America Disarmed?
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, there is a piece by Mark Helprin – author of A Soldier of the Great War and other fine novels, short stories, and novellas; former member of the Journal’s Board of Contributors; and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute – which deserves close study. Helprin is a veteran of the Israeli Army and the Israeli Air Force, and he has made a study of war.
His title is The Decline of U.S. Naval Power, and his contention is that we are abdicating our position as the power dominant at sea.
Separated by the oceans from sources of raw materials in the Middle East, Africa, Australia and South America, and from markets and manufacture in Europe, East Asia and India, we are in effect an island nation. Because 95% and 90% respectively of U.S. and world foreign trade moves by sea, maritime interdiction is the quickest route to both the strangulation of any given nation and chaos in the international system. First Britain and then the U.S. have been the guarantors of the open oceans. The nature of this task demands a large blue-water fleet that simply cannot be abridged.
With the loss of a large number of important bases world-wide, if and when the U.S. projects military power it must do so most of the time from its own territory or the sea. Immune to political cross-currents, economically able to cover multiple areas, hypoallergenic to restive populations, and safe from insurgencies, the fleets are instruments of undeniable utility in support of allies and response to aggression. Forty percent of the world's population lives within range of modern naval gunfire, and more than two-thirds within easy reach of carrier aircraft. Nothing is better or safer than naval power and presence to preserve the often fragile reticence among nations, to protect American interests and those of our allies, and to prevent the wars attendant to imbalances of power and unrestrained adventurism.
And yet the fleet has been made to wither even in time of war. We have the smallest navy in almost a century, declining in the past 50 years to 286 from 1,000 principal combatants. Apologists may cite typical postwar diminutions, but the ongoing 17% reduction from 1998 to the present applies to a navy that unlike its wartime predecessors was not previously built up. These are reductions upon reductions. Nor can there be comfort in the fact that modern ships are more capable, for so are the ships of potential opponents. And even if the capacity of a whole navy could be packed into a small number of super ships, they could be in only a limited number of places at a time, and the loss of just a few of them would be catastrophic.
The overall effect of recent erosions is illustrated by the fact that 60 ships were commonly underway in America's seaward approaches in 1998, but today—despite opportunities for the infiltration of terrorists, the potential of weapons of mass destruction, and the ability of rogue nations to sea-launch intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles—there are only 20.
I quote Helprin’s article at length because he demonstrates in detail what I have argued repeatedly here: that our military resources are no longer sufficient for the defense of our interests. Our forces are in decline at a time when the number of missions that they are expected to be ready to carry out has increased. Our navy decreases in size as the Chinese buildup grows apace. “As China’s navy rises and ours declines,” Helprin writes, “not that far in the future the trajectories will cross. Rather than face this, we seduce ourselves with redefinitions such as the vogue concept that we can block with relative ease the straits through which the strategic materials upon which China depends must transit.” In effect, he explains, we would be abandoning control of the seas for “the insurgent model of lesser navies such as Germany’s in World Wars I and II and the Soviet Union’s in the Cold War,” and that will only encourage China “to construct a navy that can dominate the oceans.”
If, of course, you think of the United States as a great source of evil in world affairs, as many on the left certainly do, you will welcome this prospect – and that may well be the opinion guiding Barack Obama. If, on the other hand, you recognize that we have and have always had – at least since the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 – vital interests far afield, you will mourn this as folly. In the 1930s, in the midst of an ongoing economic crisis far worse than the one we are still wrestling with, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain engaged in wishful thinking and neglected Britain’s defense, thinking that a penny saved is a penny earned. This is the natural tendency of liberal commercial polities and was in evidence as early as the end of the 17th century when unilateral disarmament on the part of Britain encouraged audacity on the part of Louis XIV and brought on the War of the Spanish Succession. Anyone inclined to think that cutting the military budget ought to be part of the package with which we rescue ourselves from fiscal insolvency should contemplate the potential cost – which is as apt to be denominated in lives as in dollars.
- Comment (73)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: America Disarmed?
I agree that the decline of our naval power is alarming, particularly in light of the increased threat by China and others, in terms of anti-ship missile weaponry.
I also agree that Mark Helprin is one of the greatest contemporary writers. I esteem A Soldier of the Great War as the finest American novel of the past fifty years.
Dec '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Which brings us back to tabula rasa's thread on preventing Iran from going nuclear. Conventional containment and deterrence require sizable conventional forces - just as large as if you were fighting the war you are hoping to deter. Cutting conventional forces because you think you can rely on deterrence and diplomacy to substitute for them is a recipe for catastrophe, up to and including being forced to choose between non-conventional (nuclear) first strikes and ceding vital interests to a determined enemy.
Oct '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Where people of good will might disagree is in defining "our interests", or determining what our interests ought to be (with emphasis on ought).
During the era of frontier expansion, certainly after the war of 1812, it was generally agreed upon that our interests were generally confined to within and upon the perimeter of that frontier. Subsequent to the frontier period, especially since WWI, our pursuit of economic growth through mercantilism has necessitated a robust military to protect those interests. This "neo-colonialism" (so-called, by the Left) coupled with "neoconservativism" (as preached on the Right) has resulted in a heavy burden on the American tax-payer, which is now being questioned, especially within the Tea Party movement, and justly so, IMHO.
May '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Interesting. I just finished teaching the Spanish-American war and Alfred Thayer Mahan's Influence of Sea Power in History impact on the thinking of Lodge and TR. History continues to rhyme...
Sep '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Correct. One does not have to think the US is evil to think to think our interests ought to be different from what they are perceived to be by some.
Feb '11
Re: America Disarmed?
Sec. of Defense Gates has indicated that the Air Force and the Navy are going to be the centerpieces of America's defense forces in the future. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261056/secretary-gates-looks-ahead-conrad-black">Conrad Black lays it out.</a>
I agree with Good Berean, it really depends on what our interests are. Should we be in the business of safeguarding China's, India's and Europe's oil deliveries from the Middle East? That's what it mainly comes down to. And what are we as Americans going to get out of it? Those are two questions that should go together. Costs-risks-rewards.
No html here I see.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 1:48pmDec '10
Re: America Disarmed?
"Our forces are in decline at a time when the number of missions that they are expected to be ready to carry out has increased."
Well, there's your problem, Prof. Rahe. It's the "expected" and "increased" bits.
His logic-- that we are functionally an island nation-- is absurd. By his definition Austria is an island nation, fer crying out loud.
And if we are so dependent on foreign manufacturing-- and this is a potential strategic weakness-- then why do I always get pushback when I suggest we should have a coherent industrial policy that rewards high-value manufacturing?
Seriously? What's better? Spending mountains of money continuing to be the world's police force so American boys can get shot in the head by subliterate animals over tribal disputes? Or redirecting some of that energy so more of those boys can go back to staffing the world's workshop?
Re: America Disarmed?
Good Berean:
During the era of frontier expansion, certainly after the war of 1812, it was generally agreed upon that our interests were generally confined to within and upon the perimeter of that frontier.· Mar 3 at 1:12pm
How, then, do you explain the Monroe Doctrine?
Re: America Disarmed?
Hang On: Sec. of Defense Gates has indicated that the Air Force and the Navy are going to be the centerpieces of America's defense forces in the future. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261056/secretary-gates-looks-ahead-conrad-black">Conrad Black lays it out.</a>
I agree with Good Berean, it really depends on what our interests are. Should we be in the business of safeguarding China's, India's and Europe's oil deliveries from the Middle East? That's what it mainly comes down to. And what are we as Americans going to get out of it? Those are two questions that should go together. Costs-risks-rewards.
No html here I see. · Mar 3 at 1:47pm
Edited on Mar 03 at 01:48 pm
What we get out of it is that we can trade anywhere with anyone willing to trade and our ability to do so does not depend on the good will of a foreign power.
Dec '10
Re: America Disarmed?
"What we get out of it is that we can trade anywhere with anyone willing to trade and our ability to do so does not depend on the good will of a foreign power."
And, Prof. Rahe, don't those other partners have an interest in keeping these trade lanes open as well? You are not making an argument for a massive military. You're making an argument for an economy that isn't built on pillaging past assets and financial legerdemain so our productive capacity is such that no other nation would dare forebear trading with us.
Now that is something I favor.
Re: America Disarmed?
KarlUB: His logic-- that we are functionally an island nation-- is absurd. By his definition Austria is an island nation, fer crying out loud.
And if we are so dependent on foreign manufacturing-- and this is a potential strategic weakness-- then why do I always get pushback when I suggest we should have a coherent industrial policy that rewards high-value manufacturing?
Seriously? What's better? Spending mountains of money continuing to be the world's police force so American boys can get shot in the head by subliterate animals over tribal disputes? Or redirecting some of that energy so more of those boys can go back to staffing the world's workshop? · Mar 3 at 1:49pm
The issue is less foreign manufacturing than raw materials from abroad, and it is also linked with our capacity to engage in trade abroad. We are not self-sufficient; we will never be self-sufficient . . . unless we return to a much more primitive economy. And if we do that we will not be able even in a minimal way to defend our territory.
As things stand, no power can exclude us from trading. Do you want to open up that possibility?
Re: America Disarmed?
Mercantilism? Hardly. The policy we have pursued is free trade -- and that can successfully be pursued only if the sea lanes are policed. Otherwise, either piracy will be the norm (as it is, thanks to our fecklessness, along the Somali coast) or some other country will emerge to police the sea lanes. Would you prefer that our ability to trade depend on the good will of, say, the Chinese? In the 19th century, we relied on the British. On whom do you propose that we rely today?
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 2:20pmRe: America Disarmed?
KarlUB: "What we get out of it is that we can trade anywhere with anyone willing to trade and our ability to do so does not depend on the good will of a foreign power."
And, Prof. Rahe, don't those other partners have an interest in keeping these trade lanes open as well? You are not making an argument for a massive military. You're making an argument for an economy that isn't built on pillaging past assets and financial legerdemain so our productive capacity is such that no other nation would dare forebear trading with us.
Now that is something I favor. · Mar 3 at 1:59pm
Do you then favor turning over protection of the sea lanes to the fine folks at the United Nations? Throughout history, piracy has been the norm -- except when there has been a superintending power with a stake in putting it down. Athens, at one point, and Carthage. Rome. Venice. Eventually. Britain for centuries. Then, the US. When this task is taken on, it is always taken on by the power with the most to gain from keeping the sea lanes open.
Feb '11
Re: America Disarmed?
Paul A. Rahe,
I understand the point about raw materials and trading. Why does it have to depend on one nation? One nation that is going broke, I might add.
Britain's demise as a naval power antedated Chamberlain and Baldwin. The reason the US and Britain came to such good terms after a century and a half of bad relations was precisely because by the turn of the century Britain had lost its naval edge. The US and Britain almost came to blows over the border between Venezuela and British Guiana in the 1890s until the British came to their good senses and realized that a war with the Americans would be bloody, costly, and counterproductive to British interests. Before that, the British had been able to act on their own any way they wanted.
The US is in the same position. The US has been able to fight a half century of wars with few well-armed allies because it had the financial muscle to do so. Those days are over. Time to adjust. Alliances are the key.
Dec '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Over a century ago Alfred Thayer Mahan, in his book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, argued persuasively for a large and strong navy. His book has had immense influence on the strategic thinking of seagoing nations since published.
As Helprin notes, the US is essentially an island and heavily dependent on ocean going trade and commerce.
For centuries nations heavily dependent on ocean going trade used their navies to provide a military presence throughout the world, to influence events and help keep peace.
The US military presence in regions we have significant economic and/or security interests (a large part of the globe) serves a deterrent role, discouraging highly aggressive and prone to violence regional states and organizations.
Decreasing our presence in any of these regions increases the odds of a major war in the region. It also makes it more likely, inevitable in fact, that another non-regional power will try to fill the power vacuum we leave behind. Decreased presence also reduces our ability to keep regional wars from escalating. And we will inevitably be drawn into these wars whether we like it or not.
There is little upside in continuing to weaken our navy.
Re: America Disarmed?
We have never been in such a situation and never will be. The danger is that a regional power -- Japan in the 1930s and early 1940s, China today -- will simply shut us out, denying us resources and markets. That is what is called mercantilism, and it is very much in our interest to prevent its becoming the norm. I am not arguing for forcing our trade on an particular country. I am arguing against letting regional hegemons be the arbiters of our commerce. As a commercial society, we have -- let me repeat -- interests far beyond our shores.
Oct '10
Re: America Disarmed?
Paul A. Rahe
Good Berean:
During the era of frontier expansion, certainly after the war of 1812, it was generally agreed upon that our interests were generally confined to within and upon the perimeter of that frontier.· Mar 3 at 1:12pm
How, then, do you explain the Monroe Doctrine? · Mar 3 at 1:51pm
The frontier I am referring to was a virtual frontier in 1823 which included all of the North American landmass that was potentially occupiable by the United States.
Re: America Disarmed?
Hang On: Paul A. Rahe,
I understand the point about raw materials and trading. Why does it have to depend on one nation? One nation that is going broke, I might add.. . .
The US is in the same position. The US has been able to fight a half century of wars with few well-armed allies because it had the financial muscle to do so. Those days are over. Time to adjust. Alliances are the key.
I would agree with you that there is much to be said for alliances. That can help. But there must also be hegemony. Someone must lead. I also do not believe that we are going broke. We are -- thanks to Barack Obama -- greatly overspending on the domestic side. We have a choice. We can either be a great commercial power, or we can choose socialism. I favor bringing the domestic budget (including entitlements) back into balance. We are not in the condition Britain was in ca. 1890, and we do not have the good fortune she had. There is no polity like the US waiting to take the baton. How far would you trust the Chinese?
Dec '10
Re: America Disarmed?
I see 1930's style thinking about the US military, about our economic and military place and role in the world, and about how we can insulate ourselves from and ignore what other nations can and will do is making a come back.
The arguments are virtually identical.
Re: America Disarmed?
Good Berean
Paul A. Rahe
Good Berean:
During the era of frontier expansion, certainly after the war of 1812, it was generally agreed upon that our interests were generally confined to within and upon the perimeter of that frontier.· Mar 3 at 1:12pm
How, then, do you explain the Monroe Doctrine? · Mar 3 at 1:51pm
The frontier I am referring to was a virtual frontier in 1823 which included all of the North American landmass that was potentially occupiable by the United States. · Mar 3 at 2:25pm
The Monroe Doctrine included South America. What is your explanation for that?