CNO is Heading in the Right Direction

Gina Harkins over at Military Times yesterday has some great quotes from CNO Gilday. He is saying things most readers here will be happy with. 

It would have been ideal for a CNO 10-12 years ago to have said most of the following – because it was as true then as it is now – but we’ll take today over another decade’s wait. 

We need to look for action and follow through, but this is all very sound stuff;

"I don't mean to be dramatic, but I feel like, if the Navy loses its head, if we go off course and we take our eyes off those things we need to focus on ... I think we may not be able to recover in this century," Gilday told reporters Friday, ahead of the document's release. "Based on the trajectory that the Chinese are on right now -- and again, I don't mean to be dramatic -- I just sense that this is not a decade that we can afford to lose ground."

The Long Game is real and we are reaping what the Age of Transformationalism sowed. We cannot fix the errors of the past, but we can change the direction we are heading in now as we set up for the future. 

  

We have not just lost a decade, in a very real sense we lost the better part of two if you want to be picky. However, a decade ago it was clear what the errors were in the first decade of the 21st Century, it just took a decade for it to soak its way up to the top. 

More evidence that we “get it;”

"... I am more interested in getting it right in a deliberate fashion than I am getting it fast."

I take that to mean a greater respect for technology risk and throwing away the snake oil of “jumping generations” and all that crap. The above comment is especially good as it takes aim at those who, either ignorant of the past or arrogantly thinking it no longer applies, were heading full speed in a Transformationalist mindset that begat LCS and DDG-1000 with unmanned systems. The technology is just not mature enough, from engineering to weaponeering. 

We have a lot more testing to do.

Buying large numbers of unmanned vessels by the mid-2020s is "unrealistic," Gilday told reporters. Instead, by the end of the decade, sailors "must have a high degree of confidence and skill operating alongside proven unmanned platforms at sea," he said.

Exactly. We also seem to be taking a few bites of crow and returning to our core competencies;

"This includes divestment of experimental Littoral Combat Ship hulls, legacy Cruisers, and older Dock Landing Ships," he wrote. "It also includes divesting non-core Navy missions like Aegis-ashore. Transferring shore-based Ballistic Missile Defense sites to ground forces enables Sailors to focus on their core missions at sea and frees up resources to increase our lethality."

FREEDOM Class LCS should be mothballed as soon as practical. That and the other steps will allow us to re-capture Sailors towards higher value uses of their time and talents. No, it won’t be easy … and neither will the money;

"It may not be as smooth of transition as everybody wants," he said, "... [but] we need to divest from some of these capabilities that are becoming very expensive to maintain." The Navy is transforming at a time when military leaders are bracing for possible budget constraints. Gilday said he doesn't expect any sort of plus-up. President-elect Joe Biden has acknowledged that the military is facing threats it hasn't seen since the Cold War, but slammed President Donald Trump for abandoning fiscal discipline when it came to defense spending.

Will everyone please stop using the “T” word, except when used ironically or as an insult? Thanks. 

In addition to money, the last 10-20 years has seen a lot of wasted money, personal/professional capital, and warfighting ability because … our leaders decided other things were more important – or they just were well meaning people who had the wrong approach. Either way, we are … no kidding here … out of time.

…Gilday said there is no time to waste in pushing ahead with … investments in public shipyards, dry docks, maintenance facilities and aviation depots that he says are overdue for upgrades.

That last bit – the “unsexy but important” is something we can and should do immediately. It looks like that is the plan. 

Actions we must do now; stop double-pumping. Stop more than 6-month deployments. That wasn’t addressed in the article … but I thought I throw it in here for good measure. 

Good words; let’s see action.

Crossposted to substack.

A Habsburg plan for Europe

Though I blend in well with the populations of Europe who have ready access to the North Sea, my bloodline has been unconnected to Europe for four centuries.

I am an unalloyed North American, yet as our culture is an offshoot of Europe, I keep an eye on the goings on there. You have to as Europe continues to be a source of conflict. Their waring ethno-states generate more national security problems than can be consumed internally.

That manages to bring North America in to their scrimmages.

Beyond and more impactful today than military , Europe is a source for trends that impact cultural, social, economic, and military change throughout the globe. China is trying to change that, but there is a long way to go for them to get there, if ever.

For those in alignment with me, I encourage you to read, in full, the English translation of Karl von Habsburg (yes, that Habsburg, the head of Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine) New Years "Speech on the Future of Europe." 

His family has been at the heart of the European project for the better part of a thousand years and remains influential for a whole host of reasons.

Ideas matter, especially European ideas. I know that is an unfashionable thing to say in today's intellectually fetid and self-deceiving environment, but it is true. 

The 20th Century was dominated by two horrible European ideas that were rooted in the late 19th Century, Communism and Fascism. Both those blood soaked socio-political movements are still with us, but in a much degraded and less dangerous form as the 20th Century efforts of both showed their less than ideal reality.

We are in the third decade of the 21st Century, and we should keep an eye on where the European project is going. BREXIT caused, rightfully, an ongoing reassessment of what they are doing to promote trade, standards of living, and security in peace as opposed to fruitless cycles of internal wars. 

Good people can argue which form European integration should take, but neither extreme - full disaggregation on one end or United States of Europe on the other - are optimal. An aggressive pursuit of the later will bring about the former, so if one wants a closer Europe - how does one get there?

Few families have more of a history - and as a result have thought the most about how it has failed in the past - than the Habsburgs. 

Somewhere between the two extremes of the European project is a middle way. Karl Habsburg has ideas closer to full integration than not, but it represents a solid starting point for discussion. There is a lot here for an outsider to agree with on its logic and long-term soundness.

Below are a few pull-quotes for you to consider. Solid work;

Today, the focus is on the integration of the six countries in South-Eastern Europe that are not yet EU members. In its latest reports on enlargement, the EU Commission rightly states that the admission of Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia to the EU is a „geostrategic investment in peace, security and economic growth throughout Europe“. 

You have to respect a Habsburg going early to the Balkans. It is what it is for Europe, and at some point needs to be resolved to the advantage of all.

The geostrategic importance of the region is clear to anyone familiar with its history. And in politics there is no vacuum . If Europe withdraws from the region, there will be all the more room for other powers to advance their interests in Southeast Europe. 

In addition to actors like Russia and Turkey who have been connected to the region and its politics throughout history, today above all China but also Saudi Arabia for instance with its Wahabism exert massive influence. The interests of these actors do not coincide with European security policy interests.

Yes, he names names. Absolutely solid. I also greatly respect his acknowledgement of the historic and modern threat to Europe from fundamentalist Islamic forces.

Europe itself must formulate and defend its own security interests.

And when I mention Russia and China, it is clear that this is primarily a matter of geopolitical interests. This should also be borne in mind by those EU member states that keep blocking this enlargement out of mostly petty national or even nationalistic interests.

I have read a quote, and my googlefu is failing me to give proper credit, perhaps it was Bismarck, that says, "In a game of five, it is best to be one of the three." A united Europe can play economically and diplomatically in a world of China, India, USA, and Russia. Divided? Notsomuch.

But we must also look to the East, where a country like Ukraine with the Euromaidan or the so-called Revolution of Dignity has made it clear that its citizens see their future in Europe rather than under Russian dominance. Undoubtedly there still are major problems in all these countries regarding, for instance, the rule of law and corruption, but they are European countries nevertheless. Anyone who takes European unification seriously must make it possible for every European country to join the European Union. That is why I also advocate upgrading the current neighbourhood policy towards Ukraine into a concrete accession perspective policy.

Even though the European perspective is of no real relevance in the democracy movement in Belarus, it is our duty to support this democracy movement wherever possible. If Europe, if the EU emphasises the rule of law and democracy the way it does, these principles must also apply towards Belarus.

In the long to medium run, this is true. To get there, Europe - specifically Germany - must make sure it cannot be subject to Russian hydrocarbon blackmail. Right now it is going in the opposite direction.

The below is why Europe is, and will remain, a natural ally of North and South America. North America especially is a nation based on the European Enlightenment. South America less so, but is getting there.

We share these ideals on balance - China and Russia do not.

... the rule of law indeed was right there at the beginning of the European idea.

...

Another essential element of European identity is freedom. Let me quote Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi: „The European ideal is freedom – European history is one slow struggle for personal, spiritual, national and social freedom. Europe will exist for as long as it continues this fight; as soon as it abandons this ideal and becomes unfaithful to its mission, it loses its soul, its meaning, its existence. Then its historical role in history will have come to an end.“

European unification, however, European politics should not aim to bring an end to Europe’s historical role, but to make use of it!

Freedom is not a given. Freedom must be won again and again. Freedom is inseparably linked to responsibility. And we cannot delegate this responsibility for freedom to the state.

To define the concept of freedom, I have to resort to the English language for it has two terms for what we call freedom: Liberty and Freedom. Both terms refer to different things. A good definition comes from Murray Rothbard, a classic representative of the Austrian School of Economics. He said: „Living in Liberty allows each of us to fully enjoy our Freedom“. In other words, only when we live in an external system of freedom can we actually enjoy and live out our inner freedom. Liberty in  English means the external construct of freedom, that is what actually creates freedom for us, while Freedom means inner freedom. For example, the freedom to think what I want. The inner freedom that no one can actually take away from me. Enjoying this inner freedom requires an external construct. It is also quite clear that implementing this concept of external freedom, Liberty, is one of the most important tasks of politics.

What got me hooked on Habsburg's work - besides his quote from Murray Rothbard, was his willingness to speak what is in many political areas, unspeakable.

 And it will be necessary to master one of the biggest obstacles to unanimity – that obstacle is the indebtedness of public budgets.

That applies to the USA as well. 

Crossposted to substack.

The Navy's Problems and a Plan to Fix Them, with Bryan McGrath - on Midrats

 

There is one area of agreement among navalists, the US Navy is beset with a whole series of hard, long building problems, ignored for too long. Many, including our highest ranking uniformed leadership, seem incapable of not only acknowledging them, but coming up with a plan to address them.

As we enter 2021 and the third decade of the 21st Century, what are our greatest challenges, and what are some steps we can take to start the process of meeting them?

Returning to Midrats this Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern to discuss this and related issues he raised in this recent article, The Navy Has Problems and Must Be Bold to Fix Them, will be Bryan McGrath, CDR USN (Ret.), Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group LLC defense consultancy.

Bryan grew up in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, and graduated from the University of Virginia in 1987. He was commissioned upon graduation in the United States Navy, and served as a Surface Warfare Officer until his retirement in 2008. At sea, he served primarily in cruisers and destroyers, rising to command of the Destroyer USS BULKELEY (DDG 84). During his command tour, he won the Surface Navy Association’s Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Award for Inspirational Leadership, and the BULKELEY was awarded the USS ARIZONA Memorial Trophy signifying the fleet’s most combat ready unit. Ashore, Bryan enjoyed four tours in Washington DC, including his final tour in which he acted as Team Leader and primary author of our nation’s 2007 maritime strategy entitled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.”

Since retirement, Bryan has become active in presidential politics, serving first as the Navy Policy Team lead for the Romney Campaign in 2012, and then as the Navy and Marine Corps Policy lead for the Rubio Campaign in 2016.

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.

Two Kind of Leaders

Since I started reading military history when I was ... well ... able to read ... there have been two types of leaders that I have always found interesting at moments when all is lost. One represents the worst example, and one is the best.

When I say, “all is lost,” I'm not talking about fighting retreats or "Horatius at the Bridge" situations when forces are engaged in holding actions to buy time, but those moments when defeat is a forgone conclusion. There is no real hope for victory but a leader has to make decisions as to what they are willing to do and sacrifice - not just themselves, but for those they lead.

If they decide to continue to fight or carry out their duties in spite of the inevitable, what do they do and how do they lead the forces under their command? Where do they place their desires/duty to themselves versus the responsibility for those who they lead, those who believe in them and trust them?

Tough situations, I believe, don't build character - they reveal character. In this extreme situation, the character of a leader is revealed in clear, stark contrast.

With that foundation, let's explore a small subset of leadership examples, with a focus on a war inside the edge of living memory; WWII.

Let's start with one example of the bad leader: Admiral Seiichi Itō, Imperial Japanese Navy.

Itō was the leader of Operation Ten-Go, the suicide run of the battleship Yamato with her escort of a light cruiser and eight destroyers. While one can take in to considerations his culture as an excuse, the record shows that he knew this was suicidal. He opposed the mission at first, but then agreed to lead it. This was about his honor, his duty and it appears, his death. Though Japanese, he was an educated, modern man of the mid-20th Century. It is fair to judge him by modern standards. As a senior leader, he knew what few of the people who served under him knew; the war was lost and there was no chance for success. Only a fool say success for the mission at even a tactical level, much less on operational or strategic one. As a result, over 4,000 Japanese Sailors died with him in a vain, inglorious display of false-military honor. Nothing could be gained. Only senior leaders' vanity fed. Itō in his last moment of power, in a radiant moment of sociopathic narcissism, got his "warrior's death" - but needlessly clawed over 4,000 lives down with him; lives dedicated to their duty to trust and follow their leader.

Now the good leader, Kapitän zur See Hans Langsdorff, Kriegsmarine.

Langsdorff fought the good fight in the South Atlantic alone as Captain of the pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee. In the Battle of the River Plate against the  Royal Navy cruisers HMS Exeter, Ajax and Achilles, he retired with his damaged ship to the neutral port of Montevideo, Uruguay. Damaged, far from home and trapped by the Royal Navy, he had limited options given the information he had at the time. He could try to fight his way out where, even if he succeeded, it was very unlikely his damaged ship would survive the trip back to friendly waters. He could also find some way to preserve life and honor. Of his roughly 1,100 Sailors under his command, he already had 96 killed, less than the British. In spite of what was coming from Berlin, he put all but a skeleton crew ashore and got underway to scuttle the Graff Spee in the estuary of the River Plate. Sadly and unnecessarily, he committed suicide alone, but he did not take those who trusted him, followed him, and believed in him, on some mindless death charge. He knew his cause was lost, had his own sense of duty, but he also had an understanding that part of being a leader is to look after your Sailors. Your Sailors will fight with you and die with you - willingly - but all they ask of a leader is to make sure it is not in vain.

Arrogance. Vanity. Honor. Duty. Morals. Ethics. Laws. 

Leadership is hard and there is nuance in difficult situations, but at least for me there is one foundational concept of a good leader - humility.

Humility requires self-reflection of your place, mindset, motivations, and responsibilities. All leaders have a bit of arrogance as well - we are humans - and optimistic confidence. If not leavened with humility, it drifts in to the darkest areas of the human condition. 

History should and usually does harshly judge leaders who by acts of commission or omission lead their followers in to vain, pointless, and destructive actions that are hopeless and provide no reasonable chance of gain, good, or value from sacrifice of life, liberty, or future prosperity.

One does not have to go to war for examples of good or bad leaders.  We can find them in our personal, professional, and even political worlds.

Finally, if you think this post is related to Trump, you're right. It is. In inciting the radical fringe of his supporters through his reckless behavior and words, he firmly put himself in the Itō category. He betrayed his followers. He betrayed his office. He will be judged harshly by history, and he has no one but himself to blame.

On the Storming of The Hill

We are a nation of laws.  That is, at the core, what we are. What we saw today was what happens when the Chief Executive actively incites a mob against the government he leads. None of this is American, in the American tradition, or can be defended by well meaning people. Full stop.

There will be more to follow that will lay out what happened today, but we had an unprecedented attack on the Legislative Branch by a mob incited by the Chief Executive, The President of the United States.

I’m really not interested in shades of grey or whataboutisms here, there are no shades. Lucky for us, the balance of the American people are sound and the founders set a very solid set of checks and balances in place that will get us to through the next two weeks until we have a new President. 

I feel no need to do a play by play; I’ve been up since 4am and am about spent (apologies for grammar etc, I am bone tired). Everyone should know the details; Trump whipped up the fringe of his supporters who he lost control of - I actually don’t think he knew or cared the power of his words in the wrong ears could do - and then when it was clear what was going on, he spoke late, he spoke off topic, he spoke weakly, he spoke in a manner that only validated his worst critics.

A woman, Ashli Babbit, was shot and killed because of it. 

Trump betrayed his country, his followers, and the institution that he will soon leave. He also left absolutely no reason for any reasonable person to offer him any support in the future. I know some of you here are Trump people. This isn’t your fault ... but here on out, your efforts are better spent elsewhere.

As I have said here and elsewhere, mostly to people who were anti-Trump and checked out, if you are angry at what is happening at the federal level, focus on the local and state political action.

If you are not happy with how some states ran this election - and you live in one of those states - then fix your state. I live in Florida. After 2000, we fixed ourselves. We have not been an issue in any election since - and except for the perpetually conspiracy minded, citizens here have confidence in our system. Some of your states have garbage systems - fix them so no one can use it as a reason to incite people as was done in this election.

Bad people will take legitimate issues and use them as a way to get good people to follow them down a dark path.

That is enough of my tired mind, but I’ve been out of pocket this week and with this event felt I should drop my readers a note.

A better summary of what happened today is below; a statement by the 43rd President of the United States of America, George W. Bush.

I stand with him.

Laura and I are watching the scenes of mayhem unfolding at the seat of our Nation's government in disbelief and dismay. It is a sickening and heartbreaking sight. This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic -- not our democratic republic. 

I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions, and our law enforcement. The violent assault on the Capitol -- and disruption of a Constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress -- was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes. 

Insurrection could do grave damage to our Nation and reputation. In the United States of America, it is the fundamental responsibility of every patriotic citizen to support the rule of law. To those who are disappointed in the results of the election: Our country is more important than the politics of the moment. Let the officials elected by the people fulfill their duties and represent our voices in peace and safety. 

 May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Crossposted on substack. 

EMCON-Bravo

 Just a little note that at least for the first half of this week, I will have limited access to internet to properly blog on what I’d like to, so things will be thin for a bit ... all is well ... thanks for you patience.

Fullbore Friday

When people think of the freed slaves and freemen who fought for the Union in the formations then known as United States Colored Troops (USCT), they often think of July 18, 1863, when the 54th Massachusetts stormed Fort Wagner.

Sadly, that more well known event - a Union defeat - overshadows an event six weeks earlier - a Union victory - that, at the time, probably had a greater impact on the growing support in the very racist by modern standards Northern Army to arming large formations of African-Americans than anything else.

The attack on Ft. Wagner and the 54th Massachusetts were both in the Eastern theater of operations. As such, they naturally get more attention. There is so much more to learn in the often overlooked Western campaign, just you need to try harder to find it. 

This FbF, I want to draw your attention to the Western theater and a battle on June 7th, 1863 known as the Battle of Milliken's Bend upriver from Vicksburg. 

Let me set the scene. 

You just immigrated from Switzerland to the USA seven years ago. Five years ago you were a private in this new army, and two years later you find yourself a Colonel. 

You are commanding a supply depot as a side show of a side show of Grant's Vicksburg Campaign. You have a little over a 1,000 forces at your command. You are senior officer present, and with your command, the curiously named "African Brigade" by some, but to you are the 9th Louisiana Infantry (African Descent). They are almost all former slaves that you are told everyone knows will not make good soldiers. 

The rest of your forces include the 23rd Iowa Infantry and 10th Illinois Cavalry.

Facing you, with 50% more forces than you have - a brigade in Walker's Texas Division.

On the morning of June 6, Union Colonel Hermann Lieb with the African Brigade and two companies of the 10th Illinois Cavalry made a reconnaissance toward Richmond. About three miles from Richmond, Lieb encountered enemy troops at the Tallulah railroad depot and drove them back but then retired, fearing that many more Confederates might be near. While retiring, a squad of Union cavalry appeared, fleeing from a force of Rebels. Lieb got his men into battle line and helped disperse the pursuing enemy. He retired to Milliken's Bend and informed his superior by courier of his actions. The 23rd Iowa Infantry and two gunboats came to his assistance.

Walker proceeded east from Richmond at 7 p.m. June 6. At midnight, he reached Oaklawn Plantation, which was situated about 7 miles from Milliken's Bend to the north and an equal distance from Young's Point to the south. Here, he split his command. Leaving one brigade in reserve at Oaklawn, he sent one brigade under the command of Brig. Gen. Henry E. McCulloch north to Milliken's Bend, and a second brigade under the command of Brig. Gen. James M. Hawes south to Young's Point.

Around 3:00 a.m. on June 7, Confederates appeared in force and drove in the pickets. They continued their movement towards the Union left flank. The Federal forces fired some volleys that caused the Rebel line to pause momentarily, but the Texans soon pushed on to the levee where they received orders to charge. In spite of receiving more volleys, the Rebels came on, and hand-to-hand combat ensued. In this intense fighting, the Confederates succeeded in flanking the Union force and caused tremendous casualties with enfilade fire. The Union force fell back to the river’s bank. About that time Union gunboats Choctaw and Lexington appeared and fired on the Rebels. The Confederates continued firing and began extending to their right to envelop the Federals but failed in their objective. Fighting continued until noon when the Confederates withdrew. The Union pursued, firing many volleys, and the gunboats pounded the Confederates as they retreated to Walnut Bayou.

A small battle, with huge implications. It got the attention of the right people; 

Grant praised the performance of black U.S. soldiers at the battle, observing that "This was the first important engagement of the war in which colored troops were under fire," and despite their inexperience, the black troops had "behaved well." 

Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana wrote, "the sentiment of this army with regard to the employment of negro troops has been revolutionized by the bravery of the blacks in the recent battle of Milliken's Bend." Having seen how they could fight, many officers were won over to arming them for the Union. Even Confederate commander Henry McCulloch said the former slaves fought with "considerably obstinacy."

U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton also praised the performance of black U.S. soldiers in the battle. He stated that their competent performance in the battle proved wrong those who had opposed their service:

Many persons believed, or pretended to believe, and confidently asserted, that freed slaves would not make good soldiers; they would lack courage, and could not be subjected to military discipline. Facts have shown how groundless were these apprehensions. The slave has proved his manhood, and his capacity as an infantry soldier, at Milliken's Bend, at the assault upon Port Hudson, and the storming of Fort Wagner.

— Edwin M. Stanton, letter to Abraham Lincoln, (December 5, 1863)

While researching this I came across one story that bears mention.

One early recruit to join the regiment was named Jack Jackson. Jackson was said to be very large and strong-willed and quickly became a Sergeant in Company B. At some point Jackson joined the regimental recruiting parties; the officers were having trouble with convincing local field hands to join. Jackson's recruiting method was described as very forceful but ultimately successful. 

At the Battle of Milliken's Bend one of Jackson's superior officers, Lieutenant David Cornwell, described the attack; saying that the 23rd Iowa was not behaving courageously but the three black infantry regiments offered great resistance. He said that Jackson, "Laid into a group of Texans... smashing in every head he could reach", and that, "Big Jack Jackson passed me like a rocket. With the fury of a tiger he sprang into that gang and crushed everything before him. There was nothing left of Jack's gun except the barrel and he was smashing everything he could reach. On the other side of the levee, they were yelling 'Shoot that big [_______]!' while Jack was daring the whole gang to come up and fight him. Then a bullet reached his head and he fell full on the levee."

It would be a great think if Jack and the rest of the forces that fought under Lieb could see the nation they brought in to the modern era. 

It would be great to talk to them.

Fullbore.