text stringlengths 59 1.12k |
|---|
start of WWI. In roughly the same distance in time as from DESERT STORM to now, Aluminum went from a rarely used metal in the military with only the German Junkers J.I making it to war, to being a strategic commodity ubiquitous in its use from eating utensils to intercontinental |
bombers. Were the fathers of economic aluminum Charles Martin Hall, Paul Heroult, and Karl Joseph Bayer thinking about how aluminum would change the way war would be fought? No. Did the military know right away the way aluminum would transform the strength and performance of established technology? No … but |
some had an idea. I thought of the story of aluminum earlier today when another funny sounding word came in my ear; graphene. Do you know what graphene is? Well, I think you will more and more – just as Teddy Roosevelt’s generation started to hear aluminum and bauxite more |
and more as it slowly transformed their world. Not overnight, but year by year with a quickening as smart minds saw new ways to take advantage of this new advance. Back to the Navy. What gets a lot of futurists excited as they look for the next kinetic and/or weaponeering |
leap? That is easy; rail guns, lasers, and particle beam weapons. In our early 21st Century tool box, what is holding these promising technologies back? What is the long pole in the tent that everything else requires to be there? In a word, energy. Many more cards need to come |
out of the deck – but if you are interested in the offensive potential of rail guns, and the defensive promise of lasers and particle beam weapons – but are humbled by the very real limitations there are to making them operational – then I offer you the below. Not |
revolution, but evolution. Evolution with the possibility of a quickening that 100 years ago the world saw with aluminum. Graphene based super-capacitors? Use the next generation of the DDG-1000 engineering plant? Watch the below if you can or click here, and ponder with me. Yes, we live in interesting times |
as our Chinese friends might say – but rejoice dear hearts; the future has potential. No, I not writing words of encouragement to veterans suffering with PTSD; though they are out there and probably need it. No, I am not writing to veterans who are suicidal; though they are out |
there and probably need it. No, I am writing to those who are sick of the drumbeat of articles, news stories, or listening to the empathy addict down the street that just won’t shut up about how much she cares and only wants to hear things that validate her preconceived |
notions. If you are irritated, skeptical, and suspicious of the whole chattering – you’re in good company, and history and facts are on your side. Ignore the compassion trolls, it is ok to push back. We are not broken vessels, and those who maliciously imply that we are such things |
are no better than those who would spit in your face, as their goals are the same – to degrade your status as a equal. A starting point for any post on this topic has to be B.G. Burkett’s book, Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of |
Its Heroes and Its History. There was a pattern set after the Vietnam War that tried to paint veterans as broken vessels. If you have not read Stolen Valor, then go order your copy now. What was done then is being done now – it even looks the same. Almost |
a decade ago, a lot of people heard the first few beats of what is now steady and loud. From the murder of Chief Kyle to the kidnapping of children, to the poseurs written about in the homeless articles in your local papers, it is there. It comes from two |
sources; one honorable and one malicious. The honorable sources are those who want to help those who serve or have served, but don’t know how to. They tend to look for things to be saved, victims to be helped – and using a legitimate case or two of veterans who |
have transition challenges as a template, start to see all veterans in that template. There are also those who know someone who has real PTSD or has suicidal thought, and then applies the classic logic error of applying the specific to the general (I saw a duck with a green |
head today; therefor all ducks have green heads). They are well meaning and should be respected for wanting to help, but if they go too far, their compassion can be counterproductive by feeding the other half of the problem; the anti-military malicious. We all know the type; the only time |
they have any respect for those in the military is when they can use them to attack the nation and military they were part of. They also are resentful of the respect those in the military are given in civic culture, and want to do whatever they can to bring |
that respect down; to marginalize the veteran. If the veteran is a victim; he is to be pitied. If he is to be pitied, then he must be helped by his betters. If he has to be helped by his betters to function in society, then he is not an |
equally contributing member of society. If he is not an equally contributing member of society, he can be marginalized. If he can be marginalized, he can be dismissed and his input ignored. If he can be marginalized politically and his contribution to public discourse ignored, then he cannot compete in |
the marketplace of ideas and influence. If he cannot compete, then he has no power. That attitude manifests itself in strange places now and then. MSNBC talking head Chris Mathews is a case in point. Reflecting on Sen. McCain’s (R-AZ) aggressive questioning of Chuck Hagel last week, Matthews reflected on |
all over again in the United States Senate? The ticked-off vitriol against Chuck Hagel, what is it about? Is it for show? Is it about something Hagel said in the cloakroom?” “Is it about the basic unfairness of Vietnam itself, that some went and some didn’t?” he continued. “Is it |
about Lyndon Johnson’s inability to either win that war or end it? What is it that burns so deeply in John McCain these days?” “Well, tonight, we dig into the deep well of resentment burning in John McCain’s patriotic heart — a resentment not against the North Vietnamese who imprisoned |
and tortured him all those years, not against George W. Bush and his political henchmen who tried to stain McCain’s reputation back in 2000 — but against a guy who fought against fear and rallied against wounds, just like he did in the same army of America’s long nightmare in |
Vietnam, Chuck Hagel. A nightmare, by the way, whose flashbacks must haunt still the mind and heart of John Sidney McCain. … I’m absolutely convinced we’re watching a flashback.” Quod erat demonstrandum. If they will do that to a Senator and once Presidential candidate – what message does that send |
to other veterans? Like I mentioned earlier, a book has been written on the topic, so let me just pick one little vibe out of the zeitgeist; veterans suicides. Just googlesearch it; you’ll get the idea. In a great, fact-based reply, let’s go to Greg Jaffe’s superb article in the |
Washington Post. He wanders in to a few fever-swamps of the zeitgeist, but is otherwise a solid article if you read closely and critically. Every day about 22 veterans in the United States kill themselves, a rate that is about 20 percent higher than the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 2007 |
estimate, according to a two-year study by a VA researcher. The VA study indicates that more than two-thirds of the veterans who commit suicide are 50 or older, suggesting that the increase in veterans’ suicides is not primarily driven by those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Has |
the war fought as of late been one fought by residents of The Villages? No. “There is a perception that we have a veterans’ suicide epidemic on our hands. I don’t think that is true,” said Robert Bossarte, an epidemiologist with the VA who did the study. “The rate is |
going up in the country, and veterans are a part of it.” The number of suicides overall in the United States increased by nearly 11 percent between 2007 and 2010, the study says. As a result, the percentage of veterans who die by suicide has decreased slightly since 1999, even |
though the total number of veterans who kill themselves has gone up, the study says. Statistics are tough; the truth is in the details. See if you catch it. The veterans’ suicide rate is about three times the overall national rate, but about the same percentage of male veterans in |
their 50s kill themselves as do non-veteran men of that age, according to the VA data. Ok. Females make up ~15% of the military, and for those involved in combat, then males are well in to the 90%. American males kill themselves at a rate four-times that of females. The |
military heavily skews male. Starting to see where their story starts to get wobbly? Sooooo….. anyone who has made even a blogger-in-PJs effort will soon see that you cannot compare veterans suicide rates to that of the general population unless you want to skew the numbers for effect. Are we |
also controlling for age, race, socio-economic background, etc … all highly significant factors in suicide? No, of course not. That would get in the way of a good story and/or the non-profit that pays a hefty six-figure salary. In many cases you have read, you have either lazy journalism, advocacy |
journalism, or the deliberate contribution to the smearing of veterans – something that has been a regular feature for the last 40 years. Yes, the compassion trolls will get grumpy at you, and the compassion addicts will think you are a cold and heartless sociopath (she will probably whisper to |
others that your behavior is just a manifestation of your own PTSD), but they are not the problem – only useful idiots to those who are the problem and deserve your push back – the smear merchants. Is there a problem with PTSD and veteran suicide? Sure there is – |
but this constant picking at a sensitive spot until you make it worse does not help fix anything. At worst, it plants seeds of ideas in to the nogg’n of the vulnerable who may act. At the least harmful it impacts the ability of veterans to get civilian jobs when |
they get out. After all, who wants to hire a bunch of traumatized, suicidal, time bombs? Yea, that is a topic for another day. Until then, let’s see serious studies done by serious statisticians – a study that publishes all the data and variables with the regression analysis. Age, sex, |
race, ethnicity, regional origin, education level, combat exposure … all those and more. While we wait for that – buy or re-read Stolen Valor – and push back some. It’s not just you What seems obvious in hindsight is not, for most, that obvious to those closest to it, distracted |
from it, or willfully floating along in a sea of indifference. There are times, decision or pivot points for some, where the signs become clear. That steady, darkening, and thickening line starts to burn through the ambient noise. It looks familiar, it is harmonic of what you have seen before |
– it cannot be ignored. It demands action You only get the Fleet your nation decides to buy, more people need to accept that … and the political and economic reality we are in. Former Senator Hagel has been nominated to be the next Secretary of Defense. In an August |
2011 interview with The Financial Times’ Stephanie Kirchgaessner, he stated the following; The defence department, I think in many ways has been bloated. I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down. I think we need the Pentagon to look at their own priorities. There’s a tremendous amount of bloat |
in the Pentagon, and that has to be scaled back … I don’t think that our military has really looked at themselves strategically, critically in a long, long time. Every agency needs to do that. The Department of Defence, and I’m a strong supporter of this … no American wants |
to in any way hurt our capabilities to national defence, but that doesn’t mean an unlimited amount of money, and a blank cheque for anything they want at any time, for any purpose. Not at all. Not at all, and so the realities are that the mess we’re in this |
country, with our debt and our deficits, and our infrastructure and jobless and all the rest, is going to require everybody to take a look, even the defence department, and make a pretty hard re-evaluation and review. President Obama picked Hagel for very specific reasons, and his views above are |
not unknown and were part of that. Good people can agree or disagree on the substance of his argument, but that is the fact both sides will have to work with. Next, let’s look to the uniformed side of the house. In a speech at SNA earlier this week, Vice |
whole. But it’s not always my choice.” There are just a few tidbits of I&W to ponder. In the last few years, we have heard a lot of talk about a Fleet of 313 and now 300. Many of us have been arguing for half a decade that neither is |
the number we should be looking at, that is not what the nation will fund; 270 to 240 is more likely. “If we cannot have the navy estimates of our policy, then let’s have the policy of our navy estimates.” If this is the maritime Zeitgeist for the remainder of |
this decade, then let’s embrace it. We can’t stomp our feet and hold our breath until the Pentagon turns blue. How do we best do it? What do we need to preserve – what should we cut – what will we have to get rid of root-n-branch? What are our |
priorities? The smart money on the future is on who the CINC is hiring, what that hire’s recent statements say about his ideas, and what our senior officers are starting to send out trial balloons on to test the winds. In the course of reading Robert Kaplan’s article in the |
Wall Street Journal, I had to back up and read this twice. The Japanese navy boasts roughly four times as many major warships as the British Royal Navy. Wait … what? OK, that reality has sunk in over the last decade – but we are still a bit of an |
Anglophile navy, and even with the Pacific Pivot, we still give the mother country a lot of heft for historical and emotional reasons. In their constitutional quasi-isolation, Japan’s very real power has Here is the context; … in Asia. Nationalism there is young and vibrant—as it was in the West |
in the 19th and 20th centuries. Asia is in the midst of a feverish arms race, featuring advanced diesel-electric submarines, the latest fighter jets and ballistic missiles. China, having consolidated its land borders following nearly two centuries of disorder, is projecting air and sea power into what it regards as |
the blue national soil of the South China and East China seas. Japan and other countries are reacting in kind. Slipping out of its quasi-pacifistic shell, Japan is rediscovering nationalism as a default option. The Japanese navy boasts roughly four times as many major warships as the British Royal Navy. |
As for Vietnam and the Philippines, nobody who visits those countries and talks with their officials, as I have, about their territorial claims would imagine for a moment that we live in a post-national age. The disputes in Asia are not about ideology or any uplifting moral philosophy; they are |
about who gets to control space on the map. Silly Transformationalists … dreaming is for kiddies. Get ye back to your history books! Back on topic though; yes, the facts are clear. Though you can find +/- difference depending on source, definitions, and recent com/decom; here are the numbers: Helicopter |
Carriers: 2 Amphibious Ships: 2 Submarines: 6-SSN, 4-SSBN We’ll call that 24. Helicopter Carriers: 2 (technically 4, all of which are helicopter carrying destroyers. The SHIRANE Class of 2 are only half decks and are really just destroyers. HYUGA Class of 2 are no-kidding helicopter carriers. Two more much larger |
19,500 ton ships on the way this decade as well). Amphibious Ships: 5 We’ll call that 67. If you are what Salamander defines as “major combatants” then you have 2.8 times, not 4x, but there are lots of ways to count. Perhaps they are looking at smaller ships as well. |
By either definition though, it should give one pause not only to reflect about the decline of the Royal Navy – but more importantly – the latent and potential power of the Japanese Navy. Anyone who has worked with the Japanese will agree with me as well that from a |
professional point of view, they are an exceptionally quality force. Here is the tie in. Did you catch this little memo? Japan’s Defense Ministry will request a second boost to its military budget, according to reports, just a day after the government announced the first Defense budget increase in 10 |
years. The boosts, although relatively modest compared with Japan’s overall defense spending, coincide with increasing tensions in the Asia Pacific region.Japan’s Defense Ministry intends to ask for 180.5 billion yen ($2.1 billion) from a government stimulus package – on top of an increase of more than 100 billion yen ... |
billion) to its military budget announced earlier this week – in order to upgrade its air defenses, according to the BBC.. Good. Japan needs to continue to do this, and we should welcome the move as long overdue (though don’t get too excited, their larger budgetary problems are even greater |
than ours). Europe fades, Royal Navy withers … where can the USA look for its major partner at sea? We don’t have to look far. With the tweaks they are on the road to make in their Constitution – Japan is right there. With the Big E coming home for |
good, the NIMITZ acting a bit old and busted, there has been a lot of discussion as of late about the ability of the US Navy to do what she has become accustomed to doing; projecting power globally from the sea with almost impunity – and the large-deck carrier being |
the tool primarily used to do so. Through gross program mismanagement, myopic POM-centric rice bowl games, and simple parochialism – much of the nuance, depth, and flexibility of what was on those decks are gone as well, most notably the loss of the S-3, ES-3, organic tanking (fighters tanking don’t |
count, silly goose), and independent long range strike – gone and replaced with a deck of jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none RW and light fighters with AEW thrown in for character. Add to that the ongoing “to the right” extended deployment of our Amphib “small deck” carriers (yes, I know, I know, I know) |
and their ARGs, funkyesque methods of Fleet number counting, and the expected contraction in shipbuilding budgets that all but this ordered to say otherwise accept will be the new norm – then more and more smart people are trying to step back and get the larger view. What exactly are |
the larger Strategic implications of the clear decline in the US Navy’s global reach? As is often the case, to help break the intellectual gridlock, it is helpful to bring in outside views. Over at the UK blog Thin Pinstiped Line, Sir Huphrey speaks with big medicine. The whole post |
is worth a read – but everyone should ponder the below a bit. The reality is that the USN now is probably in the same place as the RN found itself in the mid-1960s – mid 1970s. Reduced budgets, elderly vessels still in service, while the new designs (T42s, 22s) |
were taking longer than planned to come into service, and yet operationally committed across the globe. The ability of the USN to operate with impunity across the globe, steaming where it wanted on its terms, and able to stand its ground against almost any aggressor has gone forever. Todays’ USN |
remains a fiercely capable and strong navy, but its ability to exert unlimited and unchallenged control of the high seas has gone, probably forever. Instead it would be more realistic to judge that the future USN will provide a capability to deploy power into some areas, but only at the |
cost of reducing capability and influence in others. In a classic, “over to you” moment as the Royal Navy slowly retreated West of Suez after the late 1950′s unpleasantness, and with the final moment by Prime Minister Wilson in the annus horribilis that was 1968 – the world approaching mid-21st |
Century is stuck with a quandary. The British at least were handing things off, indirectly, to her daughter; a relatively smooth transition to a nation that was cut from the same cloth and whose interests were more often than not those interests of Britain. If, as Sir Humphrey states, we |
face a future where the global capability of the US will decline in proportion to her navy – then who will be there to fill the gap? Multiple smaller regional powers? A rising power? Status quo, but thinner? Nothing? None of those three are in the interests of the US. |
Willfully abandoning territory – enough of the “global commons” PR stunts, please – to the whims of whatever power has the will to take it, is a classic description of a nation in decline. In our case, that would be a willful decline – but almost all declines are willful. |
Is everyone on board with that? It is a choice. Hat tip BJ. A couple of years ago here, I posted about the danger of getting too close to the media, I described what is the downfall of many GOFO; Vanity. Non-mission related, non-value added vanity that degraded or destroyed |
the “brand” of men who gave decades of service to their nation and rose to its highest levels. In his self-immolation, General Petraeus, USA, has provided, in a fashion, a very good object lesson for leaders from LPO to CNO. It is not a new lesson, it is not a |
unique lesson – as a matter of fact it is a lesson that echoes throughout human history. It isn’t limited to the military environment either, it is just part of the human condition; ego, power, and sex. Do we talk about this enough? Not really. Not in the direct manner |
we need to. We talk around it. As it can be a bit touchy for some in a socio-political context, usually we only discuss the second and third order effects after it all goes south. We are more than willing to talk about the externalized manifestation of the ego-power-sex dynamic; |
the person who abuses their power to gain sexual favors or to force themselves on subordinates, but we do not talk enough about the internalized version of it; the magnetic draw and seductive nature of power itself, how it warps the ego, and how it morphs in to the emotional |
and mammalian drive towards sex. Power is an aphrodisiac that can make even the physically or personally repulsive person attractive. It draws in certain personalities to men with power and influence. Can it happen male to female as well as female to male? Sure, I’ve see the “scalp hunters” in |
action – but that would be the extreme exception to the rule, and frankly silly to discuss. In the real world we are talking about the man in power and the women who are drawn to them. We see that dynamic at NJP, in the relief of Commanding Officers, and |
all the way to the 4-star level. Perhaps some leaders who are not fully self-aware may have missed it, but in a gender mixed environment, almost all male leaders will have females of lower status attempt to get closer than they should – in a heterosexual context via a way |
a male colleague cannot. We are all adults here, we know how the bouncing ball goes from that brief moment of enjoying the company of a woman’s voice a little longer than one should. About the whirlwind unleashed by General Petraeus’s very human weakness, more details will come out, and |
others will be writing about every aspect of this for awhile. Get used to it, as this has all the aspects of power, sex, infidelity, and intrigue that a story with legs needs. It is much more interesting to the general public than sequestration, the Afghanistan withdraw, or fiscal cliffs. |
Let that work its way out, but for us – what is the base lesson that should come out of this at the deckplate level – specifically for male leaders? It is simply this; you will find yourself in a place sooner more than later where a female subordinate will |
make herself available to you. It can cover the entire spectrum from raw and physical immediacy, to a slow growing relationship based on professional respect and friendship that intensifies with proximity. There was more than one decision point in the relationship that brought down General Petraeus where he should have |
diverted then-Major Broadwell back to the gym solo, but he didn’t. As a result, a reputation is in tatters, a critical agency has lost a leader, a war’s leaders are distracted, and two families are in turmoil. In time I am sure we will all know more than we want |
to, but one thing is clear. He is the person responsible for this. He was senior in age (almost two decades) and position (at the start we think O-4 to O-10). It was his inability to control his weakness, his ego, and his actions that brought him here. He knows |
this too, or at least he does now. As young leaders grow in positions of authority they need to keep simple human nature in mind. You will be tempted, even if you try to avoid it. You can end it as quickly as it comes up, and all will go |
along as before. We are all human, and at a weak moment, you may pause – but don’t pause long – there are too many lives, families, and careers that are riding on you being a leader and doing the right thing. If you fail, that is on you. Same |
with General Petraeus; this is on him. Not the woman on the other side of the story; not the media; not the FBI; not his staff; not anyone above him in the chain of command, other agencies, or political parties. There are many positive things to benchmark with General Petraeus’s |
career, and now you have a negative one. Don’t want to have all your hard work blow up in your face? Look at the poor decisions he made, and look for those decision points in your life where you will have to make the call – you will be there |
– do it right. In his twitter feed, our co-blogger here at USNIBlog and SHAPE, Admiral Stavridis, points to a link for a very nice story that really is worth your time to read, as it does represent the very best of our partnering with the ANSF – and what |
should have been the general condition of our relationship in 2012, vice just a specific instance; 1st Lt. Michael Molczyk had heard stories about “insider” attacks — and the Afghan soldiers and police officers who grew to see their partners as enemies. As a platoon commander, he couldn’t ignore those |
assaults on American troops, which during bad weeks were reported day after day. But to him, he said, the stories sounded like news from a different planet. In Molczyk’s corner of eastern Afghanistan, uniformed Afghans had saved American lives time and again. They had developed a brotherhood with their U.S. |
partners that felt earned and unassailable. … no relationship mattered more to Molczyk than his partnership with Jalaluddin, the head of the Afghan police in Jaji district … Sadly, that relationship between two specific individuals is not in line with the general trend in Afghanistan – and with each Green |
on Blue we need to look that fact square in the face. While there are always individual stories that can tell any side of an issue – it is the general trend that you need to keep an eye on. The bottom line is this; we are well along the |
scheduled withdraw on a calendar-based vice conditions-based OPLAN. That is a polite way of describing a retreat under fire. Those we will leave behind, and those who will fill the vacuum after we leave are acting in a rational manner, and the second and third order effects of our decision |
to leave the field will continue to fill your news feed as the process takes its natural course. We have been here before. As noted last month; The last of the 33,000 American surge troops sent to Afghanistan two years ago have left the battlefields of Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense |
Leon Panetta said. Actually, it was four years ago that the uplift of forces started – but let’s not quibble. That little note from last month was one of the critical junctures following President Obama’s 2009 West Point Speech where he announced the end of conditions based planning for AFG. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.