So, how do you get your good name back?

A very cautionary tale of what media, poor leadership, and a priority system infused with paranoia, interservice friction, over-reliance on training vignettes, and a disposable sense of loyalty can do to good people.

First, let's time travel - back to 2007 and the NYT;

Last May, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, went to Iraq to express deep concern to his marines and to reinforce what he called the “core values” that required them to respond to danger with thoughtful precision.

But almost a year later, marines killed at least 10 civilians in Afghanistan in an episode that bore some striking similarities to the Haditha killings and suggested that the lesson had not taken, even in a platoon of combat veterans wearing the badge of the elite new Marine Corps Special Operations forces.

Marine Corps officials said the unit, whose members undergo at least four months of specialized military training, did not receive specific values training addressing the lessons of Haditha. The actions of the 30 marines on patrol in Afghanistan appeared to contradict many of the edicts General Hagee had implored the marines to remember.

“We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful,” General Hagee declared in a series of talks he gave at Marine bases around the world. “We must regulate force and violence,” he added. “We protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield.”

A preliminary military investigation found that the marines killed at least 10 civilians and wounded dozens along a stretch of road near Jalalabad on March 4, and no evidence that they were being fired upon.
...
“You do ask, ‘How did this happen?’ ” said an officer familiar with the inquiry, speaking on condition of anonymity. “And it’s a fair question.”

Thanks to Andrew deGrandpre over at MilitaryTimes, perhaps some good people can get their names back ... a bit. From the 1st of a 5-part series;

A prior-enlisted sergeant, Galvin made history in February 2006 when, as a major, he was selected to lead Marine Special Operations Company Foxtrot for the first-ever overseas deployment of an operational unit from MARSOC, the Marine Corps force that carries out highly sensitive missions for U.S. Special Operations Command. It was a prestigious assignment for which Galvin was hand-selected based on his record of success leading Marines in the service's specialized Force Reconnaissance community.

But the job would become a curse. On March 4, 2007, less than a month after arriving in country, 30 men with Fox Company's direct-action platoon were riding in a six-vehicle convoy that was ambushed while patrolling in the Bati Kot district of Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, a nefarious transfer point for suicide bombers and other extremists entering the country from Pakistan. Media reports about the incident seemed to surface before the smoke had cleared and the shell casings were collected. And it seemed to leave little doubt that the Marines went on a wild rampage, inflicting mass civilian casualties.

Within days, Fox Company was ordered out of the war zone under a cloud of shame. Galvin was stripped of command. Yet investigations into what happened in Bati Kot had only just begun.

You need to read it all, as this is where it goes;

... the "facts" accepted by investigators and subsequently presented to the court varied dramatically depending on the witness, the report concludes. For example, an Afghan man allegedly driving an SUV at which the Marines fired gave testimony so inconsistent that O'Rourke, Sloat and Morgan could not determine whether he was present during the attack or "lying," the report says.

The court's report says the investigating officer, Air Force Col. Patrick Pihana, attempted — unsuccessfully — to convince an Army explosives expert to reverse his determination that damage to their vehicles was caused by incoming small arms fire. After the soldier refused, the report says, the investigating officer elected not to include his statement in his final assessment of the incident, a decision the court's officers called "inappropriate" and may be due to the fact that the soldier's statement "did not support Col. Pihana's conclusion." Ultimately, Pihana recommended that four Marines be charged with negligent homicide. But to reach that conclusion, he had to "disregard the statements of every Marine on the convoy," the court determined. 

... Pihana, Kearney's (Army Maj. Gen. Frank Kearney, then the head of Special Operations Command Central) chief of staff, may have been "negatively influenced" by Kearney and others in the command — and that, above all, it was inappropriate for Kearney even to have assigned the investigation to his chief of staff, as doing so inherently raises questions about neutrality.

When does a bias towards truth lose out to a bias to the news cycle? When does a instinct to support your own people and a faith in their honor lose out to an instinct to buy in to the enemy's INFO OPS campaign?

"The big injury to Fred and his men is moral," said Steve Morgan, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and combat veteran who served as one of the three officers appointed to the court of inquiry. "It's an injury to their souls."

Those who helped bring that injury?

Kearney told Military Times that he's "not interested in resurrecting the dead." He ordered an investigation at the Marine Corps' request, he said, indicating he believed that Marine leaders felt obligated in light of two other high-profile war-crime cases arising from the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha and Hamdania. "If these Marines have heartburn," Kearney said, "it should be with the Marine Corps."

Pihana declined to be interviewed. "In recalling that event I remain convinced there is nothing substantial I could add, remove or change to the original inquiry," he said. "… I can understand the personal feelings involved but that would not change the thrust of the investigation" he said.

As is the case more often than not - you are alone, and the only thing you can can do is to speak the truth and let time reveal the larger truth. Ultimately, you have to speak for your own name. Fred Gavin is doing that for him and his Marines. See the video in the linked article above to hear him in his own words.

Loyalty and honor are interesting concepts. You can find yourself alone very quickly. If there are higher priorities held by some, you become just a vignette, not a fellow American. You can be all in the right, you can speak the truth, but if others find the truth inconvenient, and people cannot wait for the truth - then your loyalty and honor to your service, chain of command, and your nation will not matter. Those up the chain who expect all the loyalty of those down the chain will, in an instant, refuse to return that loyalty.  The below video came out within days of the incident.

  Who will be held accountable? Who will own up to the damage done to our Marines?

Fullbore Friday

Regardless of nationality, the naval professional is usually attracted to two things - strong and beautiful ships, and tragedy.

The news this week was full of the discovery of the center of that venn diagram;

The World War II-era Japanese battleship Musashi was sunk by U.S. warplanes on Oct. 24, 1944, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, one of the war's largest naval battles. Despite numerous eyewitness accounts at the time, the location of the wreckage was never known. Until now.

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, whose father served in World War II, says his research team discovered the Musashi's wreckage on March 1 in the Sibuyan Sea off the Philippines. Allen's team used "historical records from four different countries, detailed topographical data and advanced technology aboard his yacht, M/Y Octopus," a statement said.

For context, from Part II of the exceptional, Battle of Leyte Gulf - go to the 19:00 point.

Fair warning, you may lose most of your morning's productivity.



You can get Part I, here.

Diversity Thursday

A little reminder from last month about the very political nature of the entire Diversity Industry.

Each part of the Navy's diversity commissariat is really just the USN's contribution to two things; (1) A source of employment for otherwise unemployable diversity professionals, (2) An outpost of the political system that exists to ensure the larger survival of (1).

That political system feeds, carves out reliable voting blocks, and fundraises off of division, sectarianism, hate, and the most base form of tribalism.

Now and then, one of the branches of this toxic socio-political movement lets the mask slip in some way that serves as a nice, "See, I told you so."

This is not about diversity, inclusion, fairness, or any of the fruits of the enlightenment - it is just plain old rent seeking power blocks and their self-supporting network. When our Navy supports it - it is no different than if our funds were going directly in to a Political Action Committee supporting pick-the-cause.

This week's example is from our friends in Chapel Hill;

The leadership at UNC-Chapel Hill has made it clear that it supports diversity on its campus – as long as you agree with it politically, that is.

Chancellor Carol Folt, Vice Chancellor Winston Crisp and the Student Advisory Committee to the chancellor co-hosted a dinner with 40 student leaders from student organizations across the campus last week to discuss diversity and the school’s future.

But not a single conservative student group was invited to voice an opinion.

In fact, right-leaning organizations including the UNC College Republicans, Carolina Students for Life, UNC Young Americans for Liberty, the Tar Heel Rifle and Pistol Club, and Christians United For Israel were not even aware of the dinner until the Daily Tar Heel wrote an article about it the next day.

Sure, feel free to take a shower Tarheels, you do look a bit slimy.

CJCS and SECDEF Understatements of the Week

I have intentionally avoided any commentary on Mosul-al-kerfuffle for this simple reason; regardless of what it was, it was gobsmacking grabassery of the highest order, and I wanted nothing to do with it until the adults have spoken.

Well, here you go;

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Central Command would "take the appropriate action" once the inquiry was complete.

One would think.

A U.S. military official who briefed news media about Iraq's upcoming offensive to retake Mosul provided inaccurate information but should never have publicly discussed war plans anyway, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Tuesday.

Carter's criticism of the February news briefing by an official from the U.S. military's Central Command was accompanied by an assurance from the top U.S. military officer to Congress that the matter was subject to an internal inquiry.

"That clearly was neither accurate information, nor had it been accurate, would have it been information that should have been blurted out to the press. So it's wrong on both scores," Carter, who took over as defense secretary in February, told a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
...
Carter described the briefing about the Mosul offensive as "an instance of speculation." He declined to offer a timeline, saying Iraqi forces would go into Mosul when they were ready.

I still have no idea why this even became a thing - but regardless - we should just hurry up and put a head on a pike outside the main gate at MacDill and be done with it.

Black Swan Tuesday: China's Cataclysm

There are little black swans, and then there are the big ones.

The unexpected always comes around. With all the talk of rising China, island chains, neo-Middle Kingdomism, and the Amerocentric Pacific Pivot - one must wonder? Is this just one of history's head fakes?

Peter Mattis over at TheNationalInterest sketches it out for us;

A couple of weeks ago, AEI scholar Michael Auslin published a column for the Wall Street Journal about a quiet dinner in Washington where a senior China scholar declared the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had reached the final stage before collapse. The political collapse of the world’s second-largest economy and a nuclear power is no small thing. What should Washington do?

I don't know if we should really do anything. We stumbled through the fall of the Soviet Union and didn't get that right. In a way, that isn't too bad of a model. Back up, stay out of the frag pattern, and let the internal forces "work it out."

Watch, plan, contain, adjust. That is the smart thing to do. The only thing worse than getting involved in a land war in Asia, it to involve yourself in a civil war in Asia. If you do too much directly or indirectly in such a xenophobic nation such as China, soon they will forget their internal conflict and will make you the issue.

Harris talks around a concept that the USA should have a plan to help nudge the collapse in a direction we desire. An admirable goal, but one I don't think is realistic.

If Washington is concerned that the CCP is approaching its twilight, then asserting a moral stake in China’s development requires nothing less than a substantial effort to understand China’s political landscape beyond day-to-day policy-making concerns and to influence Chinese leaders before they pull the trigger on their citizens again. Without advance preparation, U.S. and other international leaders will find the prospects of an unstable China distressing, possibly with the view that it is “too big to fail.” They may even watch from the sidelines as in 1989, not knowing the best course of action or how to influence the decisions of Chinese leaders. This may not be wrong, but such a momentous decision should not be left to ignorance, preexisting mental images or scattered information collected as a crisis breaks.

We simply do not have the track record in this area that gives one confidence, but it wouldn't hurt to put some intellectual heft around various courses of action - hopefully that has already been done.

A huge mercantile nation being run by a Communist Party can't go on forever under the stresses that are already in place. Change is coming; the question is how, to what extent, and when.

Before you get all excited about a rising China collapsing under the weight of its own internal structural defects, the second and third order effects will hit our nation nation hard. 

All those Chinese with the anchor babies and 2nd homes in South Florida and the West Coast? They're coming here.

All that USA debt held in China? It's getting sold.

All those repressed minority groups inside China? They're going to war.

So yea, interesting times ... and at a time we have plenty of our own problems to deal with.

The Hard Science of Harder Truths

There are two parallel universes of people who think about what the next few decades hold in the national security arena. 

The people in one universe are as smart and as well educated as those in the other. They have solid, reasoned expectations about the national security challenges we face in the near to medium term. They can discuss probable and possible technology "game changers" that will impact how we can project national will on a global scale, and other of the "sexier" topics that are fun to talk about nonetheless.

They have an admirable understanding of how nations work together with their friends and competitors. Internally, they have a good diversity of ideas on how to create the right mix of manpower, training and equipment now to set the stage for preparing our nation to be able to address the future's challenges as they come up.

In that first universe, as there is in the second, there is much conflict between national security confessions; they have their own think tanks, preferred authors, opinion leaders, and theorists. They can have dramatically different approaches to things as diverse as diplomatic priorities, strategic communications, and military force structure.

In that first universe they do have one thing in common - a common variable that separates them from the second universe. 

They base their ideas on the recent past (except for the futurists who in both universes are the over-caffeinated 11-yr old boy at the dinner party, but that is a topic addressed in other posts) and the metrics that dominated it; demographics, growth models, business cycles, but their time-relative bias is off; the metrics of 30 years ago are given the same weight as those of 10 years ago. 

They are doing the right thing - benchmarking the past to help understand the future - but as if in some strange state of denial, they seem blind to what will actually shape this century the most - the facts on demographics, economics, budgets, and plain hard math - that show in the near-mist shapes that are unfamiliar and intimidating. With each passing year the shapes get clearer and clearer, yet in the first universe they try to look other the other direction, and ignore the gathering clarity in the hope it will drift away or simply not be that bad once it comes in to full view. It is on that point that our universe splits and becomes parallel.

In the second universe, at the inflection point where they look in to the future, the people in the second universe do not look away. When that shadow appears in the mist, they focus on it. They stare unblinking at the emerging shape and, as opposed to wishing away any nasty bits coming forward, they instead outline exactly what possible dangers exist, regardless of the discomfort it causes. They want to make sure that they are fully prepared to do what needs to be done to deal with what is coming - because coming it is. 

If you were to pull up a chair next to one of the people in that second universe cleaning his glasses so he could see the edge of the mist as clearly as possible, you would be sitting next to our friend Jerry Hendrix.

You need to read it all, as I'm only going to pull a small bit - but here is the scene he sets in the opening to his latest work from CNAS, Avoiding Trivia: A Strategy for Sustainment and Fiscal Security.

Gird your loins and lean in with him; he sees it clearer than most.

If the goal were a strategy to undermine the power and influence of the United States and bring its era of global leadership to an end, a Bismarckian grand strategist could not have designed a series of events as debilitating as those of the past fourteen years. For the United States to reverse current trends and sustain its position in the world, it will need to move from reactive policies to a posture of proactivity. It will also have to examine the extent of its interests and reconnect with the basic, cultural fundamentals of grand strategy.

Grand Strategy has never resided purely within the military realm; it is rather an expression of national goals in totality. To express strategy purely in military terms would neglect the logistics line that stretches from the front to the factories that produce armaments and to the economy that supports the overall effort. The military function cannot be separated from the economic: Clausewitz and Mahan cannot be considered with out Keynes and Friedman. Deficit spending and growing debt, along with a weakening economy and crumbling national infrastructure, present a growing threat to the United States that may far exceed traditional security threats, especially when we consider that the national security complex is dependent upon these components of national life: the economy and national infrastructure form the foundation for U.S. actions in the world.

Americans, sadly, too often do not see anything that does not have a USA stamp on it. As a result, there is the assumption that the challenges they see in the USA are in isolation and don't exist elsewhere - a thought that "we" are having trouble, but as "we" don't make the effort to study the rest of the world, we assume that everyone else is doing well. That warps our thinking and planning.

Yes, we have problems - and the one represented in the graph above is at the top of my list both directly and in the secondary effects it will have for me in my dotage, and my children's entire life. But what about the condition of other power centers?

One of the more valuable aspects of Hendrix's article is that he gives the reader a thumbnail view of the three other power centers of the world and the challenges they face. We don't come off all that bad in comparison.

Europe;

...When industrialization, urbanization, cultural maturation, and the decline of religion in daily life led to a reduction in the size of the family, and hence of the working population, policy makers attempted to reverse the shortfall by expanding immigration to bring in additional workers ... exacerbated Europe’s overarching handicap: its fractured sense of self. Despite efforts to form a collective whole within the European Union and bind themselves together economically with the Euro as a common currency, the states of Europe still consider themselves sovereign entities. ... Without an amalgamation of effort and resources, it is difficult to envision how Europe could emerge as a serious global competitor in the near future.

Russia;

Ultimately Putin’s Russia faces the same challenges as his strongman predecessors: how to control a small population scattered across a vast territory, vulnerable to the threat of outside invaders, with scarce resources. With all of its historic, economic, and demographic challenges, as well as the results of the current sanctions regimes and, no doubt, lingering distrust of Russia in Europe following its aggressive actions, Russia will not reemerge as a significant world power for a number of decades.

China;

Given its centrally planned, mercantilist approach to economics, China is not and cannot be considered a “responsible actor” within the current global economic system. It cannot regain its historic central position in Asia, the “Middle Kingdom” within the current system. Thus, it must be understood that China is actively working to time its rise to coincide with the United States’ decline so as to create both a soft landing and an alternative for the current global system.

However, it cannot accomplish these goals on its own. It is not strong enough economically or militarily to take over the system, and its culture and diplomacy are not similar enough to entice others outside of Asia to voluntarily join their destinies with China. For China to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power, it would need a willing partner in the United States. This is not outside the realm of possibility at the moment, given that America has its own historic and cultural issues to deal with.

Some may make the charge that Hendrix is simply dismissing and assuming away challengers, yet those are mostly the same people who ignore challengers' problems and instead like to point to our challenges alone. That simply is no way to get a clear view of the future; to disregard your strengths and amplify your weakness, while at the same time disregarding your competitors' weaknesses and emphasizing their strengths. That way of thinking is to make a dedicated effort to avoid looking clearly at the problem.

We are not alone in having challenges, but we have a great gift. Our greatest challenges are internal. They are our problems to solve - and in comparison to others, arguable simpler problems. All it takes is will, maturity, and leadership.

The largest single threat to the U.S. position in the world arises within the United States itself. Seeking to focus on the competition of ideas, it has lost sight of the state of its own economy and the very real sources of friction – on land and predominantly at sea – that characterize the global arena.

Its natural tendency to confuse “American exceptionalism” with its real economic and military interests has resulted in a confused and disjointed national strategy. If it is to maintain its position of global leadership, the United States needs to refocus on its economic health and on its maritime roots.
...
Still, there are those who will point out America’s advantages, despite its debt. The United States still has the world’s largest economy, for a time, and it still has the world’s largest military, for a time.

In addition, the global economic system remains tilted in America’s favor: the laws remain Western and are premised on free trade and self-determination, for now. Lastly, the global exchange and reserve currency remains the dollar, which has been strengthening following the Federal Reserve’s 2014 decision to cease quantitative easing. The United States still has time on the clock; the question is how to use it?

This is not a problem of the military side of the national budget alone - though some will act as if it is. That is just not in line with the facts. There is also the danger of what we have seen in the past - the military takes the hit, and everyone else demurs. That won't work anymore - we have used that trick one time too many.

Hendrix has made an honest proposal from the military side of the argument. There should be parallel efforts to address these hard truths by others in the Beltway whose specialties are welfare, federal employee management, health care, regulation, and taxes. They cannot have as their answer, "more money; more taxes" as that simply is not a solution by serious people with a focus beyond the next election cycle. 

To keep this momentum going, those in other policy areas must join with equally bold ideas that are willing to take their "bite of the sandwich." For the Hendrix's specifics, difficult to summarize here, I point you to his article. Invest the time and read it all.

We are long overdue for serious, adult conversations about the position we have put ourselves in to. We should do it as the Germans did two decades ago. By doing so, we can avoid becoming what Greece is now.

In a work both broad in scope, but surprisingly narrowly focused in areas, Hendrix's work is a great entering point of discussion for what needs to be an iterative debate to get a view on the challenge, accept it as it is, and put this nation back on a track that will leave our children and grandchildren a nation at least as strong, united, and wealthy than the one we inherited.

National Strategy and the Navy's Proper Role in it, with Barney Rubel - on Midrats

The role of the Navy and Marine Corps should be to provide ready and capable forces to the joint commanders. Outside of that, what is the proper role of the sea services in designing a more national strategy?

What is the state of a national and a maritime strategy, who are the different players in the discussion, and what is the proper way forward?

Our guest Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern to discuss and more  will be Captain Robert C. "Barney" Rubel USN, (Ret.), Professor Emeritus, US Naval War College.

Captain Rubel, now retired, was previously the Dean of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College from 2006 to 2014. Prior to arriving at NWC, he was a thirty-year Navy veteran, with experience as e a light attack naval aviator, flying the A-7 Corsair II and later the F/A-18 Hornet, commanded VFA-131, and also served as the Inspector General at U.S. Southern Command.

He is a graduate of the Spanish Naval War College in Madrid and the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI., and has an undergraduate degree in liberal arts from the University of Illinois and a master’s degree in national security and strategic studies from the US Naval War College.

Captain Rubel continues to serve as a member of the CNO Advisory Board and is active in local American Legion activities.

Join us live if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio. 

If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here.

Listen to internet radio with Midrats on Blog Talk Radio

---

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that you should also get BJ's first book if you have not already, 21st Century Mahan: Sound Military Conclusions for the Modern Era.