What Navy’s New Maritime Strategy Should Say

By and on March 11, 2015 at 5:50 PM
John Lehman fleet

The frigate Meyerkord; guided missile frigate John A. Moore, front row; battleship New Jersey, the aircraft carrier Midway and frigate Francis Hammond, center; fleet oiler Mispillion, rear on 7 July 1983.

It’s fair to say that John Lehman is the most influential Navy Secretary of the last half century. Under President Ronald Reagan, Lehman “had an almost revolutionary impact on the Navy,” according to naval expert Norm Polmar. Lehman drove hard and pushed to build what has become known as the 600-ship Navy. Lehman knows how a strategy can help force change. He and Rep. Randy Forbes, a vigorous naval advocate who chairs the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee, argue that the new Maritime Strategy, due for a Friday release, must offer a “clear roadmap” to “rebuild our sea services.” Read on. The Editor.

After years of ill-considered budget cuts and a focus on large-scale land wars, the U.S. Navy had entered a period of qualitative and quantitative decline, diminished readiness, and a lack of confidence in its own mission and capabilities.

Foreign adversaries seemed ascendant, including a radical theocracy in Iran and an expansionist Russia. Many American political leaders seemed resigned to a significantly reduced global role, and the Navy showed signs of abandoning its historic inclination toward an aggressive, offensive-minded spirit.

We refer not to the present day but rather to the late 1970s and early 1980s. Then, as now, the U.S. Navy faced a deteriorating international security environment, an aging and shrinking fleet, and an administration woefully inadequate to the tasks before it. Ronald Reagan’s ascension to the presidency and determination to reverse the country’s military decline required a new strategy for the Navy.

The 1982 Maritime Strategy offered a unique opportunity to translate Reagan’s vision for resurgent American power and restored national defense into an actionable plan for the Navy and Marines. It refocused the Navy on its offensive mission — to take the fight directly to the Soviet Union rather than to consign itself to simply transporting troops to the fight, as many even in the Navy’s leadership seemed resigned to do.

The document not only helped remind the service of its fighting spirit, but also sent a powerful signal to friend and foe alike that the service remained a force to be reckoned with. The 1982 Strategy would remain the essential blueprint for our Navy through the collapse of Communism and victory in the Cold War.

reprandyforbes

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

The release Friday of a new Maritime Strategy offers a similar opportunity to set a clear roadmap for our Navy, Marines and Coast Guard, one that will outlast the current administration and provide the intellectual firepower required to rebuild our sea services for the challenges ahead. To be successful, the new Maritime Strategy must contain four key elements.

Signaling. A key element of the 1982 Strategy was signaling America’s renewed commitment to robust naval power to both our adversaries and allies. The new Maritime Strategy must follow a similar path, clearly conveying to states like Russia, Iran and China our determination to maintain sufficient capacity to ensure access to the global sea-lanes, freedom of navigation, and a stable balance in key regions of the globe. As important, the document should offer allies and potential partners and unambiguous statement of U.S. support in the face of revisionist powers seeking to upend the peaceful, U.S.-backed order of the previous 70 years.

It must also include an expectation that the United States will continue to rely heavily on our allies and partners to provide significant naval contributions, both to regional challenges like Iran and China but also to global efforts like anti-piracy and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Budget Coherence. The new strategy must provide high-level thinking to inform the Sea Service’s annual budget proposals, which too often appear to be accounting exercises as much as realistic statements of military requirements. The new Maritime Strategy can lend coherence to the coming years’ budget proposals by clearly stating the nation’s expectations of the Navy-Marine Corps Team. For example, a candid statement of the challenge posed by Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD) systems can offer important legitimacy for existing and emerging countermeasures and strengthen the hand of those programs’ advocates inside the bureaucracy. A forward-looking approach toward something like unmanned carrier-launched strike assets would similarly assist the services, and Congress, in budget debates that could use a dose of strategic foresight and long-term thinking.

Implementation. The 1982 Strategy was unique in that it was not simply words. Rather, it offered specific guidance that could be easily operationalized and implemented far down the chain of command. Of course, the earlier strategy had important differences from today — for one, the 1982 version was classified, with an unclassified annex intended for public consumption, while today’s will be entirely public.

Nevertheless, the new strategy must convey to our sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen a series of specific guidances that can relate to their operational-level challenges and even be incorporated broadly into advanced training programs like Top Gun. Reiterating the service’s commitment to core competencies like amphibious assaults, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare, along with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities in those warfare areas, will provide the intellectual foundation our operator’s need to actually execute the missions of the future.

Holistic. Most importantly, the new Maritime Strategy must include all aspects of American naval power to be successful. The 1982 Strategy spoke not only to the role of the traditional sea services: It considered the role of the Air Force’s maritime aircraft and even attempted to account for the Army’s role in any future maritime conflict.

Success in future conflicts will be even more dependent on integrating the strengths of all our military services, from the Air Force’s long-range strike capabilities to the Army’s possible entrance into counter-A2/AD missions with a return to land-based anti-ship missions. The new strategy must reflect this reality and think holistically about the future face of warfare, where domains cannot be easily divided by military service and challenges like cyber-warfare and counter-space operations defy easy bureaucratic organization.

Our maritime services have a unique opportunity to accomplish something far too rare in today’s Washington: to create a lasting document that fully conveys American strategy and purpose to a world that has often been confused by recent U.S. strategic incoherence. The 1982 Maritime Strategy can serve as a useful example of a strategy document that made a significant contribution to the real-world success of U.S. national security policy. While much has changed in the three decades since that strategy was released, the need for a forcefully stated and clearly expressed U.S.  maritime strategy is timeless.

John F. Lehman served as Navy Secretary from 1981 to 1987. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) is Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Comments

  • Jawaralal_Schwartz

    Let’s hope that certain debaters, e.g., Republicans in Congress, avoid the outdated and wrong-headed focus on numbers of ships that Lehman made famous. Instead, we need to reflect the lethality and other facets of naval effectiveness of the platforms and systems we have and seek, vis-a-vis the likely (not worst) threat. Without these touchstones, refining the strategy becomes a largely political battle based on jobs production at the world’s highest cost per job. Pining for a 600, 500, or 400 ship navy would end up hosing yet again, the warfighters and the US taxpayers.

    • ycplum

      In general I agree, but Stupidity has no political boundaries.

  • Mitchell Fuller

    Quantity has a quality all its own. And whatever this quantity is, only about a third can be deployed at any one time.

  • originalone

    As each day goes by, reading all these different wants, needs, precautions, actions, deployments, I’m reminded of the 1983 movie “War Games”. Considering the U.S. appears to being led around by movie industry insofar as direction goes, as well as future toys too, the whole idea is insane. Consider also, the “Cold War”, Russia quit or went bankrupt, then asks the question, how long will it be before the U.S. reaches that same plateau? After all, no one country stays on top forever.

    • Michael Rich

      There is a difference between Russia’s Cold War collapse and the United States; the Soviets were spending 25%+ of their GDP on defense only to still come in below what the US was spending at 6-8%.

      • originalone

        Point well taken, but if you take away the credit card that’s paying for that 6-8% + interest, also that the debt is thrust upon the future generations to pay for the present generations folly, then the price is over that low %, also, considering the way the numbers are computed, you can’t really rely on accuracy.

        • vegass04 .

          But that debt isn’t produced only by defense budget.. As long as dollar is the world’s reserve currency there’s no worry for the US debt, FED can always print more money. If that wolds order ever becomes treathen, then all bets are off, you’re looking at a WW3 scenario for sure because if history ever thought us anything it is that great powers never gave their place peacefully..

      • ycplum

        Of course, our economy was in better condition at the start of the spending spree than it is now.

  • bobbymike34

    The current threat spectrum should have us returning to Cold War levels of spending of around 6% of GDP or just over $1Trillion. This should be the medium term goal in the 2020+ timeframe.

    • Jawaralal_Schwartz

      No. Zero base it and work it up. To derive the right spending level from a macro-economic formula reflects an Entitlement way of thinking. Have reasons. Otherwise, much of the funding will be wasted.

      • bobbymike34

        Yes because I have time to write my National Defense Posture review in the comment section here. Basically I want double the military force structure so I’m doubling the budget I’ll leave other to the nuts and bolts – signed Fake POTUS

    • H. H. GAFFNEY

      Let us not forget that Reagan approved John Lehman’s big increase in the Navy budget and number of ships by going deep into deficit and debt. He increased the debt by $4-6 trillion during his two terms, increased taxes 5 times and increased the debt ceiling 11 times. This was pretty bad back then — we worried about government spending and debt “crowding out” private investment, and interest rates were at least 7 percent during the ’80s (as opposed to near the zero-lower-bound of around 2 percent today). (I have only heard the term “crowding out” twice in the last 5 years). That means interest on the debt that Reagan incurred was far higher proportionately than at present (the $255 billion in interest to be paid in 2015 on the $18 billion debt represents only 1.4 percent of that debt). But if Reagan, Cheney, and George W. Bush said “deficits do not matter,” why don’t we take them at their word and go deeper into deficit now — we could build lots more ships and do a lot of fixing of U.S. infrastructure, all stimulating the economy (government spending has a multiplier). But if anyone thinks “the deficit and debt” is the greatest threat to America today, beyond nukes, terrorism, hybrid warfare, and the most terrifying military threat of all — asymmetrical warfare — then you can forget about more ships.

      • bobbymike34

        Reagan increased the debt $1.927 Trillion not $4 to $6 trillion. But I have no problem increasing the deficit by $100 Billion or so a year if the total investment is in defense (and some for NASA for cool stuff as well)

        • H. H. GAFFNEY

          And what about the deteriorating American transportation system? Nothing for that? More military ships are more important than the life of Americans?

          • bobbymike34

            This is a defense website, I don’t have time to introduce my entire reworking of government, society and the culture into the comment section.

      • John King

        The problem here is the military unnecessarily growing larger, when the real issue is its flexibility to adapt. All these “new” threats should be considered subsets within the existing U.S. military capability set. After all, are you saying the force structure ready to defeat the Soviets and Russians is incapable of taking on ISIS? Really? We don’t need more money and more toys. We just need to be more flexible in it application.

        • H. H. GAFFNEY

          I totally agree with you. We need deficit spending for much more needed things, like infrastructure, education, and innovation, especially with interest rates so low now and likely to remain so for years unless we can overcome the stagnation of the wages of 93 percent of the American taxpayers. They earn more, they pay more taxes, and that’s the way to relieve the deficit — i.e., we need real economic growth. By the way, of the $255 billion of interest to be paid on the debt in 2015, only $166 billion of that goes to “the public,” including foreign depositors. The rest goes back into the Federal government’s accounts (e.g., the Social Security Trust Fund).

          • John King

            And that little hidden scam (not acknowledging the “nonpublic” portion of the federal debt, which includes all the federal and military pensions) is just part of the various tricks the U.S, uses to manipulate it’s books. When combined with the Federal Reserve’s maintenance of interest rates at near zero for seven year, the U.S., not China, is the BIGGEST currency manipulator. If the interest rate was set at a nominal 5% (what I believe should be the standard bottom of a risk/cost based rate, the interest on the $18 trillion would rise to $900 billion a year, which is 150% the size of the Pentagon budget! And once people stop lending to the U.S.-and that should include all pension and mutual funds, as well as foreign governments-we’ll be glad we have a 200-ship navy!

          • H. H. GAFFNEY

            You must be dependent on interest payments for a substantial part of your income. The One Percent are screaming for increases in interest rates — they took the biggest hit during the Great Recession — but they continue to be the One Percent, holding 40 percent at least of American wealth. As far as not lending to the U.S. Treasury goes, please note that European banks are now charging people for buying their bonds, i.e., negative interest rates. But the U.S. is still paying nearly 2 percent on 10 year bonds — so guess where depositors may go to get SOME interest. I repeat: interest rates will not go up in the U.S. until wage stagnation is overcome and demand increases — not because “Wall Street” wants it.

          • John King

            The major of people penalized for near-zero interests rates are fixed income investors (of which I am not). The One Percent don’t bother to invest in low-return bonds; they invest in higher-return stocks, which help drive up stocks prices to absurd levels (too much money competing for too few good investments). Wage stagnation is NOT going away; not with 2 billion new workers from India, the Middle East, Africa and Central/South America coming online in the next ten years. That will keep wages low in the U.S. and further destroy the American middle class, which in turn is what drives consumer spending and the U.S. economy. I’m an independent, but even to me the only way to restart the American economy is to cut off imports and abrogate our trade treaties. The new wars are is not in the Middle East, fighting over religion. The new war is flags or logos. Do we want to support countries or companies?

          • Mike Maus

            We are still fighting the old war of Global Democracy versus intrenched conservative Corporatism. American working poor people and middle class tradespeople have been losing ground to both factions. Lately, the plutocratic corporatists have grasped wealth and control of the World’s economy in an iron fist. With their ‘hurry up and die’ attitude toward common people, we cannot envision the 1% as benign tyrants.

          • Curtis Conway

            I wonder if we have rediscovered STAGFLATION in another form.

        • FedUpWithWelfareStates

          …and to achieve this flexibility, we need a complete overhaul/re-organization of our current archaic military structure, based upon functional areas: 1-Fixed Wing Air Force, 1-Navy, 1-Conventional Ground Force, 1-Special Operations Force w/the USMC under them as their Amphibious Special Operations Force deployed on MEUs x 5, etc. Until wasteful military spending is brought under control & an honest approach (not the pie-in-the-sky dreams of futuristic billion dollar toys) to what our military should look like based on the actual threat to OUR National Security, we will continue with the status quo of trying to shore up the antiquated crumbling empires of yesterday…

          • John King

            You’re right, FedUp. And America is one of those crumbling empires. Protected by our two oceans we haven’t been at risk as much as Europe, but there is a new world and it isn’t us. Time to regroup.

  • Michael Rich

    I always wondered, why doesn’t the United States build heavy cruisers like the Kirov-Class? That monster pretty much out-guns anything we have today.

    • vegass04 .

      Because you would have like 3 of them (or in US case 3 of super expensive Zumwalts) in contrast to 50 Arleigh Burkes. But if you’re thinking 50 of Kirov class (or something newer ofcourse) then your looking at a 5-7 billion $ ship, witch is what the cancelled CG(X) would have costed.. So no, nobody will have dozens of Kirov class ships, ever…

    • ycplum

      Actually, the Soviet (now Russian) Kirov-class that I suspect your are referring to is considered to be a “battlecruiser” by the West, although the Soviets referred to it as a heavy guided-missile cruiser. There were WW II Kirov-class cruisers.
      .
      The Kirov was originally intended to act as a command and communication ship for a task force that was to hunt US missile boats. Soon after, it was intended to be a escort ship for planned Soviet aircraft carriers.
      .
      The US never bothered to introduce a surface combatant with that much anti-surface armaments because the philosophy at the time was for the aircrafts from aircraft carriers to be the offensive armament of the fleet. The Ticonderoga class cruisers were no pushovers. They simply did not have their armaments so obviously (and inefficiently) exposed.

      • Michael Rich

        Doesn’t the Kirov have double what the Ticonderoga class has? (Following might not be accurate, Source; Wikipedia)

        Looking at it on here it says:

        20 P-700 Granit supersonic anti-ship missiles (388mi Range compared to the Harpoon’s 170mi).

        96 S-300 SAM’s.

        128 3K95 (Tor) Point Defense.

        44 OSA MA Point Defense.

        6 Kashtan CIWS (I wonder why we only have two CIWS’s on our ships compared to the Russians, who go all out.).

        Looking at that thing, it’s an absolute beast in terms of offensive and defensive power. It kind of makes our cruisers seem small in comparison.

        @vegass04:disqus

        What we should have done was go all out with firepower and technology on the CG(X) and made 11 of them for CSG defense.

        • ycplum

          I said our cruisers were no pushovers, I didn’t say they were comparable. LOL The missions and situations are different.
          .
          Our cruisers are basically for air defense of the carrier with a command and control capability should they be part of a flotilla or squadron.
          .
          The Kirov has to have more missiles for its offensive system since the (planned) air arm of their fleet is smaller than ours. Their aircraft carriers would be smaller and planes less capable. Also, it needs more defensive systems while doing an anti-sub mission because it can’t depend on an air arm to provide top cover.
          .
          Long story short, the Kirov is geared more for independent operation while our cruisers and destroyers (and frigates) are geared more for integrated fleet operations. Think lone warrior vs a unit of trained soldiers. One on one, the warrior is superior, but a group of individual warriors gets chewed up when faced with trained soldiers that can work together.

  • H. H. GAFFNEY

    How is Rep. Forbes doing with his House Budget Committee and the House Appropriators? Hasn’t gotten very far so far. Will all the words of a new maritime strategy change their minds? We all know that the solution is to cut the taxes of rich Americans so America can grow again and provide lots of money for the Navy.

  • John Goldsworthy

    The absence of an effective American strategy and purpose is exactly what will lead to the result discussed by Alderic Au in the Aztlan Protocol.

    The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives coastal states an exclusive economic zone of two hundred nautical miles from their coast. These rules are being challenged by China because they produce the wrong result.
    Beijing’s urgency in building new islands is to establish new facts on the ground – on the islands in this case – to frustrate or at least blunt the application of UNCLOS.

    Only practical steps with a resolute message making it clear claims must be resolved under UNCLOS can prevent the creeping success of China’s claim.

    The eventual removal of the United States beyond the second island chain is a prerequisite to resolving matters to the PLA’s satisfaction. Their strategy is clear.

    In pursuing these goals, China is doing what every great power has done before; pursue their national interest resolutely.

    At some point in the next thirty years we may expect a ‘doctrine’ and it will not be Monroe’s.

    • Curtis Conway

      Amen, right on target.

  • John King

    Guessing the new maritime strategy will be as hollow as the new National Security Strategy. Only thing that changed was naming a few specific threats, which is not really the purpose of an overarching strategy. I do expect that the U.S. needs to make those allies and partners a formal part of any strategy and not just in name. That is, we need to form joint multinational forces to regularly patrol key sea lanes, not just American navy ones. And that’s not just strategic, it’s fiscally responsive to budget cut environment. Remember, U.S. is in hole $18 trillion with no way to ever pay it off. The lack of money make us more resourceful and provides evidence that we squandered good money when we had too much. Take LCS for example. Instead of developing new 55-ship program that has produced a questionable science experiment (and for one model, a maintenance nightmare), we should have saved the development money and just bought 20 more, fully-capable DDG-51s. Then worried about any quantity gap.

    • Curtis Conway

      John, When defining strategy we are supposed to look at environments we wish to preserve and promote, then put a policy in place that promotes and stimulates activity that results in those goals. Today, the current administration’s strategy, being graded through the lens of ‘hind sight is 20/20’, is one that has had an antithetical effect to promoting democracies, and being there for our friends and Allies. We now find ourselves in the unenviable environment that has our enemies growing and getting stronger, and our Allies no longer trusting us. Most of the administrations words and promises are hollow, and threats have no teeth . . . unless its domestic policy and they are dealing with Citizens. Ain’t supposed to be this way!

      • John King

        I basically agree, Curtis. But I see our “allies” NOT putting their money where their “security interests” are. That is, they want to spend their money at the mall and on new cars and NOT on national defense. They want U.S. to pay for them. We need to stop coddling them and just charge them outright. And NATO is the biggest welfare queen of them all!

        • Curtis Conway

          It’s like the US Foreign Policy in the Iraq/Afghan region. We had a very specific policy that was working. We almost brought Iran to their knees, and how did this administration react ? . . . it ignored the situation, and let the candle of liberty that had been lit, at great expense to the US Taxpayers, and sacrifice by our troops (and population), was not just SQUANDERED by this administration, but totally ignored. That is unconscionable.

          The United States should have a foreign policy that is coherent, direct, well thought out with a specific goal in mind, that the entire country can get behind. This administration basically “Pushed the Reset Button” on EVERYTHING, withdrew our troops, and ships from most patrol stations, and the vacuum created has been filled. The current geopolitical situation around the globe for all freedom loving people is in the same boat full of holes now . . . and this administration looks on . . . as the chaos continues. I’m ashamed as a Christian and a Citizen of These United States of America.

          NATO is stepping up slowly, but there is only so much they can do in the short term, and Putin holds the key to a significant about of their energy. The EU could invest in developing the oil & gas fields in Ukraine, while they come to the rescue of their Neighbor. However, being a Good Neighbor has not always been a strong suit in Europe HiStorically.

          In the South China Sea the Chinese have made their intentions clear today in response to a post on USNI News:

          CHINESE INTENTIONS IN THE SOUTH CHINA
          SEA

          “America is the one who had upset the status quo by declaring that it would “pivot” 60% of its naval assets to the West Pacific. America is obviously taking sides against China by inciting false claims by its
          Filipino and Japanese client states on historical Chinese sovereign
          territories. America is now unhappy because China has risen up to the challenge and began to exercise its big economic muscle by manufacturing more ships, planes, missiles, etc. China has also started the process of creating islands
          in the S. China Sea which will ultimately be turned into powerful military bases that will give China the edge in terms of proximity over the aggressors. So the US is now attempting to get China to unilaterally back down in
          militarization. With Hu-Wen rabbits gone from the Chinese government, hopefully the new Xi government will have a little stiffer backbone and continue the rightful defense of the Chinese sovereignty over the South Sea.

          China’s sovereignty over the South Sea is indisputable. China must now declare that it withdraws the offer of joint development. Henceforth China will defend its sovereignty with military power and not with bribes.

          ASEAN was created by America during the Vietnam War era to
          contain China. But times has changed. ASEAN is now just a relic of the past. America certainly does not control ASEAN. Of the 10 ASEAN members, Laos,
          Cambodia and Thailand are good friends with China and understand that their future lies with China. Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia understand they cannot challenge China with impunity. They are also Muslim countries who do not like
          America. As China’s power and wealth increases and as America’s technologies and economy falls further back relative to China, they will lean toward China. They understand that America can leave South Sea but they cannot leave and so must seek accommodation with China. Singapore is mostly ethnic Chinese. Singapore is now pro-America because it needs the protection of the US against
          its biggest threats who are Malaysia and Indonesia. But once China can control Malaysia and Indonesia, then Singapore will naturally pivot toward China for its own survival. Burma is now falling apart and cannot be of any use to the US militarily or economically. The Burma government and people think they can get limitless help from America like decades ago. But they are only being ignorant not realizing that America now relies on Chinese trade and Chinese purchase of American national debt to survive. After a few more years these ignorant Burmese will wake up to the realization that they will not be getting any help
          from America. Then they will crawl meekly back to China begging for help. So that leaves only Vietnam and Philippines. But who cares about these deadbeats? They are the poorest of the ASEAN countries. If China ignored them they will simply sink and disappear. China can leave them to America who will quickly
          turn them into the equivalent of Haiti and Liberia.

          The article of this thread is about the American Secdef haranguing the Chinese not to militarize the South Sea. But Conway here is voicing the opposite of wanting the US to militarize the South Sea. This exposes the real “dog in the fight” to be the US.

          All territories in the South Sea within the 9-Dotted Line are China’s sovereign territories. No aggressors can give any of these islands or atolls to anybody. Therefore, even if Vietnam or Philippines gave any islands to the US it is baseless. Such an act will only accelerate the
          militarization of the South Sea. China’s island building has already progressed to a significant extent with Yongshu Island now reaching an area of some 3 square kilometers and big enough for a powerful airbase. A runway of some 3 km
          in length is already under construction and could be expected
          to be completed within a year. Several other islands already have permanent housings, factories, etc. constructed and will begin production to manufacture materials for the construction of bases on the principle islands. Within 3 years by the end of 2017, China will have several indestructible military bases
          with hundreds of 4th and even 5th generation fighters, bombers, missiles, etc. Not even if America deployed all its 11 carrier battle groups against these island bases can it succeed in establishing control of the South Sea.

          Lastly, America simply does not have the money to build very
          expensive island bases in the South Sea. American economy is still very fragile and ironically relies on the Chinese purchase of American national debts to get by. Rand Paul has proposed cutting the education, food stamp and many other things. So obviously America does not have the money to build very expensive
          military bases in the South Sea against China. All it will do is initiate an arms race that the US cannot win. And ultimately, America will go down like the USSR. Times has changed. America’s day of unchallenged military power is now gone. Those Americans who still think of America only needs to send in its carrier battle groups to dominate a region is now out of touch with reality.

          China has indeed become very powerful compared to its puny
          neighbors. But it is not China who has aggressed against its puny neighbors. On the contrary, it is the puny neighbors of China who have been emboldened by America to commit aggressions against China’s sovereign territories. China has
          not expanded its territories into the sovereign territories of its puny
          neighbors. Therefore, it is a lie to say China has “intrusively” “intimidated” its neighbors. It is the puny neighbors who had erroneously underestimated China’s military power thinking it is still weak
          like it was decades ago and can be invaded with impunity.”

          Well . . . The Dragon Has Spoken. Better pay attention!

  • mustard_gun

    Let me get this straight. The new strategy should:

    – Recognize / send message to our enemies and allies;
    – Set actual priorities;
    – Contain specific guidance on implementation;
    – Consider roles of other services.

    Basically the new Maritime Strategy should be an actual strategy! Unlike the “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (2007)” which isn’t really a strategy at all. More of a bland, glossy brochure full of hopes, dreams and pixie dust.

    • ycplum

      Actually, it said the new strategy should “contain” those items, not that those items were the actual strategy.

    • subee7

      We need to protect the American citizens inside and out. Shut off the UN and stop Obamas connection to them…stop security leaks and punish those who do them. We have the enemy within and the enemy without. Wake up America and see what is going on.

      • On Dre

        More tinfoil for this guy. He needs it.

  • 10579

    Not to worry people.Obama wants our new navy to be like the one in the 1983 picture above.Pretty soon we will be getting new weapons called stix and stones.Just saying.

  • LCLBOTELHO

    Dear sirs
    On the face of the “killer” costs to maintain a “Napoleonic Time” naval force of the planned size on this 21 century ,there is no way out to ever accept them as a feasible effective millitary strategy .The only possible strategy is to relay deeply on joint naval multinational forces and UN security Council and UN assembly Politics (sanctions and isolation as “punishments” ).

    • vegass04 .

      Sure, UN security council is the way to go, especially when 2 of the members that are your potential adversary have veto power.. Wake up, UN never helped anyone. Rwanda, Croatia and Bosnia come to mind…

      • Curtis Conway

        How about Crimea? And next Ukraine!

    • Joe Schmoe

      Not UN, NATO.

  • Reginald Bronner

    The 600-ship Navy comprised of weapon systems for fighting the extension of a WWII – Vietnam era collapsed from its own weight as soon as Reagan was out of office. We took an enormous hit in our economy and the defense industry lost their manufacturing teat and ultimately had to turn to foreign customers for their outmoded prodcuts. We need to look ahead with new eyes not be tied to the old defense characters, lobbyists, and corrupt congressmen. We reallly do not need an extra 3,000 Abrams tanks or shall-water warships which really only targets anyway.
    .

  • Curtis Conway

    In the light of the “Holistic Approach”, in my humble opinion, until a Joint Electronic Warfare Commander is established for maintenance of the database, coordination of joint & Allied system employment, joint training requirements in exercises, and development of future equipment and requirements, the advantage we seek will allude us. The Electronic Warfare (EW) Programs Council does not go far enough. Electronic
    Maneuver Warfare (EMW) is a bigger nut than that, and I project the council will not crack it.

    The Electromagnetic Spectrum is, and will remain unchanged. Our forces increased understanding of it, and the synergistic effect control over it, will enable victory. The Old Crows are going to have to step out from the rear (support role) and move closer to the front. We simply must grow in this direction before eventual introduction of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) makes their big debut in combat in a big way.

  • Mike Maus

    This is more from the personality cult ‘Reagan said it and that settles it’. What about Reagan and Ollie North and his support of right-wing drug lords in Central America?