Naive you are . . .

Interesting read about a disconnect between the State Department and the Army about the possible consequences of that long ago invasion of Iraq at The Skeptical Bureaucrat: Odierno: "We Came In Naive".

And, yes, in my experience there is a tendency among the military to not play well with the DOS folks.

And vice-versa.

More's the pity.

A "Flat-Earth" Navy

In the sense of Thomas Friedman, as portayed by Robert Kaplan discussing the new Maritime Strategy at the Atlantic in The Navy’s New Flat-Earth Strategy.

Sample:

This is very much a diplomatic document, meaning it is necessary to read between the lines. Without mentioning China and without going into specific numbers—or even asserting the need for more ships—the 16-page document makes the case for a Navy that must do, if not everything, then nearly everything. And it makes its case within an intellectual framework that should resonate with the public and a Democratic Congress: the dialectic of globalization. “Our Nation’s interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance.”

Cases in point: Top photo caption:

French Super-Etendard from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier French Navy Ship Charles de Gaulle (R 91) performs a touch-and-go landing on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). Stennis, as part of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, and Charles de Gaulle, the flagship of Commander, Task Force 473, are operating in the North Arabian Sea. Stennis and Charles de Gaulle are conducting bilateral exercises and supporting multi-national ground forces in Afghanistan. Official U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist Adam Henderson

Lower photo:

The Military Sealift Command (MSC) hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) receives fuel from the MSC combat stores ship USNS San Jose (T-AFS 7) as the MSC underway replenishment oiler USNS Tippecanoe (T-AO 199), far left, and the High Speed Vessel Two (HSV-2) Swift, far right, operate alongside in the Indian Ocean. Mercy is serving as an enabling platform to assist humanitarian operations ashore in ways that host nations and international relief organization find useful. Mercy is currently off the waters of Indonesia in support of Operation Unified Assistance, the humanitarian relief effort to aid the victims of the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia.
(U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Timothy Smith)

UPDATE: Another, but not totally dissimilar view, here:

Finally, no amount of cooperation can compensate for the corrosive consequences of a naval shipbuilding program that is dead in the water. You can't sustain global maritime supremacy by buying one submarine a year and one aircraft carrier every five years. And you can't fix a fouled-up shipbuilding sector by launching a political jihad against the handful of shipyards that have survived a generation of Navy mismanagement.

The Navy needs to settle now on what warships it wants for the future and start building them at a much faster rate; otherwise it will lack the tools to carry out all its high-minded strategic concepts.

UPDATE2: Something about all this "cooperation" reminds me of those cautionary words from Gunny Highway, "Just because we're holding hands doesn't mean we'll be taking warm showers together until the wee hours of the morning. "

Worst case scenarios of getting little help from "allies" when the chips are down still need to be considered, in my admittedly jaundiced view.

UPDATE3: And over at Steeljaw Scribe, the guy in charge of the prep of the new Strategy holds forth here. Note that in the comments, he refers to the Kaplan piece as bein on target...

Statistics: "Violence in Iraq in Perspective"

Somewhere out there, facts are lurking that provide some perspective that the daily news does not. A case in point is found at (big hat tip to Chap)Back Talk: Violence in Iraq in Perspective:

Right now, the violent death rate in Iraq is comparable to that in South Africa [note: the number for Iraq comes in a little higher now that I have corrected the population estimate]. Did you know that? It caught me by surprise because I generally only hear good things about that country.

In the U.S., the homicide rate for African Americans is about 20 per 100,000. As such, it is still quite a bit more dangerous to be an Iraqi civilian living in Iraq than it is to be an African American living in the U.S. Back in the early 1990s, however, the rate was about 40 per 100,000...
***
Thus, violence in Iraq today is comparable to violence in black America in the early 1990s. Although it might not be a fair comparison, the same cannot be said for young black males living in the U.S.:

African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest firearm homicide rate of any demographic group. Their firearm homicide rate of 103.4 deaths per 100,000 is 10 times higher than the rate for white males in the same age group (10.5 deaths per 100,000).

Of course, if we selected out young Muslim males in Iraq, their violent death rate would be extremely high as well (higher than for young black males here at home, I would assume). Still, it is sobering to realize that it is twice as dangerous to be a young black male living in the U.S. than it is to be an Iraqi civilian living in Iraq.

Of course, I again commend Darrell Huff's classic How to Lie with Statistics as a cautionary warning of trusting one statistical analysis or another.

Indonesian pirates: Something funny?

Foreign Policy Blog says it has found The funny thing about Indonesian pirates:

...it's worth noting that when Indonesia decided to professionalize its navy, the problem declined dramatically—in part because naval personnel no longer needed to depend on piracy to earn a living.

Well, if true, so what? Many developing countries have had similar problems with corruption of police agencies, including the U.S.

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?

India's "Look East" Policy

Some of the challenges India faces in the modern world, examined in an opinion piece, Military Rule and Democracy — How New Delhi should react to neighbourhood regimes:

Three countries, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Thailand, with whom we share land and maritime frontiers, play a crucial role in our Look-East policies. Thailand has periodically faced military coups with the latest takeover on September 20, 2006, when the then Prime Minister, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, was overthrown.
***
There has been sustained co-operation between the security agencies and armed forces of India and Myanmar on trans-border insurgency. The Myanmar Government has also been co-operative on issues of border management. And Myanmar has shown a readiness to co-operate with India in developing hydroelectric projects, communications links and in oil and gas exploration.

India has already built a road connecting the border town of Moreh in Manipur to the railhead in Kalemyo, and plans are under way to commence a bus service from Moreh to Mandalay. Road and rail communications through Myanmar to Mae Sot, Thailand, and to Vietnam are also envisaged.

There are plans to link the landlocked north-eastern States to the sea through Myanmar. But recent western policies of seeking to impose sanctions on Myanmar have unfortunately driven that country even closer into the Chinese embrace.
***
The Chinese veto in the UN Security Council has had important economic and security implications for India. Yielding to Chinese pressures following its veto, the Myanmar Government decided that the gas produced in its offshore fields, in which the ONGC and GAIL have a 30 per cent stake, should be sold to China and not India.

New Delhi must take its share of blame for this development, because of its ill-advised proposal to build a pipeline through Bangladesh, which failed to take off, because of entirely predictable, but unacceptable Bangladeshi preconditions, which led to inordinate delay in our coming up with a sensible proposal for transportation of the gas.

In the meantime, China also utilised its political leverage to get exploration rights for gas and oil in the sensitive Rakhine (Arakan) Province of Myanmar, adjacent to its borders with India.

Moreover, an agreement has been reached for two major pipeline projects to carry gas and oil from Myanmar to the landlocked Chinese Province of Yunan. These projects will lead to the development of two strategically located ports in Myanmar — Sittwe and Kyaukpyu.

We are gong to see, for the first time, a Chinese presence close to our land borders east of the Irrawady River and major port facilities on our eastern doorstep. It will be China rather than India which will be exploring the estimated reserves of 13.4-47.3 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Bay of Bengal.

China’s strategy of chaining a “string of pearls” to surround India is now becoming clear. Shortly after the visit of former Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Zhu Rongji, to Islamabad in 2001 Gen Musharraf told a Pakistani journalist at the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs that in the event of a conflict, or escalating tensions with India, Pakistan would not hesitate to provide naval facilities to China at the Gwadar port, located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in Baluchistan, being built with Chinese assistance. (China has since agreed to provide Pakistan four naval frigates).

China has also sought to develop port facilities in Hambantota in Sri Lanka and in the Maldives and Seychelles. A Chinese Admiral remarked sarcastically over a decade ago: “The Indian Ocean is not India’s Ocean”. China appears determined to build the requisite infrastructure to develop its naval presence surrounding India, to reinforce its sustained diplomacy to pre-empt Indian efforts to gain access to new sources of oil and gas.

China’s skilful diplomacy in Myanmar, which has resulted in the installation of radars in the Cocos Islands off the Andaman Coast, capable of monitoring Indian fleet movements and missile tests and its determination to develop Sittwe and Kyaukpyu are all a part of this strategy of containment of India.

Complementing this strategy is a skillfully crafted use of its “soft power” to use “Trojan Horses” within India to advocate its cause and gloss over issues like China’s claims to Arunachal Pradesh, its nuclear and missile proliferation to Pakistan and its efforts to frustrate Indian diplomacy in Nepal by joining Pakistan to provide weapons to an embattled and unpopular monarch in the kingdom.

UPDATE: More on India's "Look East" policy here, here and here.

SecDef Robert Gates- an interesting look

Well worth reading: The Education of Robert Gates by David Brooks:

Gates was decisive during the Walter Reed hospital fiasco. He is honest and trustworthy on Iraq. And on Monday, at the World Forum on the Future of Democracy at the College of William and Mary here, Gates delivered a speech that could define the center ground of American foreign policy.

He ran through the history of the never-ending debate between realists and idealists. He noted that this debate began just after the founding of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson saw the French Revolution as a triumph for liberty. John Adams saw it as reckless radicalism. (Note by E1: Sounds like somebody has been reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation which makes that exact point as a reason for a disagreement between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)

Throughout the messy years that followed, Gates explained, we have made deals with tyrants to defeat other tyrants. We’ve championed human rights while doing business with some of the worst violators of human rights.

“It is neither hypocrisy nor cynicism to believe fervently in freedom while adopting different approaches to advancing freedom at different times along the way,” Gates said.

Two themes ran through his speech. First, the tragic ironies of history — the need to compromise with evil in order to do good. And second, patience — the need to wait as democratic reforms slowly develop.

Showing the flag

Reported as Navy destroyer makes historic African visits:

A U.S. Navy ship pulled into Tanzania this month for the first time in 40 years as the 6th Fleet continues its push for maritime security in and around African nations.

The guided missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman called on Dar es Salaam on Sept. 5 before sailing south to make another notable port visit to Moroni, Comoros, a week later, according to recent Navy press releases.

“Peaceful, secure and prosperous seas are in everyone’s best interest,” said Capt. Nicholas Holman, addressing a group of diplomats and Tanzanian government and military officials, a release stated. “We look forward to building a strong partnership with Tanzania and working together to achieve this very important goal.”

A few years ago, Naval Forces Europe/6th Fleet began a maritime security push to enhance a naval presence in African waters to the south of Europe and the Black and Caspian seas to the east.

The aim is that those nations’ militaries establish stability on their own for their respective nations, which in turn would breed stability throughout the world. If vulnerable nations can protect themselves, Navy leaders have said, the United States won’t have to.

The visit to Comoros, a nation of three islands in the Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and the east coast of Africa, marked the first time a U.S. Navy ship visited in more than 30 years.

“We look forward to partnering with Comoros and other countries in Southeast Africa to combat maritime security threats like piracy, unlawful fishing and smuggling,” Holman said in a release.

UPDATE: And more on a ship visit to the Philippines here:

While the United States continued to support the Philippines in its anti-terrorism efforts, a US Navy official denied on Sunday that the presence of a US Navy spy ship in Cebu had something to do with the conflict in the southern Philippines.


Captain Steven Lott, commanding officer of the USS Chosin, a guided missile cruiser said their presence in Cebu was for a "social visit" before leaving on Monday for their homeport in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Lott said the visit was part of the continued cooperation between the US and Philippine governments, especially to foster good relations with their local counterparts.

He said two other US navy ships have been anchored in Manila but USS Chosin, a 9,600-ton ship, chose to come to Cebu after visiting Hong Kong to meet with their counterparts in the Naval Forces Central (Navforcen), the Philippine Navy command that covered Visayas.
***
"Our visit here is purely a social visit. Our government is extending assistance to the Philippines especially in the war in Mindanao but our presence here has nothing to do with what's happening in Mindanao right now," he said.

Spy ship? Hardly.

But maybe this quote suggested that idea:

"What we are mostly doing is to conduct anti-terrorism activities. We do surveys on the area, tracking down other ships, submarines and see what's down there. So far in the Philippines, it has nothing to worry (about terrorist attacks)," he said.

Pol-Mil: Thoughts on the "Quad Four" and the SCO

Thoughts on the recent joint war games with India, the U.S., Australia and Japan and those of Russia, China and their Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Strategic Chess:

Big-power military blocs appear to be back on the table in Asia. In a vast geographical exercise held with surprisingly little publicity earlier this month, the navies of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India took to the Bay of Bengal for war games stretching from Andhra Pradesh to the Andaman Islands. The first security exercise by the “Quadrilateral initiative,” as the group is known, it also included a small contingent from Singapore. It involved two US carriers, the Kitty Hawk and the Nimitz, plus 25 other surface ships and submarines.

This display of floating iron, one of the biggest exercises of its kind ever, is notable because it came just after the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), comprised of China, Russia, and four Central Asian countries, held its group summit and military exercises. It remains to be seen if the SCO will become more than a symbolic talking shop, but it seems to have energized India into becoming involved in a way the previous Congress governments would have abhorred. In the past, they saw the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality, particularly nuclear neutrality. Today, ships like the Nimitz, which are assumed to carry nuclear weapons as a matter of routine, are allowed to berth in Indian ports.

And, whatever the claims to the contrary, it is clear that the Quad initiative, as it has come to be called, was formed with the express aim of countering the Shanghai bloc, and in particular containing China. Defense papers published independently by all four countries have recently listed China as a potential “military threat.”

An explanation of the map here. Sea lines of communication...