates" to the Indian Ocean. More broadly, Japanese-Indian naval cooperation and collaboration have become inescapable.

Sea lines of communication require naval forces to secure, defend and deny. Will a 300 ship U.S. Navy do the job?

Georgia: Don't get suckered

It appears that some liberals are trying to allege that the Russian incursion into Georgia has as a precedent the U.S. action in Iraq. Don't get suckered into following that thinking. Even if you feel the Iraq war was not justified it was not started as an effort to carve out a chunk of soverign nation- when the U.S. leaves Iraq, Iraq will have its borders intact. Compare this to the intervention in Kosovo, in which a piece of sovereign state was cut out.

Kosovo, of course, happened on the Democrat's watch and they are seemingly anxious to cloud the issue of who established the precedent asserted by the Russians. For some thoughts on that precedent, see here and here.

Perhaps it matters little in the scheme of things as they exist, but just be aware that the liberals seem to be trying to avoid responsiblity (again) for things they set in motion.

Myanmar (Burma): Chokepoint & oil politics?

Thoughts (not particularly favorable to the U.S.) on Myanmar (Burma) and its "Saffron Revolution" as part of a global political and strategic game here:

A relevant question is why the US government has such a keen interest in fostering regime change in Myanmar at this juncture. We can dismiss rather quickly the idea that it has genuine concern for democracy, justice, human rights for the oppressed population there. Iraq and Afghanistan are sufficient testimony to the fact Washington's paean to democracy is propaganda cover for another agenda.

The question is what would lead to such engagement in such a remote place as Myanmar?

Geopolitical control seems to be the answer. Control ultimately of the strategic sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. The coastline of Myanmar (Burma) provides naval access in the proximity of one of the world's most strategic water passages, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia.

Mr. Engdahl sees oil and gas interests at stake, of course.

I tend to question anyone who points out the strategic location of a state on a major sea lane while also referring to it as a "remote place."

Nepal is remote. Myanmar (Burma) is not.

And who so rapidly dismisses any pro-democracy interest of the U.S. If Myanmar (Burma) were a functioning democracy, does he believe we would be interested in regime change?

I guess all those states that really border the Strait of Malacca better be on guard...

Bias much?