HG S2 (Intel Bot)

This popped up today on Facebook. Good morning PSNS & IMF family, I would like to share with you a recent update from U.S. 7th Fleet. USS George Washington (CVN 73) got underway from Yokosuka last night to assure she can sustain a state of readiness in the long term for the defense of Japan. The forward deployed carrier remains in the local waters off Japan. Moving George Washington is a precaution given the capabilities of the vessel and the complex nature of this disaster. PSNS & IMF has more than 460 project personnel onboard George Washington, nine of whom are our Yokosuka Detachment workers. This team continues to perform work on her Selected Restricted Availability. I have every confidence our team will accomplish this availability despite the additional challenges presented over the last week and a half. Also as a precautionary measure, Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Japan, ordered that Potassium Iodide (KI) be available for all DoD personnel and dependents currently located at Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Ikego Housing Detachment, Negishi Housing Detachment, and Naval Air Facility Atsugi in case a need is identified. People are being directed not to take any KI until official notification is given, and then only to take the recommended dosage; there is enough KI for all personnel. Medical personnel will be standing by at each distribution location to answer any questions and explain about possible side effects from KI. To those of you still in Japan, and to the many of you onboard George Washington—know you have the support, respect and admiration of your Command family. We are all proud of you working through the disaster that hit Japan and the resulting transitional challenges of shifting location and, in some cases, your families. To those of you stateside—it’s because of your tremendous support, planning and flexibility that we are able to continue our work to meet the fleet’s needs. We continue to monitor the situation in Japan, and it is still our top priority to look out for the safety and well-being of our workers and their families. R/CAPT Mark Whitney Commander, PSNS & IMF Followed by this on Facebook. There will be a Town Hall meeting tonight, Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at the Benny Decker Theater. The meeting begins at 1730. Taking your questions will be Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command. We hope to see you there. Followed by this by CNN. The U.S. military is considering the mandatory evacuation of thousands of American troops and their families in Japan out of concern over rising radiation levels, a senior defense official tells CNN. The official, who did not want to be on the record talking about ongoing deliberations, says there are no discussions to evacuate all U.S. troops across the country. The talks have focused exclusively on U.S. troops in Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo, the official said. Yokosuka is home to America's largest naval base in Japan. The military is monitoring radiation levels on a constant basis. As of Monday, the U.S. Navy had no more warships in port at the base. The aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which had been undergoing maintenance in Yokosuka, left port Monday in order to get away from the plume of radioactive particles that could blow over the base. Because it left port with a much smaller than normal crew, the George Washington will not take part in the Japanese relief effort. No organization on the planet has more experience and expertise with all things nuclear than the United States Navy. No ship in the world is better equipped in a nuclear emergency than a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. When the US Navy and US Navy aircraft carriers start leaving Japan, something serious is happening. The US even contemplating pulling out of Japan right now would represent an extraordinary shift in the balance of power in the Pacific, and yet that they are even considering doing so suggests the seriousness of the situation at Fukushima. It is going to take someone near the very top of government, at minimum Secretary Gates, to interrupt the maintenance of the nations only forward deployed aircraft carrier and put her out to sea with a skeleton crew while still undergoing maintenance. USS George Washington (CVN 73) isn't just some warship, it is one of the 10 most expensive and capable strategic assets on the planet run by an organization with a thorough understanding of the dangers of nuclear radiation. Simply moving the carrier out of dry dock and out to sea during an emergency is no small thing. When combined with news that ADM Walsh and ADM Willard, the two most senior Navy officers in the Pacific, addressed the families of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) what are we supposed to think? That meeting is followed by news reports concerning a potential mandatory evacuation from Yokosuka in the works? If the US Navy pulls their families out of Yokosuka, the carrier won't be returning there for a long time, if ever. The question is, where can the US Navy move the forward deployed ships? A few destroyers to Guam? Would GW be pulled all the way back to Pearl Harbor? Would South Korea, Australia, or Singapore be interested in hosting a US Navy DESRON? What is the message being sent to Japan? Tokyo is on the other side of the bay from Yokosuka; Tokyo is closer to Fukushima than Yokosuka is. Our national decision makers are considering all options with a full understanding that once the US Navy leaves Japan, the political fallout most likely will be we will never be allowed to return. View the full article

British participation in the Libya operation makes comments like this even more on point: It’s not just the Harriers and HMS Ark Royal. The loss of the Nimrod R1 patrol aircraft and the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft will make British participation in operations like the Libya NFZ much more difficult. That wouldn’t be such a problem were it not clear that the UK was very interested in participating in such operations. View the full article

Nothing official yet - but from multiple sources including Norman Polmar, it looks like the push to chance the mission of USNI to make it an advocacy organization has been defeated. As a matter of fact, I will quote the good Dr. himself; All, The USNI Board of Directors has today decided unanimously to withdraw the proposal for a change in the Naval Institute's statement. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" > Yea!!! Does any more need to be said? On a variety of levels there are a lot of lessons for this battle and at some point a good POSTEX needs to be done - but for now, thanks to all who helped make this happen - and now lets enjoy the moment.[/color] Reinforce victory. View the full article

Sandstorms settled in the south of that sour place, and terror-men opened wide a mouth etched in a hate-filled face. The rifle-spit struck down Malone and he in a moment gave a life well-lived, alone, to set men free of the grave. In later days men drew down statues from on high; they struck Iraqi ground so dust and cheer could fly. What, one Irish fighting man to free millions from cold chains? Not noble words, not gracious plan could make real such gains. Or--Is our time so coy, so wild and free a thing? Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy of Killarn, not the Brian King Freedom bought at such a cost, where glory's priced so steep: Where the name of each good man lost Can memory's Herald keep. -Poem by Grim, April 10th, 2003, in honor of Ian Malone This is an annual Someone You Should Know (St. Patrick's Day Edition) post to celebrate an Irish soldier's sacrifice. Below is the story of Ian Malone - a young Irishman who bridged the divide between Ireland and England in life and death. Ian died during the invasion of Iraq in April of 2003 doing what he wanted to do - Soldiering for his country. Below is his story, told expertly by Philip Watson of the Telegraph: Godspeed, Ian, Godspeed. Update: Grim reminds us of a John Derbyshire article about the Irish (and Ian Malone) and Grim has a poem he wrote in Ian's honor that I'll reproduce as the intro to Ian Malone (top of post). View the full article

The United States Navy has moved up the deployment of the Bataan ARG. There's word Thursday that the USS Bataan, homeported in Norfolk, will head out on deployment later this month. Navy officials tell WVEC.com that the Bataan is surging to replace the Kearsarge, as part of a contingency operation. The surge is designed to give the president flexibility regarding the recent uprising in Northern Africa and in the Middle East. There's no word on the exact time of the deployment or for how long it will last. There are several things here. The Kearsarge had unloaded Marines into Afghanistan, and while the ship has been reinforced with additional Marines, the Bataan ARG will represent a fully prepared MEU for operations in that theater, if called upon. If the Bataan is being called to the Med, as reported, that would suggest the Boxer ARG recently deployed from California would be sent to the 5th fleet to meet the presence requirements for Marines in that theater. The Bataan ARG was planned to deploy later this year, but this deployment is a surge because the deployment date has been moved up in response to recent events in Northern Africa. This deployment represents an increase in presence requirements for the 6th fleet. Once again, the operational tempo of the US Navy is being increased. The continuous and nearly annual increases in operational tempo and requirements demand by the US Navy - whether it is for HA/DR, contingency planning like North Africa, or Ballistic Missile Defense - needs to be noted as there has been no subsequent increase in funding towards the construction of Navy vessels to account for the demand increases. Another question. There are two serious events taking place worldwide right now, in North Africa/Middle East with the protests and in Japan. When there are wartime challenges, the President is known to ask "Where are the Carriers?" When there are challenges short of war, the question is "Where are the Amphibs?" As the requirement creep continues to increase for operations other than war, the question is whether the minimal number of 33 amphibious ships the current plan budgets for is enough. It would appear 33 is not enough. Update: Aviation Week is reporting that F-22s of the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va. are quietly bring readied for deployment just in case they are called upon for a Libyan no-fly zone. View the full article

To: Major General T. Wilkerson, USMC(Ret) Chief Executive Officer U.S. Naval Institute Please forward to the members of the Board Gentlemen, In early February of this year I sent an e-mail to friends and colleagues advising them of the Board's decision to change the mission and role of the U.S. Naval Institute--without prior discussion or advice to the membership. I have since received almost 200 e-mails in reply plus a few telephone calls. Every response has indicated opposition to the proposed changes to the USNI mission and role. This view is also reflected on the USNI blog, and the blogs of "Commander Salamander" and others. This view was also reflected at a recent luncheon meeting of professional naval historians, almost all of whom are Naval Institute members. What is particularly troubling is the perception that the Board attempted to "put something over on the membership." And this is a membership organization--not a company or a stock-issuing firm. Indeed, the Board had at its disposal the means of advising the membership in advance of the rationale for such major changes to the 174-year organization: The Proceedings, the USNI blog, other blogs, and, indeed the possibility of direct mailings to the membership were (and still are) available. None of these means were employed. Rather, it does appear that the Board was attempting to put something over on the membership. Further, the Board's decision to destroy thousands of printed ballots to "hide" the mission change vote within the vote for the Board and the Editorial Board in another ballot was also against accepted practices for a membership organization. (Of course, the original ballot was mailed with the Naval History magazine.) This attempt at gross deception of the membership can only be remedied by the immediate resignation of all Board members who support these efforts. I feel that I have special and particular qualifications to call for the resignation of those specific members who supported these efforts: I have been a USNI member since age 15, and a Proceedings author since age 18; I have had the honor and privilege of the Naval Institute publishing a score of my books and I have had more bylines in the Proceedings than anyone else in the magazine's 173-year history. I am a former assistant editor of the Proceedings and, of course, a Golden Life member. With respect for the organization's many thousands of members--past, present, and future, yours sincerely, Norman Polmar To: U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors My friends and colleagues ---- There are two very important articles on this topic today, one at the USNI Blog and the other at CDR Salamander. You want to read them both. The first is the entire Editorial Board of the United States Naval Institute collectively voting "NO" to the mission statement change. It is difficult to interpret that post as anything other than a full blown civil war now taking place at USNI. The second, well, lets just say CDR Salamander is showing you what the Board of Directors is not. Sal explains why so many of us fight and are opposed this change. View the full article

Good analysis by NIGHTWATCH of some events taking place in the South China Sea. Philippines-China : The Philippine military on 2 March sent two military aircraft to patrol the ocean and air space near Reed Bank, a long time Philippine-occupied territory in the South China Sea. The Philippines took the action in response to the behavior of two Chinese patrol boats which harassed a Philippine ship searching for oil, according to Philippine military commander Lieutenant General Juancho Sabban. A Philippine OV-10 aircraft and an Islander light patrol aircraft were deployed after the incident was reported, Sablan said. The Chinese boats appeared ready to ram the Philippine vessel on two occasions before turning away, a military official said. No warning shots were fired and the ships later left, officials said. A Philippine navy patrol vessel was sent to secure oil exploration activities at the Reed Bank, and the Chinese Embassy would not immediately respond to Philippine requests for an explanation. Comment : The significance of this incident is that it shows that China intends to assert its claims to sovereignty of the South China Sea to the shores of the Philippines. Incidents involving the Japanese are neither unique nor isolated. Ship ramming appears to be an approved Chinese tactic. Prior to this incident, the Japanese complaints about Chinese behavior appeared anecdotal, idiosyncratic and racial. This incident shows the Chinese claim everything in the South China Sea, regardless of race, color, creed or national sovereignty. The AP has an article on the initial incident. The Philippines Star reports there was a protest, and China has not responded to the protest in a very productive way, by namely claiming the area as their territory. As if pushing around the Philippines in the South China Sea was just an appetizer, today Hanoi filed a protest regarding a Chinese naval exercises in their maritime territory. 2011 is starting in much the same way 2010 did, with China pushing their neighbors around over territorial claims. This did many good things for US relations in the region in 2010, and with more of this it is sure to do good things for US relations with the region in 2011 as well. View the full article

John Byron is a retired Captain of the United States Navy. He is the author of about 100 articles & essays for Proceedings and was Proceedings Writer of the Year in 1983 and 1992. John wrote prize-winning essays in the US Naval Institute’s Arleigh Burke Essay Contest (1998, 2002, 2004, 2005) and was the first Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Contest winner in 1982. Additionally, John was the primary adviser to Naval Institute Press on publication of The Hunt For Red October. A life member, I write to ask that you reconsider two disastrous decisions: changing the Institute’s mission; firing its CEO. My right to address you is found in the attached document: I’m a minor representative of the many who’ve given this institution meaning over its long and venerable life. Many years ago I heard Lieutenant General Brad Hosmer, the President of National Defense University, offer a challenge to the assembled faculty and students of his colleges that perfectly sums up the meaning of the Naval Institute’s established mission: “Never be afraid to take risks with ideas.†Generations of naval officers, aided by editors of extraordinary grace and competence, have challenged orthodoxy and taken the sea services safely through uncharted seas through nearly fourteen decades of change and turmoil that shaped the world we live in. They — we — “dared to read, think, speak, and write†concerned only with the judgment of our peers and the challenge of advancing the conversation and our profession positively and well. To quote another NDU President, Lieutenant General John Pustay speaking to my graduating class at The National War College, we took up his charge: “Shake the steeples!†All that now changes, goes away, is obliterated and destroyed forever by this ill-considered initiative to turn the Naval Institute into something it has resisted becoming since its founding: just another damned advocacy group. It’s an easy exercise to highlight the flaws in the proposed new mission: Just ‘global sea power?’ What if sea power is not the best tool? What of jointness and fighting together? What if the advance of sea power has an opportunity cost that weakens national defense? Etc. Just ‘economic prosperity?’ What of democratic freedoms? What of human rights? What of protecting the earth’s environment, dealing with global climate change? And whose economic prosperity? All citizens? All people? Corporate America? Who? It’s all in the eye of the beholder and this proposed mission statement establishes the official beholder’s position as paramount. The more serious concern, the aspect fatal to the Institute, is the inevitable and chilling push for mission correctness that will infiltrate and pervert every aspect of Institute business. “Good essay, lieutenant, but it doesn’t really advocate the necessity of global sea power the way we think best. Go read the CNO’s Posture Statement and try again.†Once. Just once. Do that once and you’ve lost the fleet. And it’s certain to happen; it’s baked into the proposed mission statement and intrinsic to the thought behind it. The next generation of Hollands and Stavridises and Wrights and Owenses and — yes — Byrons will be lost to the pages of Proceedings and the mission of the Institute. The current situation has three possible outcomes, two unacceptable and one the best of a bad lot: The mission-statement fails. This would lead to the resignation of six Board members, their only honorable option, and then a governance crisis compounded by the lack of experienced executive leadership. That’s an unacceptable outcome fraught with risk to the Institute. The mission-statement passes. This would produce wholesale resignations from members (I’d be one), the end of fleet-derived manuscripts, the departure of all but the wage slaves on the Institute’s wonderful staff, and a governance crisis postponed to next year when a member-nominated slate takes over the Board, one well intentioned but inexperienced and unable to deliver the financial resources the Institute needs. The Institute Press and Naval History would lose their academic underpinnings. The Institute would be forced to remove from Academy grounds. The new rivalry with the Navy League would weaken both organizations. Court challenges might come along to test the Institute’s governance and challenge the Board’s actions. This is even more unacceptable, a death knell. The Board withdraws the mission initiative and offers General Wilkerson the opportunity to return to the CEO position permanently. This would restore the status quo ante, though with the deck littered with broken crockery and a long stretch of healing ahead. Still, it’s the best we can do at this pass, an acceptable resolution of a crisis perpetrated on the Institute by six perhaps well-meaning but seriously misguided Directors stunningly out of touch with the membership that placed its trust in them. The uproar around this initiative is certainly a surprise to its proponents. Take it as a portend. Perhaps the individuals pushing this invidious bad idea are cocksure in their position … but they are not the majority of the Board. Even if we can’t unring this bell, we need not sink the ship. The Board should undo the tragedy in play and give the Naval Institute back to its members. A personal note: I’m astonished and saddened by the Institute’s fragility revealed in this crisis. Imagine: three denizens of Wall Street and three retired flags can tear down an institution that’s the envy of the other Services and respected by navies around the world, a mainstay in the life of my navy. Six head-strong individuals can destroy the United States Naval Institute. Shameful. View the full article

The following letter is being circulated and is for members of the United States Naval Institute. I can guarantee that I intend to discuss this topic quite a bit over the next month. All, I am writing to you--fellow members of the U.S. Naval Institute--to urge that you vote against the proposed change of the USNI mission statement that is being mailed out with the March issue of the Proceedings magazine. The current statement is refined from the original, 1873 mission written at the establishment of the USNI (see below). I believe that USNI members who believe in the principles of our 138-year-old professional organization should strongly object to three words/terms in the proposed change of the mission statement: (1) "an independent forum advocating" I believe these words are self-contradictory. The USNI has established itself as the leading international naval--and increasingly "defense"--forum because it has not "advocated" anything but has let authors (military and civilian, of all ranks, genders, and even nationalities) express their opinions. "Advocating" a position will unquestionably deter the USNI serving as an independent forum. (2) "global sea power" What does this mean? The Soviet Union from 1970 (the massive Okean exercise) until 1991 was certainly a "global sea power"--does the USNI advocate a rehabilitation of Russian sea power? Or a buildup of Chinese global sea power? Or Japanese? Or ...? And, does "global sea power" include a strong merchant marine--which we do not have and will not develop in the foreseeable future? Or fishing fleet? Or ....? Again, "global sea power" is ambiguous and misleading. (3) "economic prosperity" Again, for whom? The world? Then the USNI is encouraging every nation (including Iran, N. Korea, China, etc.) to develop global sea power. Or only for the United States? How does "global sea power" help U.S. posterity--other than the shipbuilding industry? The proposed new mission statement makes the USNI appear to be a lobbying and "cheerleading" organization for.... I am not quite certain for what or whom. In the years that I have been associated with the Naval Institute (since age 15), I was taught that those roles--lobbying and cheerleading--were the purpose of the Navy League, not the Naval Institute. The USNI now exists "to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense." I believe that mission statement is still valid and germane. I strongly urge all members to REJECT the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. All good wishes/Norman I stand with Norman Polmar, and strongly believe that information and education on the issue will overwhelmingly lead to a rejection of the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. I encourage all members of the United States Naval Institute to forward a copy of this letter, and all other information about this proposed change to every USNI member you know; via email, Facebook, Twitter, and with every other communication tool you prefer. The mission statement of USNI is Acticle I, Section II of the Constitution and By-Laws and is available from this link to USNI members. The existing mission statement: ARTICLE I Name and Mission Section 2. The Mission of the Institute is “to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense.†The proposed change would be: The Mission of the Institute is “to be an Independent Forum advocating the necessity of global sea power for national security and economic prosperity.†In discussing this issue with many of you over the last week, several of you have commented that we already have a Navy League. I agree, The Navy League is a great organization that some on the Board of Directors apparently want USNI to compete against. The Navy League mission statement is: The Navy League of the United States is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating our citizens about the importance of sea power to U.S. national security and supporting the men and women of the sea services and their families. Some folks on the Board of Directors are trying to pull a fast one here hoping no one is paying attention. I will be doing everything I can to insure every member in my network is aware of the choice represented in this vote. My goal is two fold: Help campaign for members to reject this proposal. Help get out the vote so that this becomes the largest vote in the 138 year history of the United States Naval Institute. As I intend to outline in detail over the next month, I believe the United States Naval Institute has been steadily moving forward over the last few years and is poised to do amazing things towards the objective of the existing mission statement, but apparently before the organization takes that step; the members of USNI will have to burn this bad idea to the ground before launching boldly from those ashes. I cannot stress enough how shortsighted I see this proposal at this time by the Board of Directors, because the appropriate analogy as I see it is to suggest this is like fumbling the football on the 5 yard line on first down after driving all the way down the field, and just as you are about to score after being down at halftime. According to the Constitution and By-Laws of the United States Naval Institute, to amend: ARTICLE XVI Amendments to Constitution and By-Laws Section 1. Proposed amendments to or changes in the Constitution and By-Laws must first be approved by the Board of Directors. Then, they shall be circulated to the members entitled to vote at least thirty days before the date the change becomes effective, if approved. Each such member in good standing shall be furnished a ballot on which to record his or her vote, and no amendment to or change in the Constitution and By-Laws shall be made without the favorable vote of two-thirds of the members voting. I shall have many things to say on this topic over the next month. If any member who has previously been published by the United States Naval Institute (book, Proceedings, blog) wishes to write an open letter of your own to the United States Naval Institute Board of Directors on this topic, I will happily publish that letter on this blog and make sure your letter gets broadly circulated through my network of hundreds of USNI members who over the past week have volunteered to help get the word out regarding this issue. For those who might want to be heard on this topic, I encourage you to email the USNI Board of Directors with your thoughts regarding the new mission statement proposal. View the full article

A few thoughts on the revolutions, and how to respond. Responses are meant to be effective without opening a new ground war, which is a condition that has to be avoided for obvious reasons. Bahrain: This one of the three is the most significant in terms of US power projection because of the 5th Fleet; it is also the one that will require the lightest touch, because we have long been aligned with the monarchy. The military's -- without even a warning shot -- is a quality we should not want in an ally. The Constitutional Monarchy being demanded is a reasonable step; we should publically condemn the shootings of protestors, and begin to push for negotiations between the monarchy and a committee designed to draft such a constitution. The membership of that committee we can help approve as a means of asserting some control on the outcome. Egypt: This is the most significant of in terms of geopolitical effect. The reason it has gone as well as it has is because the US military has worked substantially with the Egyptian military over decades. Many Egyptian officers have trained in the United States, or by American servicemembers; we hold the bienniel Bright Star combined exercises. The military's refusal to use force against the protestors, and its alignment with an ideal of democracy, are in part because of friendships and partnerships built with our own fighting force. The US government should reach out to every US military officer and NCO who has worked with Egypt in a substantial way, and find out if they are still in contact with any friends. Those who are should be built into an ad hoc public diplomacy / IO task force (which, since most of it would be done by telecom, need not require most of them to leave their current positions). This would give us signficant insight and influence into the process between now and the formation of the new Egyptian government. I have heard the State Department has made use of military officers with ties to Egypt on a more limited scale, but this is a place where a distributed public diplomacy effort directed at the whole of the Egyptian military would pay large and long-term dividends at a low cost. Libya: We need to back the protestors against the attacks being carried on by the government. I noticed that Mrs. Palin suggested a no-fly zone yesterday, which is not a bad idea if we can set one up unilaterally and quickly instead of going to the UN for authority (or doing so after the fact). However, I might suggest we consider a more aggressive response such as the one suggested by Michael Totten's man inside Iran's Revolutionary guards. Pin down the loyalist forces from the air. Provide them with humanitarian relief by air drop. We can imagine the heartening effect among the protestors of seeing US warplanes guarding them above. We can also imagine the effect the memory of that sight will have on post-revolutionary Libya. View the full article

The Associated Press has confirmed when the Iranians will cross the Suez Canal. Suez Canal officials say two Iranian naval vessels are expected to start their passage through the strategic waterway early Tuesday. Canal officials say the ships are expected to pay a fee of $290,000 for the crossing. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter. If the ships make the passage, it would mark the first time in three decades that Iranian military ships have traveled the canal that links the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. It seems pretty clear that from the Iranian point of view, this is a communication exercise. Timing for Tuesday, they are hoping for maximum impact to make the headlines on Tuesday as folks get back to work after a three day weekend. The question isn't if anyone will do anything - the US Navy guarantees freedom of the seas to the world, including Iran. The question is whether people will overreact politically to news of the transit. Keep in mind, it is to the advantage of Israel and Iran for the US markets to overreact, because impacts to our markets give cover to politicians who support Israel's claim the Iranian Naval movements are bad for the US. I don't see any scenario where the US Navy reacts to the Iranians in any way. I will never to presume to know what Israel will do when it comes to Iran. For those who are curious, yes, I do believe the purpose of the Iranian naval force is to deliver weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon. This voyage is expensive for Iran, so I am thinking there must be a payoff in it somewhere otherwise it wouldn't be done. View the full article

The Tea Party took Madison today, and I wish I was there if just to shake the hand of the guy who made this sign. This will be remembered as the revolt that killed public sector unions. The behavior of the protesters and their grotesque sense of entitlement have awoken the bear. America doesn't cotton to looters or moochers and the folks out this week in Wisconsin were both. Comparing a Governor who was duly elected and ran on a program to cut spending to Hitler and Mubarak is disgraceful. The fact that teachers and others felt empowered to lie their way out of work and then go to the Capitol to piss and moan is shameful and it will cost them. The cry that budget cuts will affect teachers is no longer going to gain any sympathy. We have seen the teachers in action and we are probably better off with our kids being taught by someone else. View the full article

Heard about the conversation about Naval History at the United States Naval Academy? The original post was very interesting. The follow up was very compelling. An outside observation by a civilian was very encouraging. But I think in the end what I appreciated most was seeing someone in Navy public affairs address the issue professionally and directly in a blog comment. Well done. This week I found myself reading about the value of naval wargaming as it was discussed over email and reading about the value of naval history as it was debated in the blogosphere; and both of these conversations served as a fresh reminder that my hobbies are neither as unique nor as trivial as I long presumed they were. Regarding the simi-private naval wargaming discussion that some of you have likely observed as I have, my only comment is this - there is no reason why the Naval War College isn't running an open source project on SourceForge for the development of a networked, Enterprise naval simulation system that can scale to multiple locations and be multi-player. The University systems in the US are saturated with video game programmers right now - some of whom are very talented, and if someone could come up with a system for measuring combat power, the implementation into software wouldn't be as expensive as you think if you have the right folks running the project from the NWC. Video games are excellent branding tools, as SOCOM has made obvious, which means a naval simulation could be legitimately sponsored and funded from a number of offices N1-N9 and be a legitimate expense, or investment, depending upon how you look at it. In fact, the biggest challenge would be deciding whether the game should be real-time or a play by email turn based system. I favor play by email, but I'm also one of those nerds who enjoyed table top Harpoon, although I'm also admitted a nerd who consumed time writing my own custom DBs for the digital version. View the full article

In his day he was reviled in ways that George W. Bush could commiserate about. He was denigrated as just an actor, a lightweight, an extremist and many other insults. And yet now he is revered by most including many on the left. His crime at the time was an Unapologetically American attitude, and it served him, and us, quite well. He stood up to the most existential threat this planet has ever faced, nuclear Armageddon. It is hard to convey to kids who don't even know what the Soviet Union was that there was a serious concern that we could actually destroy the planet. Not in the wimpy Al Goreacle-d way they are whingeing about now, but actually snuff out the human race in a nuclear winter. This was not just the left wing buttheads, it was a legitimate worry for anyone paying attention. He stood for human rights and dignity and the right of all people to choose their own government and live free from oppression. And when he talked about it you knew he meant it. The Soviet Union was in full on expansionist mode and recruiting satellites and proxies to expand their influence. Our answer was Ronald Reagan and gunboat diplomacy. BAM! It didn't always work, and of course we made compromises and worked with some evil bastards. But in the end it we prevailed and he was prophetic when he said "... freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.". And the world can thank Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher & Pope John Paul II for that. There are others, Lech Walesa for certain, who deserve high praise, but that troika was the driving force in the fight for liberty and freedom. His good nature and steadiness were a comforting factor when the price of failure was annihilation. It is a level of dignity and grace under pressure we haven't seen in any politician since and not many before (if any). The stakes in our international duel with the Soviets was survival. Our systems were mutually incompatible and theirs required a constant expansion to bring more of the proletariat into the fold. So Reagan planted the flag, and said this will not stand. It was a bold stance and much assailed by the Realpolitik crowd as well as the entire left. The fights over the nuclear missiles we had in Europe were epic, both here and there. I saw some first hand in Germany, and will never forget the protester on 15 foot stilts trying to step over the 10 ft fence around a US nuke base, and the Polizei blasting him dead in the chest sending him ass over tea kettle backwards. Heck back then when people asked what I did, I told them I worked for Ronald Reagan, and I was damn proud of it. The current chaos is creating a kind of Reagan nostalgia. Agree with the man or not, but you knew where he stood and you knew the political winds would not sway him. Some straight talk about freedom from a man who has inspired hundreds of millions around the world right now would be welcome. Lech Walesa knows who he wants to thank. When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right. I bet the protesters in Egypt, or the poor bastards who preceded them in Iran, would love to hear the support of the most powerful man on the planet. Or more importantly for their governments to hear it. Belief in freedom and the rule of democracy is the greatest gift America has given the world. We should never fail to stand tall and refuse to countenance tyranny. We do our country, our security and the world as a whole a tremendous good every time we reaffirm those beliefs. So thanks President Reagan, for the inspiration, the example, the strength and the dignity. America is exceptional, we were founded that way and remain the shining city on the hill the rest of the world wishes they lived in. View the full article

This book is by a very interesting character whom I met (is whom right there?) when I joined the ad sales staff at madison.com, home of the two Madison papers. Not long before that there was a campaign to support the site that used some awesomely Soviet style, propaganda looking imagery including a red star (this is a very tame example, they had some much more Daily Worker ones). The funny thing was they denied it was at all based on that and claimed it was art deco or some BS. I wasn't buying it and hammered them on my blog on their own site. When I started working there, I went to see the marketing director, a guy named Jon Friesch, who(m?) I assumed was a left wing butthead since he was responsible for the campaign. I was a little off base, and as it turned out I had found one of the only conservatives in the building. For him I was an enjoyable spectacle as I grilled sacred cows and kicked over all kinds of rice bowls. His office was crammed full of Marvel Comics stuff and the whole marketing department was, like most, a little bent. As it turned out, we spent quite a few hours in his office bemoaning the abject stupidity of the left, inside the building and out. He is now out in Seattle doing his own thing, one part of which was writing an excellent book about conservatism that is perfect to give to those who don't have a clue what it is all about. His book is called Gut Feeling and here is the review I put at Amazon. There are many weighty tomes about conservatism that trace its roots back to a bunch of crotchety old European guys. I'm sure they are wonderful and that a historic look at conservatism is a useful thing for some. But what do you say when someone asks you "Why are you a conservative?". It doesn't do much to say that Burke and Kirk and a bunch of other guys said its a good idea. Not gonna win too many converts or justify your beliefs to a skeptic. This book is perfect for that. Whether its a teenager whose eyes you want to open, a disillusioned independent wondering if he can afford to dabble in Democrats, or somebody who has ignored politics but thinks we are on the wrong path, this book works as a perfect way to cut to the chase. It will even entertain those already on board with reminders of how conservatism isn't just a political ideology, it's a way of living your life. It reminds us of all the virtues and morals and ethics that combined inform, or ought to inform, all of our decisions. I bet you can think of three or four people who could benefit from a book like this. It has a light touch, is not overly judgmental and could actually attract people to conservatism. View the full article

Very rarely do people talk about all the interesting things submarines do, except maybe this article. Revelations by prominent British journalist and author Gordon Thomas in his latest book, Inside British Intelligence: 100 Years of MI5 and MI6 , published last year, show Britain's foreign secret intelligence service mounted an operation to thwart the Chinese arms delivery to Zimbabwe in April 2008. "Britain's intelligence services have increased surveillance of China over the years because of China's activities in Africa. In April 2008, MI6 asked for one of the Royal Navy's nuclear Trident-class submarines to track a floating arsenal of weapons and bombs dispatched by the Beijing regime in China on board a rust-stained freighter, the An Yue Jiang, to President Robert Mugabe's pariah state of Zimbabwe," Thomas says. "On board were 1000 rocket-propelled grenades, 2000 mortar rounds, and three million rounds of ammunition. MI6 agents in South Africa believed the arsenal was intended to further cow Zimbabwe's starving population (after the disputed elections)." Thomas says Britain, using its MI6 operatives and the Royal Navy's nuclear Trident-class submarine, tracked the Chinese ship - nicknamed "Freighter of Death" - along the coast to ensure it did not offload the cargo, while London and Washington ratcheted up diplomatic pressure to prevent any country in the region from allowing the delivery of the arms to Mugabe. "Denied landing rights by dockers in South Africa's Durban port, the freighter began to wander around the South Atlantic while Chinese officials in the home port of Ningbo sought other ports in Africa where the cargo could be unloaded and sent by road to Zimbabwe," Thomas says. "Intelligence sources in London confirmed that secret approaches had been made to Equatorial Guinea, Benin and Ivory Coast. None, however, allowed the ship to dock and off-load its weapons." Thomas says his sources had told him Mugabe could even approach Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to repackage the arms and ship them to Zimbabwe under disguise. "The Trident - one of the four in the fleet which is based in Faslane on Scotland's Clyde - continued to track the freighter until it suddenly hurried to its home port late in May 2008," Thomas says. "The black-hulled Trident submarine covered with sonar-absorbing anechoic tiles tracked the Chinese freighter, sending short-burst communications to the Admiralty in London." The Chinese ship eventually sailed back home after all countries in the region refused to allow it to offload the weapons. A 'spill the beans' spy book written by an Englishman. Sounds like something I need to read. This is the side of China that Hu should have been asked about by reporters during his visit. If he was asked - send me a link. I wonder how many ships with arms are at sea right now with destinations of Tunisia, Sudan, and Algeria? Also, does anyone else see the irony of a "nuclear Trident-class submarine" tracking "a floating arsenal of weapons and bombs." View the full article

Here we go. From Admiral Harvey via WAVY; A few minutes ago, I permanently relieved Capt. Owen Honors of his duties as commanding officer of USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) for demonstrating exceptionally poor judgment while serving as executive officer of that ship, from 2006-2007. While Capt. Honors' performance as commanding officer of ENTERPRISE has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer in ENTERPRISE calls into question his character and undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.After personally reviewing the videos Capt. Honors created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in his ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for the poor judgment and inappropriate actions repeatedly demonstrated in those videos. It is fact that as naval officers we are held to a higher standard. Those in command must exemplify the Navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment which we expect our Sailors to embrace. Our leaders must be above reproach and our Sailors deserve nothing less.Capt. Dee Mewbourne will be permanently assigned as the new commanding officer of ENTERPRISE. Capt. Mewbourne most recently commanded USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and while in command he completed two successful combat deployments supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Capt. Mewbourne is currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy Cyber Forces - he will assume command of ENTERPRISE later this afternoon. That brings us to the questions I asked over at USNIBlog. CAPT Mewbourne - good luck. View the full article

What is Mandarin for "BOLTER"? I told you ... I told you .... you all owe me beer. China may be ready to launch its first aircraft carrier in 2011, Chinese military and political sources said on Thursday, a year ahead of U.S. military analysts' expectations. Analysts expect China to use its first operational aircraft carrier to ensure the security of its oil supply route through the Indian Ocean and near the disputed Spratly Islands, but full capability is still some years away. "The period around July 1 next year to celebrate the (Chinese Communist) Party's birthday is one window (for launch)," one source with ties to the leadership told Reuters, requesting anonymity because the carrier programme is one of China's most closely guarded secrets. The Defense Ministry spokesman's office declined to comment. The possible launch next year of the ex-Soviet aircraft carrier 'Varyag' for training, and testing technology, will be one step toward building an operating aircraft carrier group, analysts said. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimates the Varyag will be launched as a training platform by 2012, and China will have an operational domestically built carrier after 2015. I snickered when I read this as it is another, "Duh." People thought I was paranoid when I said that would be a casino about the same time I become a Marine - but remember, you aren't being paranoid if people are actually out to get you. A Chinese firm bought the then-engineless Varyag from Ukraine in 1998 for $20 million, planning to convert it to a floating casino in Macau, but the Chinese military then bought the vessel. The learning curve is steep - but the Chinese have plenty of their blood and our treasure to spend on it. 2030 will be interesting. View the full article

The Korean crisis is turning into a case study on escalation control. With the arrival of Bill Richardson to North Korea on Thursday, North Korea decided on Friday to wave their deterrent, again, in our direction. North Korea warned Friday that another war with South Korea would involve nuclear arms and spread beyond the peninsula, upping the ante as a prominent U.S. politician and a top U.S. nuclear envoy each visited Pyongyang and Seoul to defuse tension. Uriminzokkiri, the communist state's official Web site, also said in a commentary that war on the Korean Peninsula is only a matter of time, stoking already high tensions after the North shelled a western South Korean island on Nov. 23 and killed four people. "If war breaks out, it will lead to nuclear warfare and not be limited to the Korean Peninsula," it said. If you are one of those people who think this is just more North Korean rhetoric, and do not see military confrontation as a possibility here, perhaps if I raise you a Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff you might reconsider the very real possibility that war might come to the Korean Peninsula as soon as this weekend. The U.S. military is concerned that South Korea's live-fire artillery exercises planned for coming days could spark an uncontrollable clash with the North, but the State Department said the exercises are not meant to be threatening or provocative. "What we worry about, obviously, is if that is misunderstood or if it's taken advantage of as an opportunity," Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday at the Pentagon. "If North Korea were to react to that in a negative way and fire back at those firing positions on the islands, that would start potentially a chain reaction of firing and counter-firing." The escalation control comes, in part, from diplomats: "South Korea is entitled to take appropriate steps in its self-defense, making sure that its military is prepared in the event of further provocations is a perfectly legitimate step for South Korea to take," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said at his midday briefing Thursday. "North Korea should not see these South Korean actions as a provocation." But the Generals are involved in the escalation control process: "What you don't want to have happen out of that is ... for us to lose control of the escalation. That's the concern," Cartwright said about the military exercises. There is a pattern of cop/bad cop when you mix and match the comments from State and Defense: "These are routine exercises. There's nothing, you know, provocative or unusual or threatening about these exercises," Crowley said. "There's no need for it to increase tensions in the area. This is a pre-announced live fire exercise. The North Koreans clearly should know what is going to happen. It is not directed at North Korea." What concerns me about General Cartwrights comments is that they do not all appear to be pointed in the direction of North Korea, indeed one could infer that he is speaking through the media to South Korea as well. There were news reports that North Korea warned South Korea not to conduct the exercises on Yeonpyeong Island prior to the first incident. Has there been a warning this time? I only ask because we are reacting to news of the new exercise as if North Korea told us - 'better not!' How do we then put the comments by Vice Adm. Al Myers to the crew of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) into context with all that is going on. The aircraft carrier is in the final stages before heading off to the western Pacific. I personally find these comments quite remarkable, but primarily because Navy News Service actually printed it. Myers also encouraged the strike group Sailors to handle the gravity of their forthcoming mission. "For the folks who are on their first deployment, they're going to write history. Vinson is going to be in the news," Myers said. "It's important to understand the Navy does two fundamental things - one is we influence foreign countries, build and disrupt coalitions, and we main t ain sea lanes of commerce. You're going to influence a few foreign countries. By being present there, you're going to be protecting our lanes of commerce. You can't do that virtually, you have to be there, you have to be forward deployed. You prove every day what a strong team can do." Looking for a way to pull all of this together? The commentary at Nightwatch over the last two days has been very good. Read this report first, then this one, before reading on... If you follow the pattern you see two tracks possible, confrontation and diplomatic breakthrough. The State Department deserves a ton of credit for being very agile and responsive in keeping the pressure on both North Korea and China. It is worth noting that Russia still lingers as a Plan B over the horizon as a SK-US-Japan diplomatic option should things turn south. For their part, China is being systematically discredited as the responsible regional leader to virtually every observer, and younger leaders who are more familiar with how international rule sets work for security have demonstrated signs of awareness towards this important aspect of events. That is good news in the long term, but does nothing for the current situation. The chess match being orchestrated by the State Department is designed around a theory of escalation control for nuclear warfare that I had believed disappeared after the cold war. The US military has masterfully played their support role for the region while signaling preparation for military action should a confrontation occur. The statements of US Generals and Admirals act as pressure points to maintain pressure on the region, and everything has been building towards the South Korean exercise this weekend. As it has been since the original combat action, what happens next will be determined exclusively by the two Koreas, with both the US and China playing every card possible to insure a diplomatic avenue exists should confrontation not be on the agenda. As a final note: Date .......attack subs deployed | attack subs underway Nov30 .............. 37% ................ 46% Dec07 .............. 41% ................ 63% Dec17 ...............43% ................ 67% A full 2/3 of the United States Navy attack submarine force is at sea today, and 4 attack submarines have deployed over the last 10 days. I'm sure it is a Christmas coincidence. View the full article

In late May 1943, the B-24 carrying the 26-year-old Zamperini went down over the Pacific. For nearly seven weeks — longer, Hillenbrand believes, than any other such instance in recorded history — Zamperini and his pilot managed to survive on a fragile raft. They traveled 2,000 miles, only to land in a series of Japanese prison camps, where, for the next two years, Zamperini underwent a whole new set of tortures. His is one of the most spectacular odysseys of this or any other war, and “odyssey†is the right word, for with its tempests and furies and monsters, many of them human, Zamperini’s saga is something out of Greek mythology. For you sports minded folks, that name might sound familiar. Zamperini grew up in Torrance, Calif., and thanks partly to a bout of juvenile delinquency — he became adept at breaking into homes, then fleeing the police — he developed into a world-class runner. He ran the 5,000 meters at the 1936 Berlin Olympics (even Hitler commented on him) and later, at the University of Southern California, flirted with a four-minute mile. There is more at the NYT article, and if you like what you are reading there, you might want to check out Laura Hillenbrand's new novel, Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption. More here. Hat tip PowerLine. View the full article

The naval variant of the military’s fighter jet of the future arrived at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on Nov. 6, a development that means the Navy and its industry partners are satisfied that the jet can safely perform basic flight maneuvers and is ready to tackle more demanding tests. Behind the scenes, however, the Navy is struggling to remedy a significant design oversight that poses a major potential hindrance to its ability to successfully deploy and maintain the F-35C Lightning II, the carrier-based variant of the joint strike fighter: Its powerful single engine, when packed for shipping, is too large to be transported to sea by normal means when replacements are required. “That is a huge challenge that we currently have right now,†said Capt. Chris Kennedy of the JSF Program Office, answering a flier’s question about JSF engine resupply following a public presentation on the state of the program at the 2010 Tailhook Symposium in September in Reno, Nev. He said the program office is working with the Navy staff and carrier systems planners to solve the problem. Really? Really? The program is simply too far down the road to do anything but try to find a work around ... but an interesting forensics question would be the how and why we have reached this point of the program when someone asked, "So, what are the tie down and CG considerations for COD'n this out to the boat?" ... and the answer was, "What is a COD?" From the cheap seats here, it looks like no one listened to or invited on the team anyone from the Aviation Maintenance side of the house, CVN AIMD in particular. On the USN/USMC side of the program team, who were the 13XX post-Command personnel in the loop? When, how, and why was this requirement defined, prioritized, and addressed? This really can't be something that was just thought of, could it? If at sometime it was decided that this need was not essential - who made that decision and why? Is this another case of Jointicitis, r.e. ACS, where we could be spending a dollar in the long run to save a quarter now ... again. Let me try to find the positive angle on this. This might be a good excuse to bring back a discussion of the Common Support Aircraft. We need a non-FA-18 based organic tanker and we need spare engines - use that as the basis for the discussion. Go evolutionary not revolutionary with a fly-off like was done with the F-16/17 & F-22/23. Replacement for E-2D at some time down the road should be able to piggy-back on the result. Either that or we can accept lower strike sorties due to unnecessarily NMCS aircraft, and parasitic buddy-tanking. Oh, let me help our our buddy Galrahn --- accountability? View the full article

Now, I don't know if I would call a German Socialist a Fascist .... but that is simply because I have enough of a problem being redundant in my writing. This has been all around ... and I felt the need to share simply because it does three things for me: 1. Shows the EU Parliament as it is. 2. Shows the best political insults come from Brits. 3. Lets me share with you the, ahem, beautiful Dutch language and entertaining hand gestures. Mr. Bloom; take it away. Some think he went too far - maybe, but I would think that he did a great cry for freedom. I owe him beer. Now - who is calling who a Fascist? Vote PVV early - vote PVV often; at least for the lady. Oh ... I almost forgot Nigel. Never forget Nigel. View the full article

Several noteworthy events took place surrounding Korean Peninsula tensions over the last 24 hours. Reuters discusses the first two issues in this report. "We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval," China's Foreign Ministry said in an online response to a question regarding China's position on the George Washington participating in joint naval exercises. This is the first reaction to the US moving the USS George Washington (CVN 73) into the Yellow Sea. As far as China is concerned, they believe no one should be allowed to operate a warship, much less an aircraft carrier, within their exclusive economic zone. There is no international law that China bases their political protest on, as maritime boundary definitions in the UNCLOS are defined as: Coastal waters—the zone extending 3 nm. from the baseline Territorial sea—the zone extending 12 nm. from the baseline Contiguous zone—the area extending 24 nm. from the baseline Exclusive Economic Zone—the area extending 200 nm. from the baseline except when the space between two countries is less than 400 nm China's criticism was to be expected, and one reason why I believe the Obama administration has taken this course of action. Territorial sea only extends 12 nm, and only if US Navy forces move within the territorial waters of China would there be any violation of international law. The Reuters report also discusses the latest statement by North Korea: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the (North)," the North's official KCNA news agency said. Shortly after the statement, the North Korean military held an exercise near Yeonpyeong island firing artillery at least twice over a period of two and half hours. This article in the New York Times has the details, and nice photo of how clearly one can see the smoke from the artillery from Yeonpyeong island. The press has been given access to Yeonpyeong island to see the damage, and as one might imagine the pictures on TV and online just piles on the political pressure for the government to act. It is an unfortunate situation, because the new Defense Minister is in a difficult place regarding how to respond to any new attacks after having just seen the old Defense Minister resign for not retaliating forceful enough. What does that mean next time the North tries another limited skirmish on the border? As the Wall Street Journal notes, Asian markets are nervous. South Korea's Kospi dropped 1.3%, Japan's Nikkei Stock Average shed 0.4%, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index fell 0.8% and China's Shanghai Composite declined 0.9%. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 edged up 0.1%. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down 75 points in screen trade. If I am to be a selfish American, I would note that the Asian concerns of war combined with the European concerns of debt certainly gives investors in the global economy a lot to think about. The consequences of that concern has been a nice little bump for the dollar. It is remarkable how quickly signs of war between nations in either Asia or the Middle East usually bounces US currency positively, a reminder that the gold standard was replaced with the F-16 standard over 30 years ago. I say this as a key reminder. Should China decide to start selling off their holdings in Treasuries, it is important to remember that means someone else is buying. Worth thinking about. The Navy exercise between the US and South Korea that begins Sunday is a short term action, but long term actions are necessary. What the Cheonan and now this latest incident has highlighted is a broad flaw in US policy, and while everyone would love to see a diplomatic solution to all of these problems, the patience of the region with the US governments ineffective diplomatic solutions for North Korea has all but expired. Both South Korea and North Korea have stopped working with the Red Cross, which was the last link the two countries had before this latest incident. There is a realization in Washington, DC that future North Korean attacks will make a future US policy response that 'calls for restraint and emphasizes diplomacy' a failure of US obligations to partners like Japan and South Korea. This realization has become a serious political problem for the White House. It will be interesting to see how the President handles this very serious problem, particularly given how forceful South Korea is likely to be to the next North Korean attack, not to mention how skeptical Japan has become of us given our repeated inadequacies dealing with North Korea. It will also be interesting if and how the media reports on this very serious foreign policy problem facing the Obama administration - one he can't exactly kick down the road. I suspect the administration is looking for a policy action akin to the "Stuxnet option" someone deployed against Iran. By that I mean the US would love to be able to deploy an untraceable damaging attack that disrupts North Korean capabilities in an indirect way, and after the fact everyone believes it was done by the US although no one has the proof necessary to prove it. One final Navy note - don't be surprised if - just as the USS George Washington (CVN 73) begins exercising with the South Korean Navy in the Yellow Sea, a second US carrier battle group quietly enters the western Pacific. View the full article

BTW - in the German Navy, three thick stripes is a LCDR, not CDR. I like the beard too. ... and yes, I noticed the picture in the Wardroom/Chiefs Mess at the 3:00 mark. Hat tip Boquisucio@Argghhh!!! View the full article

Ark Royal moves on: The aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal has sailed into Scotland for the last time, as part of a farewell tour. The fleet flagship of the Royal Navy, which is being decommissioned after 25 years service, sailed down the Firth of Clyde. It is due to dock at Glen Mallan Jetty on Loch Long to unload its ammunition. The ship will stay in Loch Long for five days before sailing around the north of Scotland and on to Newcastle, close to where she was built. The Ark Royal left its Portsmouth base for a farewell tour of the UK on Tuesday. The aircraft carrier is being retired three years early as part of cost-cutting measures announced by the UK government. Some of my academic work has to do with the politics of military equipment and national prestige. There's a tendency to have clinical, or potentially even cynical, view towards the emotional attachments that develop between people and the material instruments of foreign policy. The sorrow that accompanies the retirement of a warship like Ark Royal, not to mention the enduring popularity of national naval memorials in the United States and elsewhere, serves to temper this tendency. It's genuinely sad to see a great warship retire before her time. The Queen's inspection makes it particularly poignant; one of her earliest major foreign tours was aboard HMS Vanguard in 1947, and her reign has witnessed the profound decay of the Royal Navy as a global force. View the full article