Lanes, Lies, Power, and Politics - Biden's NatSec Problem

The United States' Secretary of State, Tony Blinken - again the Secretary of State - is so out of his lane right here it is hard to tell if he even knows what his lane is as our chief diplomat.

This opinion of his - which in this venue is now American policy because he said it - is so firmly in the Secretary of Defense's lane that it almost defines it.

Once again, where is Secretary of Defense Austin? His ongoing silence and supine posture as the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor continue to steal his lunch money and girlfriends out in the open is not just professionally embarrassing - it endangers the nation and our allies.

Give it a listen. In essence he states  the United States wouldn’t be able to support Ukraine if we were still in Afghanistan and that we cannot support two allies at once.

Either Blinken is speaking with authority on something he knows nothing about, he is simply lying in order to cover yet another policy disaster, or the American public has been fooled in to supporting a military industrial complex that exists for fun and profit - and ready for not much more than imperial policing. 

I'll let you decide.

Our footprint in AFG, before our negotiated surrender on par with the Confederate surrender of Vicksburg to the Union Army, was incredibly small. We did not need to expend Javelin nor Stinger nor Harpoon missiles nor tens of thousands of 105mm and 155mm artillery rounds a month in Afghanistan. 

Nope.

We have the largest defense budget in the world. AFG was an economy of force operation at the extreme and almost none of what UKR needs - besides a few helicopters - was needed by the ANSF to keep the Taliban at bay.

We have global alliances where we have obliged our nation to go to war to defend dozens of nations.

So, we finally admit to imperial overreach? We are admitting that our defense budget is laden with waste, fraud, and bloated workforce not ready to do the absolute minimum?

Is that what he is admitting?

If we are unable to support two allies in small to medium wars, then how in the hell will we be prepared to fight against the People's Republic of China in the Western Pacific?

So, the Military Has a Vaccine Mandate Coming Up?

Yesterday, SECDEF Austin put out the memo we all knew was coming.

General Mark A. Milley, USA, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, followed up with his own memo that had a handwritten note at the bottom. (NB: old trick knowing that most military eyes will glaze over the typed word, but if in a hurry, will read what is written by hand by the author).

His note is, really, all you need to know.

“Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is a key force protection and readiness issue.”

The military has a long history of over compensating when it comes to vaccinations. I have been vaccinated against everything from chicken pox to small pox and everything in between. When wandering through refuge camps, hospitals, and orphanages in Afghanistan, we’d joke that we had nothing to worry about as we had enough vaccines and mercury in our bodies that we were pretty much immortal.

Why is the military like this? We know our history. 

For most of military history at sea and ashore, even at war it isn’t the waging of war that kills most of your people and makes unite combat ineffective, it is disease and the environment. Only in modern times has that changed, and it has changed because of advances in the understanding, technology, and practice of medicine and public health. Vaccines are part of that. We don’t need to review biological warfare – Mother Nature is scary enough on her own.

This is nothing new. Here is what is new; usually the military is ahead of the civilian population when it comes to vaccines. We are society’s guinea pigs. That isn’t the case here. 

In 2021, hundreds of millions of people in and out of the military have taken the vaccines. We roughly know the dangers of it and COVID-19. We know the risks; we know the rewards. We also know that we need ships to go to sea, aircrew to fly, and armies need to take the field. They can’t do that with a force crippled by disease outbreaks. They will happen anyway, but they need to be mitigated and blunted. That is what vaccines are for.

We need people who get sick to get back as soon as practical and with as little long-term impact on their health as possible. That is what vaccines do.

COVID-19 isn’t going anywhere, but the US military is.

We will have a few personnel who have medical reasons not to get the vaccine – but they are incredibly small and known. Unless you are one of those who can trip in to anaphylactic shock or are pregnant (I am in favor of that exemption) then something like MILPERSMAN 1900-120 comes in to play.

General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions.

Do it quickly and get it done.

We have work to do.

Ukraine Back in the Scan

I thought that we would have plenty to white space to concentrate on the start of what will be an interesting start to the fighting season in Afghanistan as we try to unwind our intervention there, but alas ... the Russians seem to have other plans, as we noticed yesterday.

~70 miles east of the Ukrainian border.

Engineers with their bridging kit.

Hey @thinkdefence - how often does a western nation have that much river crossing equipment together in that volume? https://t.co/5fsbafGRNw

— cdrsalamander (@cdrsalamander) March 31, 2021

We are in the golden age of OSNIT, but traditional news is reporting on this as well.

Ukraine demanded on Thursday that Russia halts escalating military tensions and reaffirms its commitment to a ceasefire in the eastern Donbass region.

Kyiv had earlier accused Moscow of building up military forces near their shared border, and saying that pro-Russian separatists were violating a ceasefire.

"Russia's current escalation is systemic, largest in recent years," Ukraine's Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said in a statement. 

"Russia's actions have brought the situation to a dead end. The only way out is diplomacy," Kuleba added, assuring that Ukraine preferred talks to violence. 

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recorded hundreds of ceasefire violations in the past few days, including 493 on March 26 alone.

In a smart move, SECDEF Austin notes that we are, after all, watching with interest.

I had a productive call with Ukrainian Minister of Defence Andrii Taran today. We discussed regional security, and I reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. pic.twitter.com/yzui8hki2W

— Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) April 1, 2021

History has her own plans ... but let's hope this is nothing more than spring positioning.

More interesting OSNIT,

Biden's Preliminary NATSEC Direction and Guidance

Did you catch Biden's speech where he introduced him nomination for Secretary of Defense?

In it, if you look at a certain angle, you can see an outline of what you can expect from him - broadly - for national security priorities.

I have quotes and details over at USNIBlog.

Come by and give it a read and tell me what you think.

Michèle Flournoy's Neo-Rumsfeldism

For most of the last decade, I have heard nothing but good things about Michèle Flournoy. Indeed, she's been making appearances on this blog since 2008. 

The fact she's been soaking in national security issues for decades and is highly respected is a given - but this article by Aarn Mehta gives me great pause. 

As I read this, I was reminded that it was twenty years ago that the greatest advocate for Transformationalism came in to power and drove it through the Navy and other services; Donald Rumsfeld. He meant well (and for the record I am a fan of a man as imperfect as I am), but the ideas he proposed - well known to readers here - threw away decades of evolutionary progress in weapons development, assumed risk away, and acted that just by saying it - things would happen. Transformationalism is attractive; an almost religious belief in the power of technology; an amost mystical attraction to the syren song of the well briefed "cusp of being operational" PPT brief; an impatience with the plodding, slow, and tedious work of building billion dollar systems in an effective manner.  

Let's review why I'm concerned; we've seen this movie before:

The next U.S. defense secretary must be prepared to invest heavily in game-changing technology, even if it comes at the cost of existing capabilities

Why are we not a learning institution?

“I think there’s, sort of, two parallel efforts that have to happen. One is investments that may take a decade to be fully realized and integrated into the force. Another is the question of, what can we do in the next five years with what we have, but use it differently,” she explained.

This is true, but has always been true. If Flournoy just stayed here ... she'd be a world winner ... but no:

“Defense budgets are probably going to flatten in the coming years, no matter who wins the election,” Flournoy said. “That means you have to make trade-offs and you have to make hard decisions, which means you probably need to buy fewer legacy forces in order to invest in the technologies that will actually make the force that you keep more relevant, more survivable, more combat effective, and better able to underwrite deterrence.”

What a cancerous idea to keep injecting in to our veins. This is exactly what had us sinking SPRUANCE Class destroyers and PERRY Class frigates with years to a decade of usable service ahead of them for the promise of LCS that still has not been fulfilled. It is what had us clunkingly restart DDG-51 production when we no longer could lie our way out of DDG-1000's failure anymore. What has our TICONDEROGA CG limping in to their dotage without effective replacement.

...there is a “whole laundry list” of future technologies on which to make big bets, Flournoy highlighted two she considers particularly important. The first is a “network of networks” for secure communications as well as command and control that can survive an attack from any domain — space, air, naval, land and cyberspace — that China could seek to use.

If we hedge everything to "Network Centric Warfare" we will first be made blind and mute. Then we will find ourselves lost and impotent. Then we will be killed.

In a peer war, we will not have unobstructed access to the electromagnetic spectrum and satellite vox/data. If everything rides on the assumption we do, we will lose. 

“We need a command-and-control system that is powered by artificial intelligence to enable that kind of resilience in a much more contested environment,” Flournoy explained.

Oh, hell no!

Who briefed her on this?  Does she have a handle on the very real problem with AI as it stands right now? How about the intersection of the ethical and legal issues with "AI" making C2 decisions? 

Next ... well ... I can't be the only one who sees this?

“China has created a set of threat rings that are very, very lethal places for U.S. forces to go,”

Yes, yes China has ... and how has she done this? With a steady building in number and quality an evolutionary force based on proven "legacy" systems that - while we were dreaming of Tomorrowland - made the American Lake that was WESTPAC in to a prickly and poisonous place. 

With the fruits of the previous Age of Transformationalism fading in to the mist to nothing - we are stuck with under-resourced and maintained Cold War systems and units that check a number box but are combat ineffective in almost peer conflict scenario.

Yes, we need make trade offs, but for at least the next half decade they need to be made in favor of repairing and reconditioning that which we neglected for the last two decades, starting with maintenance, manpower, and training. 

 “Sometimes when the department is trying to make those trade-offs to move money from one program to another, if they don’t do a good job explaining that to Congress they sort of get the hand from Congress,” Flournoy said.

If I were in Congress and someone brought that patronizing shinola to my committee room, it would be a nasty, brutish, and short hearing. 

No, when you over-promise, under-deliver and tell clear falsehoods year after year, an institution loses its institutional credibility and had no institutional capital left to demand anything from Congress but its guidance. 

Here is the baseline;

We are still suffering from the (to some) expected backwash from the Age of Transformationalism; the lost opportunity cost for things we can use now spent on futuristic promises that never came in to being; a denuded depot level maintenance infrastructure; a force equipped with sub-optimal equipment no one can use, upgrade, or can ergonomically work in the operational environment; a manning CONOP that looks at people as a problem, not an asset - something that can be burned out in perfect synchronicity with an exquisitely crafted schedule from the banks of the Potomac. You know the drill. 

We do not need a Rumsfeld II: Electric Boogaloo. We need a humble, hard working, clear eyed leader with an eye on the future, but ensuring they have the forces they need to fight 1QFY21, not just FY35. We need someone who is brutally honest with The Pentagon and the larger Military Industrial Complex about how they have fooled, hoodwinked, and bamboozled other appointees - but not this one. 

We need a SECDEF Lombardi, a Secretary No, someone who will not have us waste another generation's billions of dollars on things that fluff up balance sheets, but fail to make a shadow on the ramp, displace water, or give the infantry an extra hour of fight. 

Whoever wins in November, whoever is the next SECDEF ... may none of them take us back to the 00s. No more failed wars; no more failed transformations.

OSD's Budget: off phase, off course, off freq - off mission

The only consolation for navalists this Monday is knowing that one of the great bi-partisan traditions of Congress is to ignore budget proposals coming from the executive branch. Besides that, I don’t care how hard you try to spin it, this is horrible news.

Despite expected cuts to shipbuilding programs in the fiscal year 2021 budget request, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is committed to a bigger, but much lighter, naval force, he said in an exclusive interview with Defense News.

In the wake of reports that the Navy may cut shipbuilding in its upcoming budget request, Esper said he is “fully committed” to building a fleet of 355 ships or larger.
...
In addition to the reported cut of a Virginia-class submarine out of the FY21 budget, it is expected that other cuts may be coming in the short term for the Navy.

No. Not buying it. There isn't enough time to create more from less. This is about something, but building a fleet prepared to fight across the Pacific and stay in the fight once in WESTPAC? No, it isn't about that.

If you ever wanted a “breaking news” Midrats, yesterday we opened our show – and did most of it on – the early reports from Aaron & David from Defense News quoting the broad outlines of SECDEF Esper’s budget proposals. In spite of Congress doing what Congress wants to do anyway, these proposals have an impact and cannot be wished away.

After sleeping on it overnight, my take has changed a bit from yesterday’s Midrats and grown darker. Let me set things up a bit. This is rather simple, as is the solution.

Candidate Trump was a supporter of a larger Navy, a 355 (nee 350) ship Navy. To almost everyone’s surprise, mine included, he won in November 2016.

By December 2016, the Navy responded with a plan for 355 ships.

It is February 2020 and Trump’s SECDEF put forth a proposal to decrease the shipbuilding budget with a promise to have, inside a decade, a fleet of unicorn powered ships produced by Shangri-La shipyards to get to 355 by 2030.

I am willing to be sold otherwise, but what we appear to have is a SECDEF that is not aligned with the CINC’s priorites. Indeed, he is headed in the opposite direction.

The cynical might say that this is about what you would expect from a West Point graduate as SECDEF paired with an Army General as CJCS, backed up by OSD staff that has grown intellectually hidebound and entitled after two decades of ground wars in Asia, but there must be a more charitable explanation out there, I am sure.

As CINC, Trump has just a few options.

1. He can do and say nothing. By doing so, he signals that a desire for a larger Navy was simply election year babble – fried air for the rubes. It really isn’t a priority and he doesn’t really care.

2. He was serious, and thought he had a loyal team supporting his priorities. It appears, again, that perhaps he does not have his people where he needs them, still, in DOD. As such, he should simply go to an area of expertise he had prior to becoming CINC; fire people.

If he takes #1, then he deserves any election year blowback he may get.

If he takes #2, then he sends a clear signal that when you join Team Trump, then you support the President’s campaign promises and agenda.

Yes, this administration is full of unfilled and “acting” senior positions – and from Spencer to Bolton and others – when people not on your team leave they have a habit of shooting back at you over their shoulder, but if you are serious about growing the Navy, then this budget proposal should be taken for what it is; a rebuke from the standing OSD bureaucracy enabled by leaders who don’t support your priorities and/or are not in control of the bureaucracy they lead … in an election year.

This is a people, more than a process problem.

Regardless of where he goes, this is an unforced error, but it can be mitigated.

Where in the senior civilian leadership at DOD can Trump find someone who has a consistent record of trying to find a way to 355 and would clearly be receptive to the mandate to honestly work towards that goal – budget habits of the past be damned?

Acting SECNAV Modly.

He would be a bold choice for SECDEF – and more importantly – a clear choice that tells everyone that Trump is not frack’n around. He said 355, he meant 355, and he wants a budget to get us there.

I’m open to other options, but in such a short time frame and in an election year, I see no other choice in the ready locker.

For the record, I am rather saddened by this whole thing. I was and am impressed with Esper, and this was an opportunity for him to support his boss’s agenda and meet the WESTPAC challenge, but he failed on both counts.

Like “only Nixon could go to China,” in a way, only a West Point grad could tell Army it needed to adjust to future budget expectations.

A missed opportunity, but one that created a new opportunity if Trump wants to take it.

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is Going on Around Here?

What a way to start the week.

News broke halfway through yesterday's Midrats with Bryan McGrath that now former-SECNAV Spencer was fired.

Many of us have spent the last 12-hrs or so trying to figure out why. Well, time will reveal all. In times like this, it is time to quote a great American.

I'm going to let you hash it out in comments, but here are statements from SECDEF's spokesman, Richard Spencer, and President Trump in the order they came out.

Everyone over to the white-board and diagram these out, I'm going to get another cup of coffee.

First, spokesman for SECDEF Esper, Jonathan Hoffman:

Former SECNAV Spencer:

President Trump (tweet, of course):

---

UPDATE: Well, as reported by Carl Prine;

What none of the parties knew was that minutes before the Pentagon announced Esper’s decision, Gallagher told his attorney, Timothy Parlatore, that he had decided to voluntarily relinquish his trident for the good of the SEALs, the president and the country, believing that he unwittingly had become a lightning rod for criticism and partisan division.

So, we get Stav and Mattis in a room ....

So, SECDEF Mattis (no, I don't get tired of saying this) put it right out there;

"We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible," Mattis said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mattis acknowledged that he believed the Taliban were "surging" at the moment, something he said he intended to address.

From last month, Jim Stavridis outlined 5 reasons we need more forces in AFG

First, it is a tactical necessity. Over the past two years, the Taliban have been steadily encroaching on Afghan government control of territory, and by some estimates they are now in a position to influence the population in 40% of the country. While Afghan Security forces number over 300,000 and have shown real mettle in many places, they are taking significant casualties and still require effective mentoring down to at least the Battalion level. That means an increase in our overall troop strength is necessary.

Second, the emergence of an Islamic State element in Afghanistan is very concerning. While they have largely been unable to galvanize either the population or create cooperation with the Taliban, they have conducted a series of disruptive terror attacks and add further chaos to an unstable system. A larger NATO force can blunt their impact.

A third key reason is to create political capital that can be very helpful when some portion of the Taliban (who are not a holistic organization to say the least) eventually come to the negotiating table. We will never “win” militarily in Afghanistan, nor can we kill our way to success. Sooner or later we will need to bargain, and a stronger NATO force on the ground will give us better leverage.

Fourth, the additional forces send a signal to the Pakistanis, who are still somewhat playing a “double game” of overtly cooperating with NATO, but in reality supporting some elements of the insurgency. This commitment will tell Pakistan we intend to continue to work for a successful outcome in Afghanistan, and will hopefully encourage them to force the Taliban into negotiations.

Which brings us to another key point: what does success look like? Afghanistan is not going to resemble Singapore anytime soon; but it can have a functioning democratic government, general control over much of its borders, the ability to minimize impact from the insurgency, armed forces with high public approval, and a reduction in both corruption and narcotics — the latter two issues posing a longer term threat to the nation than even the Taliban. Getting to that point of success will require security and thus the additional forces.

I've been writing about AFG from the start of the blog, click the AFG tag below if you're new here and want to catch up.

Both Mattis and Stavridis are spot on. Since Obama's DEC09 West Point speech, we turned over all momentum to the enemies of modernity. 

We had a good, long range plan by 2008, but that was all thrown away. There is a lot to do.

Though we are as a nation tired, and on some days I think we should just all just look for the airhead version of the Friendship Bridge and cover what we leave behind in thermite ... but that isn't how this works.

Mattis was the first General Officer to set foot in AFG as a 1-Star, and Stavridis had to do what he could with the Political Level D&G he received from Obama as SACEUR.

A smart person would defer to their recommendations, or at least give them a fair hearing.

If those two gentlemen are standing up and pointing in a certain direction, I'm lacing up my boots and forming up behind them.

$.02.

Mattis Goes Salamander

Do you ever get tired of saying, "SECDEF Mattis?" I sure don't.

Our friends in NATO just got a little direction and guidance from SECDEF Mattis that is so welcome for my ears at least.

Head on over to USNIBlog where I set out the details and a little commentary.

Mattis Has a Three Phase Operation

...and you should be read up on it.

Head on over to USNIBlog and ed'u'mah'kate yourself.

SECDEF Mattis

An understatement of the year would be "this is great news;"

President-elect Donald Trump will nominate retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as his secretary of defense, he announced Thursday in Cincinnati at the beginning of his post-election tour.

"We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defense. But we're not announcing it until Monday so don't tell anybody," Trump said at his rally, adding later, "They say he's the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have and it's about time."
Mattis, 66, would join a Trump national security team that already includes retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director.

Allow me a little self-indulgence.

Regulars here and at Midrats know my feelings towards Mattis. In summary, I had the pleasure in serving with him on three occasions; once when he was a 1-star and we were both trying to figure things out in C5F AOR in the weeks after 911; once as a 3-star when he was MARCENT, and once as a 4-star when he was the commander of NATO's Allied Command Transformation. I've had the pleasure of talking with him (the first time I thought he was a USMC SNCO for about 30-seconds until I saw his star), briefing him, and watching him work with his Marines. I never saw someone who was such a natural leader that so quickly earned the trust and admiration of those around him. I was a minor player around him on every occasion, but in spit of that - he remembered my name every time we found ourselves face to face again, years apart and he talked to me like it was only yesterday. 

If he built that bond with me, I cannot imagine the feelings of those who served with him day in and day out - but I've heard plenty.

Our nation will be exceptionally well served in any position he finds himself in. All should be at peace with him heading to SECDEF. I am still in awe that he may be heading there, and I hold the greatest hope for his success. I am just slightly saddened that I won't have a 4th chance to work with him - but I will enjoy the opportunity of seeing him from afar.

Some people are voicing concerns about the number of Generals picked so far by Trump. As a small (r) republican, in the back of my head I share that concern, but not with James Mattis.

Nope. Without question I would put the lives of my wife and children in his hands. Very few people on the planet pass that muster. That will do for SECDEF.

Oh, There's LCS News? Go Get the Gibbets.

When is it time to beat up on LCS? Well, anytime.

Now that everyone is finally going Salamander, let's do a little paragraph by paragraph of kicking the handicapped. Why? Well ... what more can I say?

The US Navy's fight to buy 52 variants of its littoral combat ship (LCS) from two shipbuilders may have taken a fatal blow this week after the secretary of defense directed the service to cap its buy at 40 ships and pick only one supplier. The directive also orders the Navy to buy only one ship annually over the next four years, down from three per year.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a Dec. 14 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, told the Navy to "reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, creating a 1-1-1-1-2 profile, for eight fewer ships in the FYDP, and then downselect to one variant by FY 2019."

I owe Ash Carter another beer. This isn't PLAN SALAMANDER, but this a compromise that I can live with. Fewer is better. He seems to understand sunk cost more than most. Good. It looks like we are going to do something more useful with the money.

Carter, in the Dec. 14 memo, directs the Navy to reallocate savings from the LCS/FF cuts to buy more F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft, more SM-6 surface-to-air missiles, and support Virginia Payload Module (VPM) development for future Virginia-class submarines.

Read all of Chris Cavas's article at DefenseNews - but now I'm going to rage a little against the machine, if you would be so kind to indulge me in a little self-serving preening as well;

The directive to cut the LCS comes in the face of strenuous Navy objections. The service has argued that building a ship takes much longer than ordering a new aircraft or missile.

Well Big Navy, this is your fault, Shipmate. You elected to create a "too big to fail" shipbuilding program that had no Plan-B when LCS proved what people started to say over a decade ago. You did that in order to meet you own selfish career goals - the needs of the warfighter be damned. You decided to throw more money and hard work of Sailors at a program that was known to be a failure by everyone you refused to listen to. No, scratch that - those you eliminated from the conversation. 

You did it because you were more loyal to people than to service - and you created a command climate that demanded happy talk. In your arrogance, you did all you could do for your reasons, not the needs of the Navy decades after you started wallowing in the food trough in your post-Navy career in the belly of the beast you once defended your Sailors from. There is no reason why we don't have a different sub-6,000T class of warship under construction other than systemic and rewarded almost Ottoman levels of bureaucratic, ossified professional malpractice.

"It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation, because the Navy needs both an increase in ship numbers and a bump in warfighting capability," the defense official said Dec. 16. "In this case there is no right or wrong answer."

What does that second part even mean? Sh1t or get off the pot. We don't just need numbers (however, the reason we have Commanders commanding warships of 100+/- has everything to do with CDR Command numbers so the surface community can make more CAPT) we need numbers that can do something besides feeding money into a corrupt military industrial complex. Making CDR Commands and creating as little bang for the most buck? Sure, LCS is C1 in those two Primary Mission Areas.

The Navy has long argued it needs ship numbers to keep up worldwide posture and presence. The fleet today stands at 272 ships, but the latest fleet plan shows a rise to 308 ships in the 2020s. The LCS fleet is a major component in keeping to that goal.

A single barely partially mission capable LCS cannot even conduct presence OPS without hundreds of support staff in foreign ports - and one LCS is about as imposing as a USCG medium endurance cutter; and has a worse paint job. It's posture is one of a tubercular asthmatic. It couldn't even fight against a WWII Q-Ship.

Two years ago, the Navy fought hard to fend off LCS cuts. Mabus personally made his case to Hagel to beat back acting defense under secretary Christine Fox's attempt to cut the program. Mabus saved the ships, but Hagel countered with a directive to develop a more heavily armed frigate version. The Navy is working through decisions of the frigate variant, and is expected to make some of those details public in the president's 2017 budget submission to Congress.

We should all have a small shrine to Christine Fox. The fact that she does not have Mabus's job should make us all weep for our collective loss.

The Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) also has repeatedly evaluated the program, often proposing alternative designs. At one point, CAPE reportedly favored a version of Norway's 5,400-ton Spanish-designed Fridtjof Nansen-class missile frigates fitted with a lightweight Aegis combat system.

Oh really, Nansen eh? Isn't that cute? That was called for first ... when was it? That is right, over eight years ago.

"In the last two months, the third deck has gone in two directions, generally to cut the program," said the Pentagon source, speaking of Carter's offices on the building's third floor.

"In the last year we went through a study to upgrade the ship, make it more capable. Now in CAPE some are arguing for a less-capable hull."
...
Additionally, the Pentagon source said, "the cuts will have industrial base impacts. And we are sending a message to Saudi, for example, of our confidence in the ship."

Of course we are. The message is clear. No one has any confidence in this ship. Why should they?

As for the industrial base? Well, sucks to be you. This was all foretold. Sure, I started pounding on this Little Crappy Ship in '05, but that was only after reading critiques by others written years earlier. Even at NPGS. 

Fix it as best as you can - but know where the blame is. Building ships that are death traps for our Sailors is not worth your Italian owned shipyard.

One political arena where the cuts are likely to quickly reverberate is in the presidential election. Most Republican candidates have cited a shrinking Navy is a critical need that needs to be addressed, and the factually-correct claim that "the Navy is the smallest since it's been since World War I" has become almost a mantra. A Democratic budget that reduces ship numbers is likely to become a lightning rod.

You are over thinking it. Done correctly - keeping LCS this long could easily be crafted as an albatross to wrap around the Democrat defense policy leadership - but that isn't what is important.

What do you want? Resources going to LCS that can't fight their way our of anything, or one DDG-51? For now, I'll take the DDG-51. Want something smaller and more affordable? PLAN SALAMANDER has been there for a very long time. The only thing getting in our way is hidebound thinking, bad programmatics, and worse egos.

It is all there. Follow the LCS tag - the posts started in Sept. 05 on LCS. If you don't have time for that, you can read this Executive Summary from almost three years ago, "OPTION 24" from 2.5 yrs ago, or "Beers With Don" from half a decade ago - though I'd start from the beginning.

Again, never before has so much money brought so little capability from so many ships. Overdue, but for now all praise SECDEF Carter. He saved us from having to buy, man, train, and equip another dozen+ of these embarrassing ships.

SECDEF's Staff's Shameful Message

I'll let you figure it out. Did he approve this wording?

FM SECDEF WASHINGTON DC 

TO ALDODACT 

INFO ZEN/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC 

BT 

UNCLAS 

SUBJ/HALF-STAFFING OF THE NATIONAL FLAG  

ALDODACT 14/15  

ADDRESSEES PASS TO ALL SUBORDINATE COMANDS

1.  AS A MARK OF RESPECT FOR THE VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE PERPETRATED ON DECEMBER 2, 2015, IN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OF DECEMBER 2, 2015, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FLOWN AT HALF-STAFF UNTIL SUNSET, MONDAY,DECEMBER 7, 2015. 

2.  THE FLAG SHALL BE FLOWN AT HALF-STAFF ON ALL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND NAVAL VESSELS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD. 

RELEASED BY:  MICHAEL L. BRUHN, DOD EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

BT 

---

UPDATE: Can we call the attacks on 911 simply an aviation mishap? Sure would make everything easier, wouldn't it?

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Calls for SECDEF to ask for SECNAV's Resignation

As a follow-on to my post over at USNIBlog, you need to read what was sent today from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to SECDEF Carter.

Powerful.

Rep Hunter to Secretary Carter -- Gender Integration by CDR Salamander

COA-"New Coke" for Net Assessment

Generally, I have been content with SECDEF Carter's tenure to this point.

I think he has made a significant error, one that will have long lasting negative consequences for our national security intellectual capital.

In a June 4 memo labeled "Guidance," Defense Secretary Ash Carter outlined a subtle shift for the Pentagon's renowned Office of Net Assessment and its new director, retired Air Force Col. Jim Baker. With Carter's memo, the office, which traditionally looked toward the horizon when it comes to defense concerns, will incorporate more of today's issues in its analyses.

ONA's value proposition is based on one thing - it isn't caught up in the POM cycle crunch ... the CNN effect ... the personality driven priorities of the present ... the political flavor of the day.

It is the long view, it is the big picture, the "what's next" after the "what's next." It isn't the eyes searching the horizon; it is not the cupped ear ... no ... it is the elder with his head to the ground, feeling for what is missed by the other more obvious and immediate senses.

"Your work remains future focused, but you must ensure the team's work has present relevance to me."

This the toxic quote. This is where the corrosion will begin on a national asset; self-inflicted damage to our collective intellect.

Woven throughout the DOD nomenklatura, we have legions of people, uniformed and civilian with billions of dedicated budgetary dollars, working on the present and immediate future. If that isn't enough to serve the needs of the Secretary to the degree that we have to dilute and degrade ONA's core competency, then I would argue that the SECDEF's restructuring and re-missioning is being focused in the wrong direction.

Bookmark this; circa 2025 when a black swan defiles our national security assumptions and everyone around the table is going ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you can look back to this moment and go, "Well, we used to see these emerging challenges earlier, but then ...."

As a great man messaged me yesterday; sigh.

CJCS and SECDEF Understatements of the Week

I have intentionally avoided any commentary on Mosul-al-kerfuffle for this simple reason; regardless of what it was, it was gobsmacking grabassery of the highest order, and I wanted nothing to do with it until the adults have spoken.

Well, here you go;

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Central Command would "take the appropriate action" once the inquiry was complete.

One would think.

A U.S. military official who briefed news media about Iraq's upcoming offensive to retake Mosul provided inaccurate information but should never have publicly discussed war plans anyway, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Tuesday.

Carter's criticism of the February news briefing by an official from the U.S. military's Central Command was accompanied by an assurance from the top U.S. military officer to Congress that the matter was subject to an internal inquiry.

"That clearly was neither accurate information, nor had it been accurate, would have it been information that should have been blurted out to the press. So it's wrong on both scores," Carter, who took over as defense secretary in February, told a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
...
Carter described the briefing about the Mosul offensive as "an instance of speculation." He declined to offer a timeline, saying Iraqi forces would go into Mosul when they were ready.

I still have no idea why this even became a thing - but regardless - we should just hurry up and put a head on a pike outside the main gate at MacDill and be done with it.

I hereby grant SECDEF three (3) mulligans

There is a lot to like in how the new SECDEF Ash Carter has kicked off his tour.

If you have been too impatient to do the usual Beltway entrails reading or too busy to look for your bag of bones, then perhaps this might catch your eye to see how the guy thinks.

In a sign of how Carter intends to challenge his commanders’ thinking, he has banned them from making any PowerPoint presentations — a backbone feature of most U.S. military briefings.

Ahem.

"PowerPoint makes us stupid."
- General Mattis, USMC (Ret).

If Mattis approves, Salamander approves.

Take charge and carry out the plan of the day. Oh, and stow that quadchart.

Hagel: It wasn't fun while it lasted

SECDEF Hagel throws In the towel. He was brought in as an "I told you so" victory lap as Obama showed that Bushitler's wars were results of his bloodthirsty Haliburtontrilateralcommissionzionism. 

Well, the Islamic State rose and all the work we did in Afghanistan was thrown away and threatens to create the conditions for another Islamic State's rise. 

Wrong man with the wrong ideas at the wrong time. A good man though, just wrong. Who will replace him? I hope someone good. Just look at the horrors how that is the White House Nat/Sec team.

---

UPDATE:

Hegelian Paradox on the Path to Deconstructionalism

It rang out through the blogosphere like the thud of a vacuum sealed bag of liposuctioned yuppy fat thrown in to an empty alleyway dumpster.

Yea, I'm talking about SECDEF Hagel's "thank you brother may I have another" auto-erotic self-flagellation exercise of a speech yesterday. No, not the SECDEF himself with the naughty bits, but the position we as a nation have put him in.

I both agree and disagree with items in his speech, and I'll get to that in a bit. Parts of it are a confused mess of contradictions, but parts of it are excellent. Like the funk your blogg'r finds himself in - this is a mixed bag that generally makes me set my jaw in frustration.

Where in actual Overseas Contingency Operations vaguely related to Man Made Disasters, we like to have our military lead from behind - whatever military classic that concept comes from - at home, by all means - we have the military lead from the front.

Before I get to the meat of it all, like I said last night - I'm in a funk. Not quite as dark as my AUG06 Strategic Funk, but almost there in a middling way. Here's why.

It has been a given for quite a while that the defense budget was destined to contract as we deal with the consequences of doubling down on the failed model of the Western Welfare State. But in a nation run by sentient beings, once that crunch was realized, the defense squeeze was to be part of a larger budgetary effort. There is no similar effort underway in other areas of the budget.

Nowhere else is anyone being asked to make tough choices. For the love of Pete - DOD actually has firm Constitutional footing as a responsibility of the Federal Government. Could we at least have the spawn that extruded from the head of Zeus reeking of Progressive penumbras and emanations take a similar level of intellectual pondering at the same time?

You could break the defense budget as a percentage of GDP down to a pathetic Belgian level, and we would still have a huge structural problem with our budget. In a nation with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, declining competitiveness, and its best and brightest getting rid of the passports at unprecedented rates - we are not going to tax our way out of this mess decades in the making.

From left and right the low hanging fruit of the military budget is being treated as the only fruit.

As Christine Fox said, unlike other drawdowns, there is no peace dividend here. No, all there will be is increased assumed risk. That is the rub, we all know what that means - the risk is that when the next conflict comes - and it will - that "risk" really means that young men and women will be killed at higher rates then, in order to let the salons of pampered patricians slathered in their beltway sestertii now look for ways to recycle their faded yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their Land Rovers and Prius. There is also the additional Strategic risk from defeat when conflict comes. The Russians over a century ago learned that lesson the hard way.

There - that is my bile purge. Now to the speech; good, bad and ugly.

Let's do this in reverse order.

UGLY:

The first half of the speech is just plain ugly. A little bu11sh1t-bingo, a little cognitive dissonance, historical apostasy, a little contradiction thrown in for good measure. I'll just clump these scattered jewels of the chop chain for you to string together.

... adapt and reshape our defense enterprise ... unprecedented uncertainty and change. ... focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States. ... Defending the homeland against all

Secure your 5-point harness; we are about to spin-and-puke a bit.

To close these gaps, the President’s budget will include an Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. (to) provide an additional $26 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2015.
... budget for Fiscal Year 2015 will also contain a new five-year defense budget plan, mapping out defense programs through 2019. Over five years, this plan projects $115 billion more in spending than sequestration levels.
....
The reality of reduced resources and a changing strategic environment requires us to prioritize and make difficult choices.

That is all in the same section. I've read it four times and still can't square that circle.

Silly time;

... the military must be ready and capable to respond quickly to all contingencies and decisively defeat any opponent should deterrence fail.

Accordingly, our recommendations favor a smaller and more capable force

You can do both. Seriously, who let that go? Read it again? Not in this universe, Shipmate.

Really ugly things are those bad ideas promoted in peace that are disproved at ever real conflict. USAF rings its bell;

To fund these investments, the Air Force will reduce the number of tactical air squadrons including the entire A-10 fleet. Retiring the A-10 fleet saves $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force’s long-standing modernization plan – which called for replacing the A-10s with the more capable F-35 in the early 2020s.

The “Warthog” is a venerable platform, and this was a tough decision. But the A-10 is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses. And as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, the advent of precision munitions means that many more types of aircraft can now provide effective close air support, from B-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft. And these aircraft can execute more than one mission.

Moreover, the A-10’s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with the aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.

Two things. 1. The A-10 comments were being made when I was a MIDN. 2. The F-35 is a China doll that cannot get down and dirty. Again, like plowing the bean field with the Lexus.

The answer here is to do what many have called for starting in the 1990s. Begin work on a replacement for the A-10 using its exact mission requirements. Do it fast. Do it cheap. Do it sturdy. Do it well ... just like the A-10 program.

BAD:

There are things here that are on their face self-contradictory. I think I know what he was trying to say - but it comes across as a hedge to far, if that is what it is.

... we are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.

... and we are addressing that by what? Getting smaller? Decline is a choice, I get that - but don't complain when you are the primary agent of your own decline.

... as a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risks in certain areas.

You don't say.

We chose further reductions ... in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority,

Well, that worked so well when we abused and then retired the SPRUCANS and OHP early so we could get the technological superiority of LCS and DDG-1000 ... wait ...

Launch an aggressive and ambitious effort to reduce acquisitions costs and maximize resources available to buy and build new ships.

... said every SECDEF ever. That is just funny. Please, show me the plan. Don't just say the words, operationalize it for me.

We cannot fully achieve our goals for overhead reductions without cutting unnecessary and costly infrastructure. For that reason, DoD will ask Congress for another round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in 2017. I am mindful that Congress has not agreed to our BRAC requests of the last two years. But if Congress continues to block these requests even as they slash the overall budget, we will have to consider every tool at our disposal to reduce infrastructure.

Stupid. Once we give up our base infrastructure, we won't get it back. This is no longer a nation of 100 million souls with lots of accessible open land. We are 313+ million where you can't even dig a fish pond without a lawyer. Talk to the J4 folks about our West Coast challenges and tell me again how BRAC will make any of this (inside USA territory and possessions) is a good idea for when the next medium to large war comes (which it will). BRAC is a false economy if you look beyond your own tenure.

That being said,

In Europe, where BRAC authority is not needed, we have reduced our infrastructure by 30 percent since 2000, and a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review this spring will recommend further cuts which DoD will pursue.

Good and smart. Speaking of good.

GOOD:

No, I am not a perma-bear negative ninny (all the time) - there are some good things here.

Last summer I announced a 20 percent cut in DoD’s major headquarters operating budgets, which is expected to save about $5 billion in operating costs over the next five years. These efforts began in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in the Joint Staff, but they will also include Service and Combatant Command headquarters. We are paring back contract spending, making targeted cuts in civilian personnel, ...

Rinse and repeat; yes.

In order to help keep its ship inventory ready and modern under the President’s plan, half of the Navy’s cruiser fleet – or eleven ships – will be “laid up” and placed in reduced operating status while they are modernized, and eventually returned to service with greater capability and a longer lifespan.

That is fair - but one snarky side-bar. What will the surface community do about the reduced number of CAPT Commands at sea? BMD DDG-51's move to CAPT Commands? In 3, 2, 1 ...

... the Navy’s fleet will be significantly modernized under our plan, which continues buying two destroyers and two attack submarines per year, as well as one additional Afloat Staging Base.

Defendable and sound.

OK, let me have a little fun here. I would like to officially welcome SECDEF and everyone else to the Front Porch's PLAN SALAMANDER MOD2 circa 2006. Glad to have you onboard. Everyone seems to be going Salamander! (OK, I'll stop gloating ... but shall we roll around in this stinky mess a bit? Yes, we shall.)

Regarding the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions.
The LCS was designed to perform certain missions – such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.
Additionally, at my direction, the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.

Here you find the best part of the speech as far as proper thought goes.

The Marine Corps’ inherent agility, crisis response capabilities, and maritime focus make it well-suited to carry out many priority missions under the President’s defense strategy. Accordingly, if the President’s budget levels are sustained for the next five years, we could avoid additional reductions in end strength beyond those already planned. Today the Marines number about 190,000, and they will draw down to 182,000. If sequestration-level cuts are re-imposed in 2016 and beyond, the Marines would have to shrink further to 175,000. Under any scenario, we will devote about 900 more Marines to provide enhanced embassy security around the world.

... and yes, the following is good to quasi-good. If you are going to cut one part deeper ...

Today, there are about 520,000 active-duty soldiers, which the Army had planned to reduce to 490,000. However, the Strategic Choices and Management Review and the QDR both determined that since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy. Given reduced budgets, it is also larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready. We have decided to further reduce active-duty Army end-strength to a range of 440-450,000 soldiers.

Yes, yes - I know the 1939/40 response to this. Remember though, that what is now the USAF was part of the Army at that time. Number was different when you are talking about just the ground component.

This is solid balancing as well;

The Army National Guard and Reserves will also draw down in order to maintain a balanced force. Today, the Army National Guard numbers about 355,000 soldiers and the Reserves about 205,000 soldiers. ... This five percent recommended reduction in Guard and Reserve soldiers is smaller than the 13 percent reduction in active-duty soldiers.

If you are going in this direction in the macro - then this is probably the area you can accept the most risk.

Personnel issues? Mostly in the good range. Yes, I said that.

We are also recommending a number of changes:
• We will slow the growth of tax-free housing allowances – which currently cover 100% of housing expenses – until they cover an average of 95% of housing expenses with a 5% out-of-pocket contribution. In comparison, the average out-of-pocket expenditure was 18% in the 1990s. We will also no longer reimburse for renter’s insurance.
• Over three years, we will reduce by $1 billion the annual direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which now totals $1.4 billion. We are not shutting down commissaries. All commissaries will still get free rent and pay no taxes. They will be able to continue to provide a good deal to service members and retirees – much like our post exchanges, which do not receive direct subsidies. Overseas commissaries and those in remote locations will continue receiving direct subsidies.
• And we will simplify and modernize our TRICARE health insurance program by consolidating plans and adjusting deductibles and co-pays in ways that encourage members to use the most affordable means of care – such as military treatment facilities, preferred providers, and generic prescriptions. We will ask retirees and some active-duty family members to pay a little more in their deductibles and co-pays, but their benefits will remain affordable and generous… as they should be.
To protect the most vulnerable, under this plan medically retired service members, their families, and the survivors of service members who die on active duty would not pay the annual participation fees charged to other retirees, and would pay a smaller share of the costs for health care than other retirees.

On balance, that is fair. Going back to the start of this post - I would be happier if the civilian recipients of government largess would take an equal hit to their money-for-nothing handouts - but that is not the political universe this administration lives in. Take what you can, and the above is fair.

The next quote shows they are learning as well.

Our proposals do not include any recommended changes to military retirement benefits for those now serving in the Armed Forces. We are awaiting the results of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which is expected to present its report in February 2015, before pursuing reforms in that area. But DoD continues to support the principle of “grandfathering” for any future changes to military retirement plans.

Yea Rep. Ryan ... you blew it. Enjoy Congress, because I think you are going to be there for awhile.

I want to quote the conclusion in whole because it is the best part of the document. On a good day, it could have been written by me. Nice.

As I weighed these recommendations, I have, as I often do, looked to the pages of American history for guidance. In doing so, an admonition by Henry Stimson stood out. Writing after World War II, Roosevelt’s Secretary of War during that time, said that Americans must “act in the world as it is, and not in the world as we wish it were.” 

Stimson knew that America’s security at home depended on sustaining our commitments abroad and investing in a strong national defense. He was a realist. This is a time for reality. This is a budget that recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military’s unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today’s volatile world. There are difficult decisions ahead. That is the reality we’re living with.

But with this reality comes opportunity. The opportunity to reshape our defense enterprise to be better prepared, positioned, and equipped to secure America’s interests in the years ahead. All of DoD’s leaders and I have every confidence that this will be accomplished.

There you go. Strange speech. First third horrible, middle was a muddle, and the last third not too bad.

A little hope for all, I guess.

Just as last decade the military went to war while the USA went to the mall; under budget stress, the military takes the hit, while the USA recharges its EBT card and hires an attorney to get guv'munt disability for their hemorrhoids.

This still has to make its way through Congress ... in an election year ... so, well; whatever.

Here, have a speech wordcloud in at 1970s'esque font, and cry the beloved country.