The Money and the Mitigations

Lex got our attention today with a short discussion of sonar restrictions off Hawaii.

The big problem with sonar restrictions isn't a pattern of the Navy wiping out marine life, no one has ever made such a claim. The big problem is the perspective of some that the potential exists the Navy could kill marine mammals with active sonar systems. The other problem is that the largest build up of foreign submarines is currently taking place in the Pacific Ocean, and the Navy is being forbidden by the courts from training to fight submarines. Active sonar is the most effective system for detecting submarines, and yet the Navy can't use it. Lex is asking the question never asked on TV:

It is our Navy’s business to prepare to fight a three-dimensional campaign from the sea, the better to make such a fight unnecessary in the long run: Strength is daunting, but weakness can be provocative.

I can’t help wondering how silly we’ll all feel should the maritime balloon go up, and we lose a $10 billion aircraft carrier and 5000 souls to a $200 million submarine no one remembered - or ever learned - how to fight against.

The whales, at least, will have been spared.

Indeed. The article Lex has cited ran in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, it is a good read for the various events. What caught my attention was the opposition.

Daniel Hinerfeld, spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued the Navy, said the Navy has acknowledged that sonar harms marine mammals. But it continues to train without mitigating the harm, resulting in lawsuits, he said.

"The root of the problem is the Navy's unwillingness to do the responsible thing," Hinerfeld said. "The responsible thing to do is to work out mitigations that addresses that problem and also still allow the Navy to train effectively."

The root of the problem is that environmentalists are calling the shots regarding what training is allowed and what training is not, and all mitigations have been unsatisfactory (and always will be from the perspective of NRDC. There is an incredible lack of leadership in Washington DC not to be able to fix this issue once and for all, and it is a bipartisan problem. However, here is what has been bothering us lately on this issue. The media does a good job tellings us the names of the organizations always fighting the legal battles with the Navy on the use of sonar, but we have never seen any media coverage regarding who is funding them. Most people don't realize they only have to report the people who fund these non profit environmental legal organizations if the donor wants to claim a tax break. Otherwise, no paper trail. We think it is time to start asking questions, because we'd like to know more about groups like the National Resources Defense Council whose actively prevents the Navy from training against submarines.

We think it is reasonable to ask questions when the National Resources Defense Council has a section on their website dedicated to free energy in China. It just seems a little strange that an organization involved in every single lawsuit against the Navy use of sonars would have a section on China and the environment, and doesn't have a single bad thing to say about Chinese environmental policy. Who does the NRDC work with in China? According to their own website:

NRDC works at the national level in China with key agencies and organizations, and also works with their local counterparts in several regions and cities, including Beijing, Chongqing, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shanxi and Shenzhen.

So the facts are a legal organization committed to protecting the environment is involved in every lawsuit against the use of sonars by the Navy, and the same organization openly admits to working with "key agencies and organizations" in China, all the while not saying a single negative word about Chinese environmental policy. Of coarse this has nothing to do with all the usage of legal means to fight America asymmetrically printed throughout PLA published discussions, why would anyone even suggest such a thing?

Which organization in the world is largest investor in research and science to help understand the effects of sonar and marine mammals? The US Navy, and the annual difference is tens of millions. Why? Because everyone else has been allowed to assume the science without the research, and the Navy is the only group that will actually put up money to look into the problem. Another example of the 'root of the problem' according to NRDC no doubt. As I understand it, the Navy outsources that research money, so if you think the Navy is 'cooking the research' you just accused some of the most prominent marine biologists in the country of being Navy stooges.

More facts and history of the sonar issue here (PDF)

Celebrating One Year of Information Dissemination

June 2nd, 2008 marks the beginning of our second year of blogging. The blog started as an attempt by me to collect a variety of opinions around the internet and create a group blog with international flavor regarding Naval centric topics. That plan went bust when I quickly realized the only person interested in that concept was me.

So into the second month it evolved, looking inward instead of outward, I ended up recruiting the assistance of two of my closest friends, the real brains behind the blog. Unfortunately, neither has written a single topic yet, nor left comments. The group part of this blog has been a bust in that regard.

The community aspect of the blog has been anything but a bust though, and we are truly blessed to have excellent contributors in the comments. I can't thank each of you enough, you keep me honest and add value to the discussions. The regulars know who you are, thank you so much. We know you have high expectations, and we will continue to try and meet them. Our only goal is to be interesting, a high standard in our appeal for your time with our long random thoughts.

I want to thank CDR Salamander, EagleOne, SteelJaw Scribe, and Eric at the Sub Report. You guys have consistently been awesome supporters from the beginning. The core group of bloggers listed under the revised Navy Blogs section, what I have previously labeled the Naval Blogger Strike Group, is the most professional and smartest community I've ever belonged to. For me that is ironic, considering my professional background is in part building online communities.

I also want to thank Sean Meade, Thomas Barnett, the Small Wars Journal, Mike Burleson, Eric Palmer, David Axe, Feng, and Joe Katzman. It means a lot to have the consistent support of so many intellectually talented professionals.

We have rearranged the links on the blog and we are finally providing an email address to contact us with. As folks who tend to look to history before planning ahead, we want to start an annual tradition of reviewing our favorite 10 editorials from the last year, listed in order by date.

US Navy Ballistic Missile Defense, June 21, 2024

The US Navy's PF-109 "Patrol Frigate" Program, July 10, 2024

14,500 Tons of Littoral Cruising, Invisible, Survivable, Multi-Mission Capable, NSFS, Sea Striking, Deep Reach Firepower, August 7, 2024

The DDG-1000 vs the SSGN, November 13, 2024

Network Centric Warfare, COIN, and Naval Doctrine, December 3, 2024

To Connect the Gaps, Build the Bridge Underwater, January 24, 2024

Modern Rating System For Surface Combatants, February 12, 2024

Where are the Cruisers?, February 28, 2024

Observing The Omission of Seabasing In the Navy's Maritime Strategy, March 31, 2024

The Navy's Great Challenge of our Time, April 1, 2024

June 1st, 2008 was our last day of year one. On a Sunday no less, we had 793 visits and 1567 hits. For perspective, we had 661 visits and 1479 hits for the entire month of June 2007. We had more visits and hits every month throughout the first year finishing May with 62,214 unique visits and 92.608 hits, an astonishing number for a Navy centric blog. First year totals are 230,844 hits and 380,054 visits, which are incredible numbers for a blog that tends to avoid political and entertainment discussions which are the categories of interest most influenced by blogging today.

We are extremely proud that our readers are primarily by percentage military, government and government research, media, retired military, academia, and defense industry professionals. It is very exciting when the blogs traffic data confirms our audience is the desired professional audience sought after when starting the blog.

We do not know where the future leads. We are not believers of the theory that blogs can influence professional institutions like the Navy, and to do so has never been our goal. We do however believe blogs, from the author to the concentration of comments, accurately reflects opinions that are important to the important discussions of institutions like the Navy. Towards the ends of elevating the discussion of the maritime environment, by educating interested observers while leveraging history and technology as a guide towards informed observations and opinions, our strategy looking to the future remains consistent to our strategy of the past year.

The success of the blog would not possible without our supporters and friends. Thank you all very much. We look forward to another great year!

George Washington Fire Fallout

The USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) is at sea, and was reported to be heading towards Pearl Harbor to swap crews with the USS George Washington (CVN 73). Looks like those plans have been put on hold while the Navy takes assessment of the fire damage. Navy Times is reporting:

The carrier Kitty Hawk, which was on its way to Hawaii to swap crews with the carrier George Washington, now plans on visiting Guam while officials on the GW assess the extent of a fire that broke out several days ago.

“There’s no change to our long-term schedule and much is still contingent on what the assessors find on the George Washington,” Capt. Todd Zecchin, Kitty Hawk’s commanding officer said. “But in the meantime we are going to pull into Guam and hopefully by then we will know the rest of the way ahead.”

While Navy officials assess the damage on GW, the Kitty Hawk continues to operate in the Western Pacific and will make the Guam port visit in “mid-June,” he said.

Right now there are too many questions without answers to bother speculating, although the time line here gives the impression that over the next two weeks the answers will be forthcoming. There is only one aspect to the entire Kitty Hawk - GW swap that bothers us. If the Navy is mandated by law to keep 11 carriers in service, and the House bill for FY09 makes this point emphatically in regards to the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) for 2011, why is the Navy mothballing the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) in July as the Navy Times article suggests at the end of the story.

Looks to us like the Navy is in too much of a hurry to decommission the Kitty Hawk, and should probably wait until after the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) is commissioned.

The Detainee Issue Has a Naval Twist

The Guardian has an article out regarding the use of US Navy ships as floating prisons. Actually the accusations aren't quite to that extent, in fact the headline appears to be misleading based on the facts presented. What is presented though does have the feel of being potentially legitimate, does pass the smell test, however is also presented under a political slant from a certain perspective.

This is being introduced as the center of the discussion.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

I'm pretty sure I could name all 17 ships, in fact when making a short list, I came up with 19 possibles based on news reports and known activity.

Most of this is political, not Naval centric, and we are going to avoid that aspect of the discussion for the most part. We are not impressed with the management of the detainee issue since 9/11, the lack of a policy remains a problem. However, we also need to recognize that policy has a process that begins at a certain point, and that point is not the second someone is taken into custody.

I'm not familiar with Reprieve, but I would guess it is some legal organization. It really doesn't matter, other than to highlight these people almost certainly wouldn't understand a military operation supported from sea even if they were present on the ship.

Basically the suggestion is being made that the Amphibious ships off Somalia are conducting special forces operations, something we already know, and within the context of those operations people are being detained (no evidence provided). According to Reprieve, it is presented as a shock that after people are detained and turned over to the US, people are being moved to a US Navy ship at sea supporting the special forces operations. It is then being suggested, under the banner of more shock, that once thrown into a brig or converted prison area of ships between 30-40 years old, the comforts of the people detained are not being met. In the Guardian article, it should be noted no claims of breaking the law during interrogation on the ships are being made, in fact the Navy is not being accused of doing anything wrong except potentially holding detainees for unspecified periods of time in groups of up to 50 people, which doesn't even sound wrong to us. From my point of view, all of what is being reported sounds very true.

First lets analyze what Reprieve is suggesting is taking place, then lets analyze the alternatives.

Reprieve is suggestion that special operations forces are taking prisoners when conducting operations against extremist targets in ungoverned regions. Sounds reasonable. Reprieve is then suggestion upon detained individuals coming into US custody, they are being taken aboard amphibious ships in the region. Sounds reasonable to us, better to hold them on sovereign US territory (A US Navy ship) than on some other countries territoriy. Reprieve is suggesting that after such operations, intelligence is being gathered from those detained through interrogations by CIA or FBI on the ships, to further support ongoing operations. Sounds reasonable. Reprieve is suggesting the ships remain at sea for periods of time, which we believe will ultimately be disclosed as several weeks, with detainees on board the ships. Sounds reasonable. Reprieve is suggesting that sometimes the number of people detained accumulates to totals of up to 50 people. Sounds reasonable. Reprieve is suggesting that these types of operations have been taking place since 2001. Sounds reasonable. Finally Reprieve is suggesting that the prisoner offloads from the ships holding detained individuals has taken place a number of times in Diego Garcia. Sounds reasonable. The question I have is, given all of these details, where is the problem?

From my unsatisfied perspective of the administration policy for managing detainees, I can't find anything wrong with this activity as described, the policy problems I have with the process begin after unloading from the vessel holding captured suspects.

Lets look at what the alternatives might be. Ignoring the political agenda of Reprieve for a minute, let us state up front we much prefer the use of special operations in ungoverned regions of existing states to the alternative, which is military invasion. We also believe it is absolutely appropriate to detain enemies of the United States in this process as opposed to killing them all and letting Allah sort them out. Note there is no evidence presented this process is undesirable.

We also fail to see the problem with holding the individuals aboard Naval vessels as opposed to shipping the individuals to land bases in other countries, which of coarse is what is often called rendition in this highly political environment. If your house has a walk in closet, the cubic square of that closet is probably larger than the amount of space given to American sailors and Marines on board the old amphibious ships currently in service, so the suggestion that some prisoner doesn't like being cramped on a ship is hilarious. We need to spend a couple hundred billion dollars on the comforts of our troops on a ship before we consider the conditions of a prison on a warship designed and built in the 1960s. Conditions on an old warship can really suck for comfort, welcome to the Navy.

During ongoing operations, the expectations a ship should stop and sail thousands of miles to offload prisoners is very unrealistic. If Americans don't like the process of holding detained individuals on ships for extended periods of time in remote places like the coast of east Africa, Americans need to support the investment of several billion dollars for the MV-22, because it is the only asset in the world that would meet the conditional requirements for transferring a detainee off ship. On the use of Diego Garcia as a transferring facility, what alternatives are there really? Is Reprieve and those offering outrage suggesting the prisoners remain detained on the ship for the duration of the ships 6 month deployment? The alternative in this scenario is rendition, exactly what is being accused of the United States.

Considering the perspective of the details exposed are coming from the perspective of someone detained, the details as provided can be seen as reasonable. However it also because of this perspective the article is attempting to illustrate and image that is unreasonable. It is a safe bet that in the report to be issued by the Reprieve organization, alternatives to what is being described as current operational conditions will almost certainly not be offered. It will be interesting how closely the western media analyzes the details of this story and the report once released by Retrieve, because from our point of view, what is being suggested as a bad thing by the Guardian is exactly the process we would prefer to see than the overt military option that was committed to Iraq. It would be a shame if the politics of this drove beyond reasonable expectations, because with the Democrats looking to take control of the military options for the Long War after the election, it would be stupid for them to tie their own hands.

The real problem is at the point the detained individual leaves the ship. Everything up until that point, at least given the details provided in the Guardian story and what we can assume based on our understanding of Naval special forces operations, the rest looks legitimate and within expectations from our point of view.

Observing the Incredible, Sobering Images of the Earthquake in China

Nearly 69,000 people have been confirmed dead and 18,000 others missing in the earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter scale that hit China's Sichuan Province on May 12. In looking for the appropriate analogy, we believe this earthquake will significantly impact Chinese domestic policy on the same scale (if not more) that 9/11 significantly impacted American foreign policy.

Photo Caption: This Friday May 16, 2008, photo, distributed by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua, shows a dead student's hand holding a pen tightly in the debris site of Dongqi Middle School in Hanwang Town of quake-hit Mianzhu City, southwest China's Sichuan province. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Liu Zhongjun)

Very few of these pictures are overtly gruesome, and yet the impact is such I warn ahead of time.

Link1
Link2
Link3
Link4
Link5
Link6

We have heard a lot about the C-130 shipments to Myanmar, but I haven't seen much on the C-17 fully loaded flights of humanitarian aid to China. With aid flowing into China from all over, if anyone knows of any "informative" links of any particular countries contribution to the Chinese earthquake, leave a link in the comments please.

The school issue specifically is still significant, 3 weeks later.

The rubble-strewn streets of Wufu are lined with wreaths, and white flowers made of folded paper hang from bushes. Among the symbols of grief are signs openly directing roiling anger at the government.

Almost three weeks after an earthquake shattered central China, anger is seething that corrupt officials may have allowed shoddy building construction that resulted in the deaths of thousands of children when schools collapsed in the disaster.

The anger — unusual in tightly-controlled China for its open challenge to the government — has not been cooled by repeated assurances that the issue will be thoroughly investigated and offenders severely punished.

In many areas, schools collapsed killing hundreds even when most other buildings nearby did not. At first, the government concealed the problem by not covering it in the press, but no longer, the Chinese media is now actively covering the issue across China. That in and of itself represents significant change from previous policy.