A job description only a Sailor understands

From a recent SPAWAR email forwarded from one of my spies; you almost need to diagram it. 

Executive Assistant to the Principal Military Deputy to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition). 

An epic failure of strategic stewardship

A few cliche's exist that apply not just to personal life, but to business and even international relations. 

- "If you want a friend, be a friend."
- "Half of life is just showing up."

One of the characteristics of our form of government is that the person who holds the Presidency is only a caretaker. Indeed, every person elected and appointed is only a place holder for the next person who takes the job. People come and go, but the nation endures.

The hard work of others is preserved and built on. When opportunities come up to add to the nation's wealth, power, security or prestige, you take it, secure it, and turn it over to posterity.

Likewise, if mistakes were made - you correct them. If previous office holders made errors or requirements change, then you fix and change as needed. You avoid, at all possible costs, huge errors that will take years to decades to fix.

Errors will be made, but there is no reason to make unforced errors - and we observed a big one this Sunday.

I was on travel most of Sunday, and in that time tried the best I can to understand what was going through the White House decision tree to bring us to where we wound up pulling a big zero on a historic march in Paris in support of one of the fundamental fruits of The Enlightenment, free speech.

There is so much here. If it were not for France, we would not have won our revolution. They are an occasionally difficult ally, but historically, the one after the UK that is the most important to us.

The lack of a significant presence in Paris is simply gobsmacking. The White House sent more people of more significance to a thief who was shot after attacking the police than they did for this?

I've spent a lot of time in France, and the French people are very much like Americans, they like Americans, and if you walk around their capital - there is pro-American paintings, statues, etc all over the place from the metro to their parks.

They are a proud, sovereign nation - so they will take their own path now and then, and that is OK. On balance though - for good manners if nothing else - we should have done better.

In the march, we had British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Queen Rania were there. Heck, even President Bongo of Gabon showed up - not to any small bit of irony.

The USA? We have lame duck Attorney General Eric Holder there, but not in the march. On the streets, we only had our ambassador.

There is no other way to spin this. The United States has shown an exceptional amount of disrespect towards one of our closest and most important allies. This just feeds in to a growing feeling in the world that we can be relied on to always frustrate our friends and encourage our enemies.

This will not be forgotten, and will long outlast Obama's presidency.

Why did we do this? There are really only two reasons - both disturbing in their own way.

1. This was a case of nationalizing a point of personal pique. For some reason, perhaps related to this episode, Obama just does not care to expose his ego to possible injury in groups of other national leaders. He also does not like Europeans.

2. We have another example of the horrible national security brain trust he as around him. President Obama has never had good instincts concerning the care and feeding of our traditional allies. If they are giving him awards and praise from Oslo to the Tiergarten, he is fine. But showing support to them? No, there is some kind of blocking diode there. If he has good advisers who can help him work around his own biases and pre-conceived notions, he is movable. That is the function of a good staff. However, look who he has around him now. Instead of Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, and James Jones - we have John F'n Kerry, Susan Rice, and Joe Biden who, along with the slum lord Valerie Jarrett, drown out any other advisers out there.

What can be done? Nothing really. We have Obama as President for another two years. We just need to catalog where he's made a mess and hope the next person will help repair the relationships.

It is what it is. President Obama and his rump national security advisers are what they are.

The bad part, what they do has the "Made in USA" stamp on it, and they have yet to fully take on board the concept of stewardship, unless ... well ... let's not go there.

---

UPDATE: Jake Tapper goes Salamander;

It is no small thing for the king of Jordan, a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed, to march in a rally prompted by the murders of people who mocked Islam as well as of innocent Jews -- all of whom were killed by Islamic extremists.

The United States, which considers itself to be the most important nation in the world, was not represented in this march -- arguably one of the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation -- except by U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley, who may have been a few rows back. I didn't see her. Even Russia sent Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

I say this as an American -- not as a journalist, not as a representative of CNN -- but as an American: I was ashamed.

I certainly understand the security concerns when it comes to sending President Barack Obama, though I can't imagine they're necessarily any greater than sending the lineup of other world leaders, especially in aggregate.

But I find it hard to believe that collectively President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Attorney General Eric Holder -- who was actually in France that day for a conference on counterterrorism -- just had no time in their schedules on Sunday. Holder had time to do the Sunday shows via satellite but not to show the world that he stood with the people of France?

There was higher-level Obama administration representation on this season's episodes of "The Good Wife" on CBS.

Photo credit to Brad Thor.

The war against Malaria ... on Midrats

Recently, when one hears of disease and Africa, if you only listened to the media, then what would come to mind would be Ebola.

That is not the real challenge in Africa. There is a disease that not only kills, it impedes economic growth, interferes with good governance, and as a result is just another catalyst to conflict there and in South Asia.

To give a better understanding of the ongoing impact of malaria and the fight against it, our guest the Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern will be Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer, USN (Ret.)

Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer was appointed in June 2006 to lead the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI). The PMI strategy is targeted to achieve Africa-wide impact by halving the burden of malaria in 70 percent of at-risk populations in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 450 million people, thereby removing malaria as a major public health problem and promoting economic growth and development throughout the region.

PMI is a collaborative U.S. Government effort, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), the Department of State, the White House, and others. As coordinator, Rear Admiral Ziemer reports to the USAID administrator and has direct authority over both PMI and USAID malaria programs.

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

Fullbore Friday

You may have missed one of the most import speeches given in the Arab world in a long time.

From Jonah Goldberg;

The slaughter in Paris Wednesday shocks the conscience but hardly shocks the intellect. In other words, no one is surprised that Muslim extremists are capable of doing this sort of thing. And nearly everyone expected in the early moments of this story that the culprits would be revealed to be Islamic extremists.

It is a sad commentary that the more shocking and, arguably more significant, event came a week earlier in Cairo. Egyptian President (and strongman) Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delivered a possibly epochal speech at Al-Azhar University on New Year's Day. More than a thousand years old, Al-Azhar is considered by many to be the epicenter of scholarly Islam.

Addressing the assemblage of imams in the room, al-Sisi called for a "religious revolution" in which Muslim clerics take the lead in rethinking the direction Islam has taken recently.

Raymond Ibrahim provides and excerpt;

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

President al-Sisi, Fullbore.

Islam must be fixed from within. We should all pray for al-Sisi and other modernizers like him.

The Carrier Debate

This Friday is an event everyone in the front porch should find of interest, regardless of where you stand on the question.

As cross-posted in other areas, the below is a guest post by a friend to all here, outlining what is happening Friday night.

Claude, over to you;

---

“Why is the Naval Academy Museum hosting a debate on the future of aircraft carriers?”

It’s a question I was asked earlier this week about the debate between Jerry Hendrix and Bryan McGrath at USNA’s historic Mahan Auditorium. So let’s break down that question and answer it.

First, why is the Museum hosting this? Part of the Naval Academy Museum’s mission is to educate Midshipmen and the general public on the history of the Navy. While this debate is about the future of aircraft carriers, both debaters and the moderator are extremely well versed in the utility of carriers for much of the past century. In addition, the event was promulgated with additional information about the historical debate on aircraft carriers from the pages of Naval Institute Proceedings since 1922. In conjunction with the debate, the museum also has a special exhibit during January on the history of aircraft carriers. We’ve also produced through LTjg Christopher O’Keefe, the History of the Navy in 100 Objects which includes many videos on aircraft carriers. Our mission also includes demonstrating to the public the contributions of Academy graduates. It would be difficult to imagine today’s utility of aircraft carriers without the contributions of graduates such as Admirals Halsey, Mitscher, and others during World War II or nuclear propulsion guided by Admiral Rickover. This debate is open to the public.

Second, why a debate format? That’s simple. We are very fortunate at the Naval Academy to host a number of informed and recognized guest speakers and lecturers. The Museum, for examples, has a regular lecture series throughout the academic year. Although it may have happened in my ten years teaching at the Academy, I don’t recall a debate about a national security issue. It’s a great format to get to issues a single presenter might not. And, historically, there’s a real periodic tradition of debating naval issues among officers and civilians at least as far back as the Naval Lyceum and Naval Magazine in the 1830s http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2014-08/crucible-naval-enlightenment. Both Jerry Hendrix and Bryan McGrath are well-versed in our naval history, articulate, and serious informed navalists whose voices are important in our greater concepts about national security. I, for one, look forward to learning from each side.

Third, why is the Museum involved in a debate on the future? That’s simple. We’re a teaching museum. Ideas about the future, whether they’re about operations, platforms, or strategies, simply don’t occur out of a vacuum. As they say, you can’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been. At the museum we’re trying to bridge the gap between our naval heritage and the future. For example, we try to integrate our artifacts in applied history projects with the midshipmen such as with the recently-acquired Mount Suribachi field glasses. In addition, our moderator is Captain CC Felker, USN, Chair of the History Department at the Naval Academy. He’s the author of Testing American Sea Power and holds a doctorate in history.

Finally, I owe mention to our partnership with the United States Naval Institute on this event. For those interested and unable to attend, the United States Naval Institute is livestreaming the event here.

The Museum and the Institute have a long history going back to when Preble Hall was built in 1939 and housed both the Museum and USNI. USNI left the building in 1999 for Beach Hall at Hospital Point but we have an excellent working relationship. We rely heavily on their photographic archives for some of our exhibits and they take photos of some of our collection for their book catalogs and Naval History Magazine.

Members of the Naval Institute will be familiar with the phrase for "To provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write.” Now it’s time to debate. We hope you’ll listen and join in on the discussion in the pages of Proceedings, elsewhere, or on Twitter (#CarrierDebate).



Claude Berube is Director of the Naval Academy Museum and teaches in the History Department. He is the immediate past chair of Naval Institute Proceedings. The views expressed are his alone and not those of the Naval Academy or the Navy.

A Return to the Profane - for Freedom's Sake

If you don't think this has anything to do with national security, you are a fool.

If you don't this this is a topic worth your time, you are an idiot.

If you in any way try to say anything close to, "What did they expect? They should be more careful." then you are part of the problem.

Most of the new listeners probably don't know - but this isn't my only blog on blogspot. No, I have another one.

When you click to it, you'll get this;

Content Warning

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable.

Why would anyone find something I would do objectionable enough to complain to google (owner of blogger)? Well simply, my little side blog was in the first batch of internet addresses to be banned by Pakistan nine years ago. The Islamist trolls took it from there. 

Sure, there is a little frontal nudity ... but that isn't what they objected to.

The blog? Since 2006, DrawMohammedWeek, of course. I started it on a whim to show just how difficult it would be to contain what the Islamic fundamentalists were trying to kill their way to silence in the wake of the Danish cartoon kerfuffle.  

With new media, anyone can reach the world in less than a few minutes and as a result, anyone can draw Mohammed and have that image on a computer all the way to Mecca if they wanted ... and I did. Sadly, a lot more turtles pulled their heads in their shells than lions of liberty roared, but I made my point.

Every threat to liberty and the spirit of man by the most retrograde force on the planet today - radical Islam - must be opposed. They threaten the very basic nature of the West - free expression.

When someone tries to shut you up, yell louder. It is what a free people do.

From the bullies trying to silence everyone with the "microaggression" BS, to the other bullies on college campus with their speech codes, to those who went in to the offices of Charlie Hebdo and opened fire - they are all the same. They are the jackboot fantasying forever to kick in the face of individual liberty. Liberty to speak - and more importantly - liberty to offend others.

So, I would ask you to not just look at this one cover of Charlie Hebdo on this post, visit my little protest blog DrawMohammedWeek and look at their greatest hits. Look what people died for.

The attack on them was an attack on everyone who loves freedom. This will happen again, it is only a matter of when.

You see - I thought the attacks on Van Gogh would open people's eyes. I thought Ayaan Hirshi Ali's persecution would do it. I thought the London and Madrid attacks would. I thought Ft. Hood would ... but no. I guess there isn't enough blood yet.

“I'd rather be standing up than live on my knees.” Charlie Hebdo leading cartoonist Charb.

---

UPDATE: Outstanding commentary on the empty "Je suis Charlie" out there by Matt Welsh over at Reason, and always - his royal awesomesause Rusty Shackleford over at Jawa.

Want national doctrine? Well, Russia seems to have one ...

I'm going to assume this is ligit, but it seems some nice person we can presume to be "Thomas Moore" has translated the 2014 Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

Not a long or excessively detailed document - and so general to be at best almost cliche, there is here and there a few items of interest. It is helpful to remind you of the Russian mindset.

For instance:
(1) How do you feel about NATO?

2. The main external military dangers: a) capacity power potential Organizations North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and giving it global functions carried out in violation of international law, the approach of military infrastructure countries - members of NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, including through further expansion of the block;

(2) In times of conflict, these priorities are of note.

33. The main tasks of the Armed Forces, other troops and authorities during the immediate threat of aggression: a) implementation of a set of additional measures, aimed at reducing the threat of aggression and increasing level of combat and mobilization readiness of the Armed Forces purpose of strategic deployment; b) maintaining a nuclear deterrent established degree of readiness; c) the strategic deployment of the Armed Forces; d) participation in ensuring the martial law regime; e) implementation of measures for territorial defence, and the performance of the established order of measures to civil defence; f) the fulfilment of international obligations of the Russian Federation for collective defence, reflection or prevention in accordance with international law an armed attack on another state, refer to The Russian Federation requested.

Basically; "Love your nukes, control your own people; keep the near abroad under your umbrella."

Here is the whole thing; enjoy!

Russia's 2014 Military Doctrine by ThomasMoore