This picture cost the Pentagon $25 million dollars

My blogging colleague FMFP’s recent writings on the ongoing struggle for the US government to agree on a budget for this coming year highlighted the discrepancy between mandatory (entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and discretionary funding, basically everything else the government pays for, including defense spending. FMFP cited a poll that showed that far too many Americans are unaware of the fact that entitlement spending is what is really driving our country toward insolvency and another poll by WSJ/NBC also portrays an American populace unwilling to give up any ‘significant’ portion of these program’s benefits to fix the budget. FMFP, after using Tarrance Group poll results showing that a majority of Americans think the government spends more on defense than on entitlements, accurately pointed out defense/security procurements take up roughly 20% of the budget while Social Security and Medicare take up almost twice as much and are expected to explode in coming decades.

It is this context, that I recently read Robert Kagan’s article ‘The Price of Power‘. Here’s his intro:

In other words, if the US really wants to cut down on our defense spending we are going to have to change or adjust our strategic posture. To some, specifically Jeffersonians and domestic liberals, a smaller US military would be overall beneficial: more money for social programs/less military adventures abroad. For others, a lessening of our international presence will lead us and the world down a potentially dangerous path (great power war, global instability) that will cost us much more than 20% of our budget to get out from under.

I have to admit, though I’m clearly in the ‘US military and global presence is a source for good’ camp, I have to admit that our modern defense industry is bloated and could use some trimming. Greg Scoblete of Real Clear World rightly points out that overall the US currently finds itself in more sure security surroundings compared to the Cold War, WW II, etc. I believe the US needs a strong presence in East Asia to combat a growing China and keep allies such as Japan, Indonesia, and South Korea secure. The scourge of Islamic terrorism is as real as ever and demands a secure homeland and strong military, diplomatic, and intelligence network in numerous hot spots around the globe to deter and defeat. Global trade, which still depends largely on maritime travel, demands safe passage through the earth’s oceans and seas and there is no better guarantor of that than the US Navy. The Middle East, which includes a menacing regime in Tehran, a Turkey posturing away from the West, a vulnerable ally in Israel, oil supplies and pathways up the wazoo, is cauldron of instability and no one knows where these popular uprisings may lead. I could go on…

So in short, yes, I do think the United States could sustain some cuts in our defense spending, but we have to admit that this will come with some costs. which we must choose wisely. and we must not let these cuts distract us from our real budget calamity, ever expanding entitlement programs. This country and the world need a strong American presence and for this to be maintained now and in the future we need not only a capable military, but a fiscal future that doesn’t look so much like present day Greece.

I was lucky enough to attend the Navy’s annual Fleet Week in San Diego last weekend and I have the pictures to prove it!

The Littoral Combat Ship 'Freedom' - Nice name!

The Littorals hold numerous small, mobile water/aircrafts

A group of 'Freedom's' sailors

Another Navy ship at Fleet Week named after America's favorite value.

When you don't have a draft, you have to recruit'em good and young.

Military Photo Rule #1: Always end with a howitzer

Cheers to the US Navy for giving me and thousands of other San Diegans a glimpse into their good and impressive works. It’s also nice to know where some of my tax dollars are going.

The rescue of Captain Phillips by US Navy Seals was a heroic and a possible sign of a new commitment by the US and international community to tackle this growing menace in the Gulf of Aden. Of course, this is not the first time pirates have been on the news in the last few months and just hours after this American rescue many of the Somali pirates were back at and declaring revenge. So did America’s aggressive mission, rightly given the go-ahead by President Obama, change the calculus of future actions and policies by the pirates and those who wish to stop them?

Though there have been occasions where states and ships have fought off the pirates, India for one, much more common in the past decade is for a payoff to occur, bringing supplies and seamen back safely, but regrettably sending basically terror/pirating financing back the Somali criminals’ way. This has not only allowed them to purchase more effective and dangerous weapons and ships, but even worse, showed that the practice of pirating was profitable and worth pursuing. While some have argued that the US Navy Seal rescue may have actually done more harm than good by provoking thoughts of revenge and possibly pushing these pirates into the hands of Islamic terrorists, I believe the move to be a hopeful sign of a growing deterrence factor in this fight.

Though the rescue was small scale it involved a few signs that may change the way the game is played: A. There was no ransom paid. B. All the pirates were killed. C. It garnered worldwide attention. D. The US showed that the international law in place stating that piracy can be fought with fatal force was put into practice and successfully faced international scrutiny. Though the rescue has and will not deter all future attacks on ships, even American ones, I believe it will make other pirates think twice about taking over an American ship. The US and the international community need to change the calculus for the pirates. They need to start seeing more negative results of their pirating.

Fred Kaplan at Slate offers many useful ideas at how to do this; arming seaman in the Gulf and making sure they have the legal right to shot to kill if they are being illegally boarded, sending a flotilla of NATO warships to the region, and once again getting the whole international community behind defeating the menace. The United States and India alone cannot change the current dynamic of profits for the pirates alone, all states that have an interest in secure oil and shipping lanes, that is of course ‘all states’, need to get behind this scourge. We cannot force these bandits into a decent living life, but we can make it untenable for them to continue this profession. For this to happen, the US and the Obama administration need to lead the way. The brave rescue of Captain Phillips was a good first step, but a greater commitment will be needed for it to make any long-term strides.

The Indian Ocean is great for this blog. Why? Maybe cause there’s a bunch of great power politics going on there! China, India, Iran, Middle Eastern oil cartels, the United States all have vital and strategic interests throughout the lengthy tide of the Indian Ocean and its importance in world politics is only becoming greater. Not only does the Indian Ocean encompass all of these world actors it is also hosts most of the Islamic world, is a major transport hub for oil, gas, and many other global goods, and will be the seen for great power cooperation and conflict for years to come.

Robert D. Kaplan, a US national security expert, is in the process of writing a book about the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean (IO) and recently contributed a essay on the topic for Foreign Affairs magazine. Kaplan calls the IO, the ‘center stage’ for the challenges of the 21st century as the rise of India and China have started to reveal in the colossal waterway a ‘multilayered and multipolar’ world. The Indian Navy has grown much in the past 10-15 years and has sought to spread its influence and power through this mechanism across the IO, including battling pirates in the Gulf of Aden. China’s lifeblood of oil and trade transport are held hostage, or more nicely put, held in a cradle, in the IOs pathways. Kaplan notes that more than 85% of Beijing’s oil crosses the Indian Ocean, more specifically the Straight of Malacca, which is controlled by the US Navy. This of course causes China’s leaders a great deal of heartburn as they could literally be ‘cut off’ from oil supplies by the US at any time.

Speaking of the US, what should its role be in the geopolitically shifting IO? While, the US, which has been the preponderant naval power in the Ocean every since WWII, holds many keys. As China, India’s, and Japan’s naval power has grown in recent decades, and cut into US relative naval dominance, there has been created an opportunity for cooperation and competition in the IO. Kaplan believes this process of change can be handled smoothly if the US follows an ‘Elegant Decline’. By this he means, balancing the power of China by leveraging the sea power of India and Japan against it, but at the same time assuaging China’s fears by continuing the American policy of having no territorial ambitions in the region. This would help the US Navy burden-share in the region and pass off some of its responsibilities to the like-minded, democratic allies of Japan and India, while still maintaining a very strong presence.

Why would China play along with this, one might ask? While, first off, they have to in a way as the US Navy is so dominant that dislodging it would be near impossible. Even if this were possible, could China protect the sea lanes on their own? Doubtful. China and the world economic system have benefited from safe sea lanes guaranteed by the American navy and this will likely remain for years to come. That being said, Beijing is continually looking for ways around the US naval zone in the IO, on land across Central Asia, where they are building gas and oil pipelines and major highways, and by the sea, as the Chinese government is working towards creating an Eastern Panama Canal in Thailand’s Isthmus of Kra, which would circumvent the US-controlled Straight of Malacca. Another major factor that could work in Kaplan’s American ‘Elegant Decline’ strategy is the fact that India, China, Japan, and the many other actors in the IO can all work with the US more effectively than with each other. In this vein, it is hoped that the US presence could curtail a burgeoning China-India-Japanese rivalry in the Indian Ocean.

Have you, like me, had enough talk about realism and liberalism in US foreign policy? NO! You haven’t?! Wow, you guys are dedicated to the IR cause! I’ll give you only a mild break then, by just providing you with several stories and pieces that tackle or showcase various facets of the classic IR debate:

• China-US Naval Standoff - For those who think great power war is just a thing of the past and for those who forget how foreign policy crises can shape a presidency, the thankfully mild standoff between a US surveillance ship and a small Chinese naval fleet, is a stark reminder. I encourage you to read about this incident as it is intriguing in many ways and even includes Chinese guys in their underwear. If the incident, which showcases the US global reach and the Chinese attempting to further their own ‘sphere of influence’ in the Pacific, escalates in anyway, I’ll do a larger post.
• The Geopolitics of Tibet – Dan Twining of Shadow Government provides an interesting analysis, with useful historical background, of a possibly brewing conflict between India-China over Tibet’s autonomy. It is important to know that parts of Tibet are located in India, the Tibetan exile government is located there, and China and India fought a war over border territory there in 1962, which is still unresolved.
• Turkey’s Diplomatic Power – My placement of Turkey in GPP’s Power Rankings garnered quite a bit of debate, with GPP contributor Hubbel Relat offering some criticism. One of main reasons behind putting Turkey on the list was their strong influence in several key geopolitical issues, specifically Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran, and the EU. Foreign Policy Association’s Christopher Herbert details some of Ankara’s recent diplomatic maneuvers on their Rising Powers blog. Also of note was Sec of State Hilary Clinton’s ‘friendly’ stopover in Turkey during her Middle East trip.
• US Soft Power in Asia is Strong! – David Kampf on the same FPA Rising Powers blog writes about the findings from a poll showing that the US remains the supreme cultural and diplomatic power in the region, much to Beijing’s consternation.
• Sovereignty Under Attack? – Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolten wrote a serious piece criticizing those who argue that the United States need to have a ‘shared sovereignty’, in that we should further connect ourselves to international institutions, much like the EU. Bolton sees this as a dangerous idea that would undermine the rights and choices of American citizens. Here is his conclusion:

“Sharing” sovereignty with someone or something else is thus not abstract for Americans. Doing so by definition will diminish the sovereign power of the American people over their government and their own lives, the very purpose for which the Constitution was written. This is something Americans have been reluctant to do.

• Obama Taking On Too Much? – William Galston at The New Republic advises Mr. Obama to focus and tighten his foreign policy ambitions, worrying that he might be taken too much on too soon.

Since there’s some heavy stuff in there, how ’bout I end on an upbeat note: Have any of you heard of the conflict between Fritolaysia and Snakistan?

Now that's a ship!

Just over a week ago, Chinese Maj. Gen. Quan Lihua hinted at his country’s attainment of an aircraft carrier, though there was no official claim or intelligence verifying that this was more than just talk.  However, in my opinion, China’s economic and political rise are more than enough reason to suspect that they are pursuing building at least one ‘city on the sea’.  Great powers desire power and military strength is the most visual and substantive showcase of such a virtue.  One would be naive to not assume that China would desire to ratchet up their military prowess along with their growing economic and political might.

Maj. Gen. Quan cautioned that even if China obtained an aircraft or two, it would not be a security threat to East Asia or the US:

“The question is not whether you have an aircraft carrier, but what you do with your aircraft carrier,” he said in the interview. “Even if one day we have an aircraft carrier, unlike another country we will not use it to pursue global deployment or global reach.”

Quan continued to allude to strength and purpose of the US navy:

“Navies of great powers with more than 10 aircraft carrier battle groups with strategic military objectives have a different purpose from countries with only one or two carriers used for offshore defense.”

The Major General has a point as the discrepancy between the US Navy and all others, including China’s recent gains, is light years wide, with only a handful of nations evening holding one or two aircraft carriers, and the US having 11.  

Nevertheless, the US should be wary of a growing Chinese naval presence in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and beyond.  The US has had a strong naval ship and base presence in East Asia since World War II and a growing Chinese navy, which includes an aircraft carrier or two, would definitely put some pressure on the US presence, especially regarding the US-Japan alliance and Taiwan.  Though aircraft carriers themselves can be susceptible to many forms of attack, they are a great way to project power in a region.  Aircraft carriers do not travel alone, they bring with them a large group of other warships, planes, and personnel. Specifically, an aircraft carrier could be sent to the South China Sea, where China and Japan disagree on sovereignty, and to the Malacca Strait/Indian Ocean, where a large amount of China’s oil reserves pass through.  Chinese leaders obviously know the benefits to such a powerful projectile force as they have been planning and attempting to either acquire or build a carrier for years now. 

The US defense department, Congress, and executive have been more than keeping an eye on China’s naval ascendence.  The DoD discussed the nation’s navy in their annual report on China’s military and put out a separate China Navy 2007 report.  The US congress research service put out China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities – Background and Issues for Congress.  

Global Security also has a list of China’s current and projected Naval Forces.

How do you view China’s growing naval presence?  Should the US be worried?  How would you build your navy if you were China?  What ways could the US and China work together militarily and diplomatically to keep their naval operations from becoming competitors?