Barrett Tillman's NAVAL INSTITUTE article

BuzPezold · 23 June 2009, 04:35 PM

Barrett,

I want to congratulate you on your excellent article Fear and Loathing in the Post Naval Era currently in the June 2009 issue of the United States Naval Institue PROCEEDINGS. I've had the issue sitting on my coffee table for a couple of weeks and I have finally got around to read it. You bring up many interesting and unpopular points to your article that needs to be said, explored and debated that concerns the future of our NAVY. I've been a member of USNI for over 20 years and to be honest I have been thinking form time to time to end my subscription because PROCEEDINGS which is suppose to be apolitical has not been in the recent years. Your article is reminiscent of what PROCEEDINGS used to be and should be. In fact I will say your article may make current Naval leaders aware and proactive in that U.S. NAVY doctrine needs change that hasn't happened since Alfred Mahan not only in the survivability of the U.S. NAVY as we know it, but the United States as well. Thank you, sir.

Buz

Barrett · 25 June 2009, 11:31 AM

Buz, thank you. It's nice to hear from somebody who agrees with me for a change!

Feel free to contribute to "Comment & Discussion."

Here's the link for those who may be interested:

Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute

Contrary to what's been claimed (apparently by those who jump on the title rather than, like, yaknow, READ THE ARTICLE) I do not state we don't need a navy. I do wonder if we need the navy we actually have. Moreover, I note the undeniable trend since 1945 that navies no longer determine the course of history, and if we want to keep a viable fleet at all, the naval community dangwell should be asking the questions I raise. Considering that the current admin AND congress is talking DoD cuts up to 25%, the admirals and pentagonal suits should be discussing "F&L" in rawther detailed fashion.

I also note that the Royal Nivey is already where we may be headed: too small to matter beyond some local feuds, leading to establishment of "savethenavy.com" web sites.

It's a real dilemma: we are not repeat not gonna fight China because that would ruin both economies. And since even with 280 ships & subs we have about 2.5X the force of the chinese and russians combined, nobody's in a position to challenge us even if they wanted to commit economic suicide. So what sorta navy should we have for the XXI century?

I ended the article by saying "Let the discussion begin" but instead it's more of a knee-jerk, defensive response. In any case, at least I can say "I tried."

BuzPezold · 26 June 2009, 08:15 AM

Barrett,

Yes, I need to send in something to the "Comment & Discussion" section to PROCEEDINGS. Have you been getting much negative "guff" on your article?

Buz

bristol scout · 26 June 2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrett

Buz, thank you. It's nice to hear from somebody who agrees with me for a change!

Feel free to contribute to "Comment & Discussion."

Here's the link for those who may be interested:

Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute

Contrary to what's been claimed (apparently by those who jump on the title rather than, like, yaknow, READ THE ARTICLE) I do not state we don't need a navy. I do wonder if we need the navy we actually have. Moreover, I note the undeniable trend since 1945 that navies no longer determine the course of history, and if we want to keep a viable fleet at all, the naval community dangwell should be asking the questions I raise. Considering that the current admin AND congress is talking DoD cuts up to 25%, the admirals and pentagonal suits should be discussing "F&L" in rawther detailed fashion.

I also note that the Royal Nivey is already where we may be headed: too small to matter beyond some local feuds, leading to establishment of "savethenavy.com" web sites.

It's a real dilemma: we are not repeat not gonna fight China because that would ruin both economies. And since even with 280 ships & subs we have about 2.5X the force of the chinese and russians combined, nobody's in a position to challenge us even if they wanted to commit economic suicide. So what sorta navy should we have for the XXI century?

I ended the article by saying "Let the discussion begin" but instead it's more of a knee-jerk, defensive response. In any case, at least I can say "I tried."

Hi Barrett,

Whilst knowing only a little of U.S. present day Navy dilemmas---I still wonder about your confident assertion regarding China?
With the future spending ---even for the richest country on the planet---going more and more to paying for an ever increasing elderley population, and (vital i think) no creditable threat---in the sense of the cold war threat level to keep defense budgets high on peoples agenda's-----the military are going to suffer spending restrictions in the next 15/20 years---exactly when China is going to start suffering from it's profligate short term gain policies as at present!
It's unsustainable economic 'boom' will cause it serious environmental and social problems.

Will the navy (U.S.) go for the kind of force it will need to be to wage long,justifiable but drawn out wars on Isl--oops! terror--which, ideally would be a somewhat different navy-----or will it retain it's historical blue/green water mastery for fighting a high end war against a major power ----the only one --i'm afraid---is China!!!
The two different 'navies' are, i think, exclusive, by which i mean it is one or the other.

I'm thinking about how we (England)only JUST managed to scrape together a 'task force' to recapture the Falklands---because we had 'lost' our navy in the process of becoming more 'European orientated'

Strange day's to come, i feel
Dave.

bristol scout · 26 June 2009, 12:25 PM

Hi again Barrett---i've just read your article--you raise good points---the solution to Americas future --potency wise, is not easy to see. I seriously mis-trust the hands (political masters) it is in at this time----try negotiating with murderous fanatics and religious fundamentalists all you like---but any offer to 'talk' will be met with thinly veiled contempt, unless it suits, for the moment, their agenda. Constantly 'apologising' for previous wrongs---real or imagined, will only make America seem weak and vacillating---and the entire free world may one day regret that!

But no---silly me 'Western values are not that special--or unique'

You are on solid ground with me when you mention Victor Davis Hanson---I have ALL his books---No finer Historian in my humble! (never been accused of being that before)

I still, however fear the potential of a disrupted, ecologically and socially turmoiled? China 20years from now--when the piper has to be paid! It's turmoil--on an epic scale will not bode well for a rival who has, in the interim, acceeded to the 'cost' argument and--in relative terms, dis-armed.

No answer though---and possibly quite wrong---let's hope so---but remember what THUCYDIDES said--it's as true now as it was then--contries go to war for three reasons---fear--self interest---honour.
The time may come when it does'nt matter if the U.S. and China are trade partners----if that time comes, lets hope America has more than just fast patrol boats for catching pirates--or landing craft for dropping off a few marines to frighten the natives!

The pen (or the self effacing apologetic voice) may be mightier than the sword---but the sword speaks louder at any given moment!
Dave.

Barrett · 26 June 2009, 06:15 PM

I'm still extremely confident that AT LEAST in our lifetime there'll be no US war with china. Apart from the specifics of our lopsided trade arrangement (in China's favor), the global economy is likely only to become more interdependent among nations, east & west.

But whether B Tillman is proven right or wrong, my point remains: the USN is not taking its case to the public, which pays for the navy and everything else. The fact that there's been virtually no war at sea in 65 years means it's gonna be a hard sell. I don't know what the answer is, but the admirals and the suits dangwell better start kicking it around.

Kosh · 26 June 2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristol

----try negotiating with murderous fanatics and religious fundamentalists all you like---but any offer to 'talk' will be met with thinly veiled contempt, unless it suits, for the moment, their agenda.

Indeed, there is no point with negotiating with religious fundamentalists, assuming you did mean the US. What else but religious fanatics can you call a country whose highest judges consider "ten commandments" as their legal code or who admit using the bible as their legal guide, despite that the country´s constitution supposedly separates the church from the state? Or a country that appoints special prosecutors to attack a branch of film industry simply because some nutheads (=religious right) want so?

bristol scout · 27 June 2009, 02:12 AM

HI Kosh,
I think you picked me up wrong! But not because of my wording!!!! Whilst not wanting to get into a 'political'---not sure if it's allowed anyway---i most definately mean U.S. foreign policy at the present seems dead set at distancing it's friends whilst ingratiating itself to the enemies of democracy--these are the "MURDEROUS FANATICS AND RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS" i was referring to---the dangers to western values and democracy--to personal freedom and tolerance come not from within those democracies, where those things are venerated and practiced(unless they become infiltrated with the very practitioners of the above), but from countries that have no historical conception of those values--or have eschewed them.

The U.S. is the strongest bastion of democracy in the world today----let those who want peace prepare for war---i paraphrase ---but not i hope over dramitise. The democratic west, and those others that share it's values had better stay strong--those that turn there swords into ploughshares end up plowing for those that did'nt.

Dave.

Tom_Cervo · 30 June 2009, 10:04 PM

Hard to believe that you had to ask that question at this date. It reminds of the politician's question once asked of the Admiralty early in the last century:
"What is the navy FOR?"
No one had an answer, the question had never come up. So they went on building Dreadnoughts, and when war came, had to impress fishing boats and fishermen to sweep mines, and didn't that work out well at the Dardanelles?

I caught the reference to "This People's Navy", Kenneth Hagen's book that asked the same question about 20 years ago. Even then he was noting that a fleet designed to force itself into the Barents Sea and nothing else would leave the US with a lot of unnecessary processed steel when the USSR went belly up.

bristol scout · 1 July 2009, 02:29 AM

I remember another question once asked of the Admiralty--it went something like this----'Will he (Napoleon) come---because if he does, we have nothing in England that can stop him---will he come?' To which the Admiralty (first sea lord) replied---' I don't say he won't come sir, I only say he won't come by sea'!

That is what having---and maintaining a large and well trained and equipped Navy gives you---not just the extension and mobility to place your forces wherever you need them--or may need them to be in future, but the ability to deny others that mobility and safeguard your own shores.

Dave.