In President Obama's commencement speech today at the Naval Academy (where, among other things, he shook the hand of Sen. John McCain's son, a graduate of the academy this year), he focused on the unorthodox missions that the Navy needs to face these days.
So much print has focused on the buzz words of a new era - asymmetric war, counterinsurgency, etc. - in the arena of land warfare. The Navy, with its enormous aircraft carriers and submarines, seem far behind when viewed from that prism.
The pirate problems in Somalia have been a great wake-up call to the Navy that they are going to need to adapt as much as their land-bound military cousins have. In some ways, the situation in Somalia is an ideal way for the US Navy to cut its teeth in fighting an unorthodox foe who, while dangerous, doesn't represent the kind of challenge al Qaeda does.
The Barbary Wars had a similar role for America back in the early 1800s as well. The U.S. saw that war as an opportunity to train its navy for the war everyone knew was going to happen against Great Britain.
Let's hope the U.S. Navy is looking at Somalia as an opportunity and not just a fight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Your title implies that Obama is telling the US Navy things they don't already know.
Perhaps I'm being unfair to you by pointing out that the USN was conducting all these operations long before the current Commander in Chief arrived in the Oval Office.
And while I'm no fan of the current administration, I'm confident Obama didn't intend his words to be a lecture. When I heard the speech, I interpreted it more as an acknowledgment of the USN's various missions.
As to the adaption faced by the USN, I think you underestimate how much more flexible the Navy and Marines are than their land-bound counterparts.
Given the emphasis on air power, recon and speed that counterinsurgency and 4G warfare require, it would be hard to imagine a better force than a Marine Expeditionary Unit backed up with SEAL teams and a carrier battle group. (Note that this is for warfare. peacekeeping or nation building is not a good choice for the military as currently configured and trained.)
Add this to the immense amount of experience that the navy's guided missile cruisers and destroyers have gained in the Med and Red Sea over the last decades, sniping at the Iranians, escorting tankers, etc etc
I think the Navy does face a challenge in coping with the Somali pirates, but I don't think they have to learn as much or make as many changes as you do.
In fact, you've previously argued that the solution is far more likely to be political, not military, and I think I agree with that.
(I'll grant you the boomers aren't as useful now as they used to be, though.)
Thanks, MeatAxe. Good thoughts. As with almost any presidential speech, the intended audience is a whole range of people beyond just those he's addressing. I believe Obama was speaking to the US, pirates, al Qaeda, etc., as much as he was to those cadets that the US is adjusting and is ready to fight in very different territory.
As to the Navy's readiness, it's a powerful force that has an array of very effective tools. But this issue is also about mindset, about developing skills and tools that are commensurate with the situations the US is facing today - ie. we don't need as much emphasis on carrier groups and boomers.
I actually think the Somali pirates don't offer the navy much of a challenge. But they do offer an opportunity for the navy to try to try out counterinsurgency tactics they need to adopt to become a more effective fighting force. As you said, they've gained valuable experience in the Med and Red Sea. What I'm saying is that this an opportunity to gain a new kind of experience.
I changed the title of my original post, MeatAxe. You're right that it was misleading.
Post a Comment