New Maritime Strategy to Focus on 'Soft Power' (Washington Post)

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
1

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101700536.html?hpid=moreheadlines%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101700536.html?hpid=moreheadlines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The U.S. military plans to unveil a new maritime strategy today -- its first created jointly by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard -- shifting from a narrow focus on sea combat toward one that also emphasizes the use of "soft power" to counter terrorism and deliver humanitarian assistance. </p>

<p>The strategy, shaped by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the wars that followed, stresses preventing conflict as much as winning wars, and recognizes that "no one nation" can secure the world's waters against terrorism and other threats....

[/quote]
</p>

2

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>"Soft power, the humanitarian and economic efforts, have been elevated to the same level as high-end naval warfare, . . . In addition, the strategy calls for dispersing smaller maritime teams to carry out humanitarian missions as well as to counter terrorism, weapons proliferation, piracy and other illicit maritime activities -- partly in order to contain local threats before they can reach the United States. These teams, which would integrate Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard forces, would deploy to areas such as Africa and the western hemisphere to promote closer cooperation with maritime forces in other nations. </p>

<p>This sure seems to diverge from the path upon which the Academy has been set.</p>

3

<p>wonder what that does for several of the "secondary, optional and conditional" humanitarian-focused activities!</p>

<p>"soft power"....
have always believed in the philosophy of "walk softly but carry a big stick"
and "the power of words."</p>

<p>thanks GA and bill- interesting indeed.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
This sure seems to diverge from the path upon which the Academy has been set.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would not be the first time in our nation’s history where one part or another was out of sync/phase with pending changes especially when those changes are advanced by competing interests or entities, sometimes from within the same organization. </p>

<p>One of the things I found most amusing during my time of public service was the assumption on the part of many, constituents and press that things happen in government through the close cooperation and the coordination of efforts, including those that involve so called “conspiracies”. In reality, most things happen as often without any such control and communications between responsible agencies; officers etc. and most conspiracies were in fact conspiracies of incompetence rather than the malicious contrivance of events that some think makes for good press. </p>

<p>Though I have read little about it, I have to say this approach is a somewhat refreshing change from the “bomb them into the stone age” approach we’ve seen in the past. Our safety as a nation will never be secured by our ability to use force at will. Deterrence may work for nations with assets at risk, it’s doesn’t have any impact on the behavior of terrorists.</p>

5

<p>The part about conspiracies of incompetence couldn't be more accurate about governmental service.</p>

<p>I was, occasionally, shocked at what competing [were we competing?] agencies would do that was divergent from our mission.
THEN you read about it in the press and you wonder if you were they were reporting the same set of circumstances in whic you participated.</p>

<p>Interesting, nonetheless, that CNO does not seem to interpret "nation at war" in the same way the Supt. does.</p>

6

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_maritimestrategy_071017/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_maritimestrategy_071017/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In the first major revision of U.S. naval strategy in 25 years, maritime officials said Wednesday they plan to focus more on humanitarian missions and improving international cooperation as a way to prevent conflicts.</p>

<p>“We believe that preventing wars is as important as winning wars,” said the new strategy announced by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.</p>

<p>The strategy reflects a broader Defense Department effort to use aid, training and other cooperative efforts to encourage stability in fledgling democracies and create relationships around the globe that can be leveraged if a crisis does break out in a region....

[/quote]
</p>

7

<p>If I understand correctly the current Supe was assigned by the "old" CNO with a new CNO taking over the position in the past several weeks. It has been suggested many times that Adm. Mullen, the previous CNO, would have advised Adm. Fowler about what he felt needed to be changed at the Academy. Would Adm.Roughead, as incoming CNO, have had any input into the process/decisions? Would the decision even have been made in June, when Fowler took over, about who would follow Adm. Mullen?</p>

8

<p>Admiral Roughead was Commandant at USNA during the previous tightening of the reins.</p>

9

<p>Yes, I know...so do you think then that he had some influence into what the focus of the Administration is now? I'm really not argueing anything here....just trying to get a better understanding of how the decision-making process has gone before this. </p>

<p>In a perfect world, all the involved, or even soon-to-be-involved parties would be on the same page so as to promulgate the same message. However, the discussion prior to my post seems to be that all the "parties" do not always "talk" much less reach a consensus...I'm just curious from those on this list whether they think that in this situation, that is, a new Administration coming on-board at the Naval Academy, whether perhaps there would have been some "meeting of the minds?" Just my inquiring mind.....</p>

10

<p>From past experience, it would be my guess that this strategy has been developed over the past several months (4-6). Any guidance given the incoming Fleet Commanders and maybe the Supe probably reflected this new strategy.</p>

11

<p>Indeed. He presided over much reign tightening and whip cracking. After he took over, my roommates and I complained constantly about how his new policies weren't in sync with the lifestyle refected in the admissions catalog.</p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

12

<p>^^^^^^^^ I would bet that your parents also got involved. They probably complained to their congressmen, contacted newspaper reporters, and maybe even attended the Board of Visitors meeting.</p>

13

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/navy_marinedetachments_071017/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/navy_marinedetachments_071017/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Expect to see Marine detachments on a “wider variety” of ships and Coast Guard cutters, according to the sea services’ new maritime strategy.</p>

<p>“Marines will continue to be employed as air-ground task forces operating from amphibious ships to conduct variety of missions, such as power projection,” the strategy says. “But they will also be employed as detachments aboard a wider variety of ships and cutters for maritime security missions.”...

[/quote]
</p>

14

<p>If we are going to attempt to dissect this “Soft Power” strategy relative to it’s application and divergence to what we may feel are inconsistencies in the changes underway at the Academy you have to make some assumptions about the reasons underlying the changes. How much of the changes are truly being driven around the “Nation at war philosophy” vs. a response/back lash to the actions of a few and bad press the Academy has received during the past few years. It’s possible as events unfold and the changes evolve we will conclude there is not much inconsistency in the policy relative to what is being taught and the kind of education they graduate with. I think this Nation at War approach is more about their interest in making members of the Brigade understand the potential sacrifices that lay ahead. Some of it may also be useful as a cover, rather than come out and say we’re doing this because of what has happened over the past few years etc. you say instead we’re going to make changes based on our status as a nation at war. </p>

<p>One thing I’d like to throw out for discussion about the this Soft Power approach, while I certainly feel it is an appropriate change in our policy and will hopefully help improve our security and relations with nations around the world; I can’t help thinking that it also has the potential to dramatically increase the number of causalities we will see in the near term. When you send men and women into the field, off ships and out of more secure environments, you have the opportunity to make contact with both good and bad guys. The folks we are fighting don’t look at the potential for collateral damage as a bad thing….it’s their goal. </p>

<p>Along these lines I was reading about the riverine patrol boats and the associated missions of maritime security and thinking, man these guys are exposed, small boat, no place to go, close to shore; it won't take much. The more time we spend close to people we are trying to win over, the higher the price is going to be.</p>

15

<p>zoom....very interesting and a perspective that I had not thought about. One would hope (and I can't help but be hopeful) that in the short term the price may be higher, but in the long-term, having a connection with the local population will help them take ownership of the situation. I've heard that this strategy is working in some parts of Iraq, i.e. Fallujah, although it took some time to achieve. </p>

<p>No matter which "side" you are on in the "Supe's new strategy" debate I'm confident that the Mids are learning how to adapt in a "new" environment and still work to achieve their goals, whatever those goals may be. And that may be the biggest lesson of all. The troops on the ground have done a tremendous job of adapting to a war that is fluid with an ever changing enemy. I've had the pleasure of speaking with a Class of '96 Marine who confirmed to me that the boots on the ground are doing an impressive job of changing tactics, altering equipment and thinking outside the box in order to achieve their mission. I'd like to think that the PTB are seeing this and are using this same strategy to address the bigger picture. As always, time will tell.</p>

16

<p>If the headlines tomorrow announced that attrition at the Navy Nuclear Power School had reached an all time high because, instead of going to class and studying, the students were working in HfH and soup kitchens, due to the NPS Commander's decision to follow the new CNO's guidelines of "soft power",we would all be up in arms due to the waste of taxpayer's money. NPS and USNA are training environments, environments where students are expected to expend long hours in order to excel. Neither would a combatant ever depart a critical mission in Iraq to go build houses in South America.It is all priorities. No misinterpretation. No Supt "marching to his own drum", defying the new CNO. There is a curriculum and a regimented lifestyle which Adm Fowler feels is not conducive to many ECs, humanitarian ones included, and requires the full attention of the Brigade. It is not the fact that they are humanitarian, but that they are "secondary, .......". There is a time and place for everything. USNA, today, Adm Fowler obviously feels, is not the time or place to showcase humanitarian efforts. </p>

<p>If "soft power" were the sole goal of the Navy, we would be sending our midshipmen to schools to learn carpentry, masonry, plumbing, and electrical trades, instead of sending them to USNA to learn to be military officers.</p>

<p>All of this should be fairly obvious, but to those who suddenly realize that the riverine forces are more likely to draw hostile fire than a frigate sitting 50 miles off the coast, it may be an eye opener.</p>

<p>OBTW, it continues to puzzle me that those who feel that the Navy is a "conspiracies of incompetence" led by examples of the Peter Principal in action, can, in good faith and with a positive attitude, support their midshipmen and their career choice, much less be a part of the selection process for future Naval officers.</p>

17

<p>Words from a great leader...something we all should live by... an open mind. </p>

<p>'Your mind is like a parachute. If it won't open when you need it, it is not much good.' I have an open mind," he said at his confirmation hearing. "My minister said that the difference between a eulogy and a testimonial is that in the case of the testimonial there is one man in the audience who believes it." Admiral William J. Crowe Jr.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Adm. Crowe had long sailed an independent course.

[/quote]
Much prefer the independent course...</p>

18

<p>His career was certainly an exception to the typical path.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
OBTW, it continues to puzzle me that those who feel that the Navy is a "conspiracies of incompetence" led by examples of the Peter Principal in action, can, in good faith and with a positive attitude, support their midshipmen and their career choice, much less be a part of the selection process for future Naval officers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am equally puzzled by those that choose to respond to carefully selected fragments of posts, strung together in such a way as to create a more controversial statement and then taking the time to structure a response based on that; it’s kinda like arguing with yourself. </p>

<p>If you actually took the time to read the posts before running off on the first sentence that you objected to and instead of wasting time formulating a crafty and condescending remark you might actually see the points people we trying to make. The fact remains while people often choose to see conspiracies, behind every action or failure to act, the reality is within a government, especially a large one with competing interests, more often than not, the so called conspiracy is nothing more than a failure to communicate or worse, cooperate. </p>

<p>To answer your rhetorical question about how we are parents can be critical at times and still supportive, I’m sorry but I cannot fathom how that question that would come to mind. We don’t have to agree with the changes or polices to know that we still have a responsibility to support our sons and daughters, the institution and ultimately this nation. The ability to disagree and still work towards a common goal is among the most fundamental of tenants that exists within our political system and society. Complaining and then doing nothing is one thing, how better to respond to a perceived short coming than by providing a critical assessment as well as your son or daughter to help. Those that question patriotism because of a failure to succumb to group think on an issue are the ones whose patriotism is in question. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If "soft power" were the sole goal of the Navy, we would be sending our midshipmen to schools to learn carpentry, masonry, plumbing, and electrical trades, instead of sending them to USNA to learn to be military officers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me see if I can craft an appropriate response using your approach as a template…</p>

<p>It doesn’t work that way. We would never send our mids to school learn carpentry, masonry etc. After graduation we would send them in country to engage the local population. Then we would award a 50 million dollar non competitive sole source contract to a politically connected construction company to build a few dozen shanties that you or I could put up for 10 or 20 thousand each. At this point our sons and daughters will be watching as the contractors, grunts banging nails into 2x4’s are making 4 to 5 times their pay. A congressional visit will prompt additional security concerns resulting in a 100 million dollar contract to be awarded to GreyWater industries. Heavily armed security contractors will be dispatched and deployed for our sons and daughters to watch make 9-10 times their salary. </p>

<p>At some point because of a failure to communicate the security contractors accidentally discharge all 62 of their weapons, on average using 7 magazines each. This accidental discharge results in the death of the civilian population we were tasked with winning over. Without a resident population the shanties we just constructed are obviously of no use so another contract is released for their demolition. </p>

<p>At this time an Actor Activist touring the country suggests we reutilize the shanties and instead relocate a neighboring tribe that is being persecuted. The Actor holds a press conference once he returns home and the suggestion is picked up by a congressional committee resulting in the eventual relocation of that neighboring tribe. Unfortunately since any emphasis on cultural education was diminished at the academies and the State department and the Presidents Security council started feuding over who had authority in this instance, no one considered the fact that the tribe we were relocating was the sworn enemy of all the remaining tribes in the surrounding region. </p>

<p>Once the relocation is complete civil war breaks out. The bad news is thousand die, the good news our defense contractors along with those of our allies win significant contracts to supply weapons to the central government. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea reap the benefits of arm sales to the insurgents. Thousands more die. Congress and the President create 5 committees to study the debacle while each takes turns condemning the other while the killing continues. Eventually 9266 pages of testimony and reports are issued and placed into documents that no one ever reads.</p>

<p>That’s how it’s done.</p>

20

<p>Maritime strategy suggests larger role for Corps in security at sea</p>

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/navy_marinedetachments_071020w/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/navy_marinedetachments_071020w/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Leathernecks could deploy aboard various Navy and Coast Guard ships to provide force protection and conduct boardings at sea, according to language in the sea services’ new maritime strategy. The announcement comes nine years after the Corps disestablished its shipboard Marine detachments.</p>

<p>“Marines will continue to be employed as air-ground task forces operating from amphibious ships to conduct variety of missions, such as power projection,” says the maritime strategy, released by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard on Oct. 17. “But they will also be employed as detachments aboard a wider variety of ships and cutters for maritime security missions.”...

[/quote]
</p>