The amazing decline of clear thinking and serious-minded national security thought, combined with misplaced priorities is starkly apparent in few places greater than on national policy related to the high seas.
Is it because the seas are so big yet so important that policy makers can't quite get a grip on the concept? Is it because it is a transnational space - that those who have never been to sea but like to sit behind desks pontificating find it a fertile ground for self-important power/attention plays? Easy picking for internationalists?
There is an incredibly important article in the latest edition of The American Interest by Midrats alumni James Kraska along with Raul Pedrozo titled, Toolbox: U.S. Oceans Policy on an Even Keel.
Only part of it is available online - so subscribe or find a local library that carries it. The decline is outlined well,
For more than two centuries, U.S. oceans law and policy was driven by strategic political and military interests in global access and mobility, with naval officers and diplomats working in tandem with the White House to fashion a coordinated approach. Throughout our history, our strategic view of the oceans promoted U.S. military security and economic prosperity. As an “island nation”, the United States has had a paramount concern for freedom of navigation from the very beginnings of its history as a sovereign state.Did you catch that word? Of course you did - you read CDRSalamander. Remember - anytime you hear that word, someone is trying to baffle you with bu115h1t. Let's continue.
...
In the aftermath of World War II, the Departments of Defense and State spoke with a single voice on freedom of the seas. The reason was clear: The oceans connected the United States to world markets as well as strategic friends and allies in Europe and Asia.
...
On April 5, 1995, U.S. policy took a wrong turn with the issuance of Presidential Decision Directive 36, “U.S. Policy on Protecting the Ocean Environment.” With that directive, the Clinton Administration placed U.S. oceans policy under the “Global Environment” policy coordinating committee (PCC) of the National Security Council, an interdisciplinary committee focused on “environmental security.”
...
The mission statement of the Bureau of Oceans says: “We advance sustainable development internationally through leadership in oceans, environment, science and health.” The State Department’s website adds that the bureau “promotes transformational diplomacy through advancing environmental stewardship, encouraging economic growth, and promoting social development around the globe to foster a safer, more secure and hopeful world.” Nary a word about freedom of navigation, whether for commercial vessels or for warships, graces its pages. Nor is there mention of: maritime interdiction of weapons of mass destruction; illegal drugs and terrorists at sea; counter-piracy operations; and peaceful resolution of sensitive maritime boundary disputes ...
Matters deteriorated further during the George W. Bush Administration when the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the White House office that sets the agenda for national environmental policy, took formal control of U.S. oceans policy from the NSC. On August 7, 2000 Congress passed the Oceans Act, which was set to become law on January 20, 2001, the last day of the Clinton Administration. The act set up a 16-member U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to establish findings and make recommendations to the President and Congress. On September 20, 2004, the commission submitted its final report, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century”, containing 212 recommendations on many aspects of ocean and coastal policy. In response to the commission’s recommendations, President Bush issued an executive order on December 17, 2004 establishing a Committee on Ocean Policy as part of CEQ. That Committee, chaired by the CEQ and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), was run out of CEQ offices near the White House. From that point, whatever residual formal authority the NSC had over oceans policy disappeared.A bi-partisan train wreck of the self-important ignoring the national self interest. To what end?
President Obama has continued and deepened this approach. The White House created an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force on June 12, 2009 with the CEQ still leading U.S. oceans policy. The task force emphasizes “protection, maintenance and restoration of the health of the oceans” and “upholding our stewardship responsibilities.” It pays but lip service to U.S. national security interests. The Presidential Proclamation on National Oceans Month, issued on the same date as the Task Force announcement, doesn’t even do that: It doesn’t mention national security at all, instead indicating that U.S. ocean policy will “incorporate ecosystem-based science and management and emphasize our public stewardship responsibilities.”
Dull but massively important. I hope somewhere in the Senate a Staffer gets the number for Kraska & Pedrozo and makes a call. If they can't find one - send me an email. I have it.
15 comments:
How long before the rules of engagement are modified so that concurrence from an environmental compliance officer must be obtained before a missile or a torpedo can be fired?
Sooner than you think. Wait until the squishy types in the Admin invite a lawsuit from the eco-fascists on environmental grounds, then purposely fail to defend it, thereby allowing some lefty judge to accomplish by judicial fiat what the left could NEVER have gotten thru Congress or accomplished even by Adinistrative fiat if it meant doing so publically with Obamas finger-prints all over it. FAR better to let an appointed-for-life judge "force" them to do such things. "Our hands are tied...the courts have spoken" etc. Think I'm exaggerating? Consider the "Hamdi" Supreme Court case regarding legal treatment of "illegal combatents" and use of military commissions which negated not only the powers of the CinC in time of conflict but over 200 years of legal & historical prescedent.
Sorry, that was me..
<span>No surprises here - just more disappointment. There are no clear strategic thinkers regarding our "national maritime policy", such as it is. Where are the Admirals and the JCS? How about input from USNI? Lord knows that nobody in the Congress has the capacity nor inclination for strategic thought. This is a crucial matter that should be pushed to the forefront. Green is the new Red.</span>
and expect defenders of baby seals and whales to soon negate all active sonar...
For the past roughly 10 years (?), whenever a new construction US Navy ship gets underway in the Gulf of Mexico, there have been restrictions for mammals underway. US Navy warships have to either stay out of certain areas in the Gulf (depending upon the time of year) or else proceed slowly with Lookouts stationed to watch for whales.
This is now SOP inside the Gulf of Mexico.
Screw it...
Lets just contract out this navy stuff to the Whale Wars folks.
so does the US Navy care about "Sea Service" anymore?
Why would anyone seem surprised by this? We have burdened our economy to the point of fracture with regulations writ by anti-capitalist environmentalists whose goal of upending capitalism in the name of ecology is all but complete. We sit on top of the second largest oil reserve in the world, and cannot touch it because of runaway environmentalism. Instead we are forced to buy from enemies. We have the most hydro power potential on the face of the earth, but cannot use it because of environmental concerns over "endangered" species, who were designated so with full knowledge that they were no such thing. Large swaths of military training areas remain off limits because of a species of woodpecker whom, we were told, only bred at Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, but of course are widespread throughout the pine forests of the eastern seaboard. Those who told us about said woodpecker just happened to be anti-military far-left environmental activists. Funny coincidence, that.
We have had dalliances with UN-style "hate speech" and have adopted "hate crime" legislation in direct contravention to our 14th Amendment, and are looking to sign a UN Small Arms Treaty which will all but cancel out our 2nd Amendment rights.
Surrendering sovereign national preprogative to the UN? The next logical step, if you keep track of them as they go by.
So sad, so true.
Only if its diverse.
I have a secret fantasy where im allowed to declair war on the Sea Shepard people and go privatier. It ends awesomely for me.
...must be an election coming up again... that time of year so soon? Mebbe he's hopin' the greenies will fergit all that BP stuff on his watch if he starts blathering about keeping it nice and blue. (Is the water still green surrounding the Great Sleepy Silly Swamp or has the hydrilla gone away?)
It's that electioneering he's doing. He never had the votes of the people actually producing stuff, or the big oil companies, or the military, or the gun owners... or those who despise the Useless Nattions. (Anyone else referenced in your post I left out?) So he's shoring up the voting base of eco-nuts and the Big Blue Marble crowd.
<p><span><span>You should instead "declair" war on whomever taught you how to spell.<span></span></span></span></p>
Post a Comment