Comments
An article appeared in the WSJournal 7/12/11 entitled "China and U.S Spar over South China Sea" which states in part; "The South China Sea which may contain valuable oil and gas deposits, is claimed in almost its entirety by China... " For those who have not looked at a map recently, that this happens to be 1.4 million square miles. The question is this, do we let China assert control over this sea, if not, what is to prevent it. What concerns me more is the following UPI (Hong Kong) announcement made June 4th 2009:
Shipbuilding experts from Eastern Europe have confirmed that the People's Republic of China will start to build its own aircraft carrier this year, as preparations for the project are complete. The experts had visited the No. 3 military dock of the Changxing Island Shipyard -- the new location of the Jiangnan Shipyard, known as the cradle of China's defense industry -- based in Shanghai, where they acquired exclusive photos of the interior of the shipyard. From these it can be deduced that China is ready to commence building the aircraft carrier at this dock.
See also the article in the National Post dated June 8th 2011 by Matt Gurney stating :
China has confirmed one of the worst-kept secrets in the military world: It is developing its first aircraft carrier, for launch at some unspecified future date.
If you Google "China and Aircraft Carriers" you will see other articles on point.
I would think that most if not all Americans would feel as uncomfortable as I would if down the road, say 10-15 years from now, we see Chinese manned aircraft carriers off our coasts, more so, if our own aircraft carriers were mothballed. Which brings me to the second point I want to make which is this: Naval sea power cannot be projected for sustained periods without the support of the U.S. Merchant Marine and Shipyards having the technology and manpower base capable of constructing and maintaining Naval and Merchant fleets. The U.S. Merchant Marine dates to 1775. FDR called the Merchant Marine the nation's "Fourth Arm of Defense." Check the records for WWII, Korean War, Viet Nam Conflict and Persian Gulf War and you will see his description was correct. Unfortunately our Merchant Marine and Shipbuilding capabilities are diminishing with time.
Dave is certainly correct when he says, "that all forces cannot be all things for all missions. While the Navy-Marine team does very effectively integrate sea, air, and land power, it cannot be the hammer for every nail."
The best way, really the only way, to manage unknowable strategic risks is to have a military toolbox full of the widest variety of tools. That is an expensive proposition and to outsiders, a seemingly wasteful one. But it's the only way to hedge against strategic surprise.
I suspect that discussions on how to cut defense spending will center on what level of readiness each of the tools should be maintained. For example, when planning for Major Regional Contingency X, when do Heavy BCTs 10, 11, 12 ... need to arrive? Given the budget crunch, can we take more risk than previously regarding their readiness?
Yes, we should develop and possess every military tool we can realistically imagine - know that patient adversaries are watching, studying, and looking for gaps to exploit. How many of each tool and how ready they should be is the risk management problem, more urgent today than usual.
I have great respect for our Marine Corps and what it does for our nation and I would ever call for a reduction (and of course only Congress could reduce it because I believe that Congressional legislation mandates that there always be 3 Marine Divisions - probably one reason why the Marines will never do away with the Division structure)
Some have said the impact of the Marine Corps on the enemy is way out of proportion to its size. I would agree with that but the impact is more than just on the enemy. It also reassures allies and American citizens and may help our diplomats back up negotiations with a credible show of force. There is nothing like having an Amphibious Ready Group steaming off the coast somewhere to make a statement (unless there is also a Carrier Battle Group with it!! - then you really have a statement).
But I am not naive enough to think that we are not going to have budget wars and a fight over roles and missions to ensure future relevance (and the slice of the budget pie and protection of force structure) as evidenced by this salvo from the Wall Street Journal editorial today by Mr. England, GEN Jones and Mr. Clark.
I think this last paragraph from the editorial illustrates the public relations campaign the services are likely to be executing as we go through the "mother of all strategy reviews". And of course the Navy-Marine Corps team is leading the way (and I in no way mean that disparagingly - no one does it better than the Marine Corps).
"Postured to respond quickly, the Navy-Marine Corps team _integrates sea, air, and land power_ into adaptive force packages spanning _the entire spectrum of operations,_ from _everyday cooperative security activities_ to unwelcome--but not impossible--_wars between major powers._ This is exactly what we will need to meet the challenges of the future."
The Navy-Marine Corps team is attempting to demonstrate its relevance across the entire spectrum of conflict. But we do need to remember that all forces cannot be all things for all missions. While the Navy-Marine team does very effectively integrate sea, air, and land power, it cannot be the hammer for every nail.