Month: December 2009

The Coming Naval War with China?

Posted by

5

There’s a new article making the usual rounds, from the Q1 2010 issue of Orbis. James Kraska’s “How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015” [abstract only] is definitely an interesting read; it’s one of those future/alternate histories examining, essentially, how we might get there.

Kraska hypothesizes a Chinese missile attack on the USS George Washington while “conducting routine patrols” off of China’s coast. China immediately denies all responsibility and in fact aids in the rescue of several hundred sailors, out of the original complement of 4,000. In addition to the international perception of China as uninvolved (much less the aggressor), the United States is blamed for the ecological disaster caused by the George Washington‘s nuclear propulsion system.

China’s ability to conduct such an operation is chalked up to a combination of naval spending cuts, the reassignment of “an entire generation” of officers to COIN and conventional desert warfare in the Middle East and central Asia, and “the environmentalists in charge of strategic U.S. oceans policy.”

‘Ridiculous’ is certainly the first word that comes to mind, and commentators like Thomas Ricks certainly don’t disagree, but there’s a small point to extract from Kraska’s article. His assumption that the increasing budget and growing naval aviation programs of the PLAN will directly challenge the USN for control of East Asia is a little much. He’s right on the nose, however, with the specter of asymmetrical naval warfare.

Robert Kaplan wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly a few years back, “How We Would Fight China.” It covers a lot of this in great detail. The psychological impact of asymmetry at sea is particularly telling – Kaplan notes that “the effect of a single Chinese cruise missile hitting a U.S. carrier…would be politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda’s attacks on the twin towers.” It’s hard to talk about China without getting melodramatic, apparently.

Perhaps the greatest lesson to take away from all this would be: do we still need carriers at all?

Recommended Reading (2009-12-09)

Posted by

– McChrystal-mania? Fred Kaplan reads too much into his admission of imperfection (“There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand”).  A crazy, crazy man getting one meal and four hours of sleep a night. Oh, and he bridged the usual discord between QRF and the JSOC.

– The private sector officially surpasses NASA in relevance. Not that surprising, in the end. When will humanity make a concerted effort towards the stars? Even just the United States taking some initiative would be fine.

– Afghanistan and Al Anbar are not the same thing. Thank you, Carter and Jerry, for clearing that up.

– David Engerman calls for a modern ‘Sovietology’ in Foreign Affairs – “Jihadology.” Sounds pretty narrow at first, but gets more compelling. “Instead of lurching from one perceived threat to the next, U.S. policymakers should make a deep investment in knowing the whole world.” This is decidedly true, but then again, how relevant will Islamic fundamentalism be twenty years down the line? The Soviet system was an influence – at the least a factor in – a number of political systems throughout the world. This may be more locally confined. But, if Engerman really does mean to reassert the primacy of culture over politics, there’s definitely an argument to be made.

Recommended Reading (2009-12-08)

Posted by

1

– Supposedly Russia is really modernizing this time. The fact that none of us have heard of it is intentional, according to NPR. In general (and theoretical terms), these are definitely steps in the right direction: a professional NCO class, the ouster of 50,000 officers (with supposedly another 150,000 on their way out). You can also appreciate the renewed focus on small, local, and regional conflicts, as opposed to “fighting the big one.” More than anything, though, I think the real bottleneck for the Russian military is the conscript system. Until the whole dedovshchina system of hazing – which pretty means all conscription – is abolished, the Russian military will never be of the caliber it wants to be (as for domestically designed Russian small arms, what’s wrong with the AN-94?)

– Parag Khanna at TED talking about the borders (not just political) in the world. Which ones matter? Possibly borderless: connected spaces, and unconnected spaces. “Globalization, Chinese-style.” Reversion to the Yuan Dynasty? Also a shout-out to the Kurds versus Sunnis, fighting over pipelines – not borders, but the arteries of network. The nation-state and geopolitics don’t necessarily mean the same thing.

– “Glass Half Empty“: the coming water wars?

– UAVs might be more humanizing than thought, at least in the same way that snipers get to know their enemy. Reaper pilots and unmanned flight. And I suppose that Las Vegas probably is more pleasant than a combat zone. Live in Nevada, commute to Iraq… UAV piloting has the potential that America’s Army never quite tapped.

Recommended Reading (2009-12-07)

Posted by

La plus ça change…

– When civil unrest (i.e. ‘industrial action’) goes viral. No technology required, just bodies. And drums and pots to bang on, too.

– White House security has apparently been breached “91 times” since 1980. That does include the single-engine plane on the South Lawn, the guy who fired into the Press Room, and everyone’s favorite, “The Family Outing.” Upside: most of them turned out to be friendly (or at least harmless)?

– David Rogers on the new iteration of the civil-military divide. Obama v. McChrystal. “Senior Democrats — themselves veterans of past wars — have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders.” More likely, this is just Congress overreacting, but even so. The principle of civilian control over the military is an absolute in this country. Undermining it is a very, very bad idea. Healthy debate and discussion to determine the best course of action is fine (Senator Daniel Inouye might disagree, however); receiving an order and then arguing about it is insubordination.

– Where in the World is Osama bin Laden? Not as much fun for a television premise, but a gripping question nonetheless. Actually, it’s not. It’s entirely irrelevant. Keep a skeleton al-Qaeda (the devil you know…) and move the hell on.

Tiger Tiger

Posted by

Apparently the Tamils are back in a new, friendlier incarnation. The PLA “aims for a democratic socialist liberation of the northeast for a Tamil Eelam,” rather than the nastier LTTE, which was “an extremist organisation that fought only for itself rather than the people’s needs.” Right.

The most curious aspect of this is that it’s still ideological. If former LTTE officers can join as speculated, it dilutes the ideological purity. But if they’re excluded, the PLA loses that veteran experience. Then again, if there are former dissident LTTE officers in the higher echelons, the infighting will be a sight to see. I don’t think many will join, though. The Tamils are such an excellent example of COIN, and the postgame only backs that up: “Shattered by their experiences in the war zones this year, depressed by their subsequent incarceration in detention camps, few Tamils expressed any great enthusiasm for a return to war.”

No matter; ideologically-motivated insurgency is on its way out.

Cracks

Posted by

1

Salena Zito on the perils of the big tent. “Competing agendas” is certainly one way to put it. More realistically, there’s no more single grand unifying idea for liberals or the progressive movement. It’s a series of policy initiatives with no common thread. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for health care (and this reform doesn’t go nearly far enough), but until you can package it as part of a greater big idea, you won’t get many takers.

Both parties have seen splinter groups and fringe movements, but there’s a chance we’re on the verge of something much more fundamental.

John Boyd and the OODA Loop

Posted by

I feel like there’s been a lot of discussion on this lately, and I was fortunate enough to stumble on Bill Whittle’s “Forty Second Boyd and the Big Picture.” The OODA Loop is something getting talked about quite a bit, and Whittle’s summary simultaneously shows off the simplicity and mind-blowingness of Boyd’s achievement.

If OODA is as universally applicable as Whittle claims, though – to business, to a love life, et cetera – then is deliberation never the right choice? It remains to be seen whether the new Obama surge in Afghanistan will have the desired effect, but judging from the fairly widespread approval of the new strategy, it was well worth the wait.

Of course, the delay was between orientation and decision, which as Vinay Gupta points out, is the same place corporate change sputters out. The difference between thinkers/doers and senior/junior personnel is no less real at the White House. But can it be overcome?

…and Beyond

Posted by

1

This is a big step for me. For a long time now, I’ve been a military historian, but it’s only been recently that I’ve begun to explore the future of war, rather than just its past. Unlike some previous music blogs I’ve worked on, I hope for this to be almost entirely original content on a dynamic, evolving field that I’m just beginning to grasp some basic aspects of.  It goes by many names: Fourth Generation War (4GW), ‘Futurewar’, another Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). Whatever you call it, it’s obvious that something fundamental in the way mankind fights itself is changing dramatically, and at times rapidly. I’ll be posting research, interesting links, and keeping you up to date with essays I write for my various classes.

So who am I?

Right now I’m a graduate student at the London School of Economics, studying history and international relations. My background is much the same, but the main difference is that I’ve generally focused on the past. In this blog I aim to write about the present, and especially the future evolution of war, warfare, and conflict. Some of my past professors who have particularly contributed to my current intellectual state include Frederic Smoler, Jefferson Adams, Christopher Coker, and Michael J. Williams.

Much of the inspiration (and for the first little while, I assume, some of the content) for this blog comes from John Robb’s absolutely fantastic Global Guerrillas. Robb is really at the cutting edge of what he’s deemed “open-source warfare,” and while his politics and mine clearly differ, it’s irrelevant to the larger points he has. Shlok Vaidya is also one of the thinkers at the forefront of 4GW and network-centric war. I’m just beginning this journey myself, so as I find new people, new insights, and new blogs, I’ll be sure to share them all with you. Thanks for reading.

This should be an interesting ride.