« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Anchors Aweigh! Behind the Supremacy of the Navy
First Admiral William J. Fallon took over as head of U.S. Central Command, even though it's the Army and Marines that are most engaged in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Admiral Mike Mullen, the chief of naval operations, has been nominated to become the next head of the joint chiefs of staff. If approved, that means a Naval officer will helm the joint chiefs, Central Command, Southern Command, Pacific Command (an understandably typical position for an admiral) and Special Operations Command. What's up with the Navy's commanding position?
One factor is obvious, says Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute: The Navy "has not been tarred by the failure in Iraq." In other words, it's precisely because the Navy doesn't have the degree of skin in the game that the ground services have that admirals are making for attractive nominees for vacancies at key commands. That certainly tracks with Defense Secretary Gates's worry that General Peter Pace's prospective renomination hearing would have become a rancorous reexamination of the Iraq war. And it's doubly surprising, given how the Navy was the service most comfortable with ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man most closely associated with Iraq other than President Bush. "The irony is that the Navy culture was always able to get along with Rumsfeld, but otherwise rolled rather quickly with the Rumsfeld reversal" underway thanks to Defense Secretary Gates. No one can say the Navy is anything but buoyant. "The Navy has an intellectual tradition stronger than that of the other services," Thompson adds, referencing the overrepresentation of Naval officers on the Joint Staff.
Robert Work, a retired Marine colonel and defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, sees the boom in Naval officers taking key commands and positions as a trade-off between the concept of jointness -- that is, all the services planning and fighting together -- and the diversity of service culture on display. "It risks skewing decisions over time," Work says. "If you get five Navy officers in a room to solve a given problem, the answer is going to be different than if you had five Army officers and five Navy officers." That can have a significant impact when it comes to considering an extended stay in Iraq and Afghanistan or what post-Iraq defense strategy ought to resemble. "Naval officers would probably look at it and say, 'We'd prefer to distribute forces off-shore, and we'd like to maintain a light footprint on-shore,'" Work says. "Meanwhile, the Army says it's all about boots on the ground."
Fallon's appointment to Central Command certainly indicated a look beyond Iraq and Afghanistan in the region -- and toward Iran, resulting in a bolstered naval presence in the Persian Gulf. "We have a ground force built on fighting short wars, and now we find ourselves in a marathon. The strain on the ground forces is extraordinary right now," Work adds. He cautions that the real heavy lifting on reshaping defense policy is going to happen during the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review -- the Pentagon's massive, periodic strategy overview -- and, of course, the 2008 election. But the turn toward the Navy could indicate a rethinking in the Pentagon about how to sustain a long war while reducing the pressure on the Army and Marine Corps.
Comments (21)
profmarcus wrote on June 8, 2007 4:37 PM:if bushco thinks they can avoid a bruising confirmation battle by dumping pace and substituting mullen, i think they are smoking something funny...
btw, larry johnson has an interesting take on why pace was dumped...
-----
Let there be no doubt -- Perfect Peter Pace has been shown the door because of his letter to Judge Walton pleading on behalf of Scooter Libby. That letter was the final straw demonstrating his incompetence and political tin ear as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-----
i hadn't thought of that angle but it makes sense to me...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 4:40 PM:Why don't we just have the Coast Guard (or maybe the Merchant Marine Corps) run the war?
They're relatively untarred with Iraq and Afghanistan war failure too.
Steve5117 wrote on June 8, 2007 4:47 PM:Perhaps an Admiral because the Navy's will have a major role when we begin removing forces from Iraq
Steve5117 wrote on June 8, 2007 4:59 PM:Perhaps an Admiral because the Navy will have a major role when we begin removing forces from Iraq.
or
Perhaps an Admiral because of the Navy's when we begin removing forces from Iraq.
All that education for what?
Steve5117 wrote on June 8, 2007 5:05 PM:Perhaps an Admiral because of the Navy's role when we begin removing forces from Iraq.
It's Friday, it's 100 deg outside, and I can't type without errors. I must go get something cold.
mbbsdphil wrote on June 8, 2007 5:18 PM:How typical of Shrub and Mr. C that they would nominate military chiefs because they have no prior involvement in their Iraq debacle, rather than because they know most about the people we're fighting or how to fight them - and, therefore, present smaller targets for Congressional confirmation hearings to shoot at.
But it's not just about avoiding necessary Congressional oversight that motivates them. They have long memories of being evaluated by others and found wanting. Now that they do the hiring, they won't hire anyone with the fortitude to tell them what they need to hear.
Never mind, Mr. C makes all the decisions anyway; logical, given his extensive military experience. Perhaps that's why so many service chiefs quit, and so many refused to be his punching bag as "War Czar". Good thing there's no statute of limitations on war crimes.
Books Alive wrote on June 8, 2007 5:50 PM:"Fire Pace" and "nominate you [Lt Gen Lute] instead" was expressed several times in the recent Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing. By Sen Jack Reed, and maybe by Sen Levin as well. These must be some of the Hill insiders who had been sharing their feelings about Gen Pace with SecDef Gates that renomination hearings for Pace would be contentious, and looking back rather than forward.
Jim Wilson wrote on June 8, 2007 6:00 PM:Interestingly, it's also Navy lawyers who have been the most outspoken about abuses at places like Guantanamo, defending the rights of prisoners.
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 6:12 PM:This is stupid: ""The Navy has an intellectual tradition stronger than that of the other services,"
GUANTANMO is a NAVY-run facility. Who on earth is believing this non-sense that the Navy is intellecdtually "stronger"? Get real, the NAVY refused to conduct GTMO per Geneva. That's not a a strong tradition of anything the NAVY can applaud, be proud of, or commend. They are alleged war crimes.
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 6:16 PM:This is convoluted thinking: The President has run out of innocent people to promote. The ones who are near him on the Joint Staff have been condoning these war crimes.
NAVY superiority, my S. This isn't a good sign, but spin to divert attention from the war crimes idictements against the Admirals for their recklessness in being poodles to Cheney-Addington illegal direction and Geneva violations.
How are those MCA's prosecutions going, Mr. President? Your NAVY isn'g doing squat for you other than lapping up your war crimes drivel. NAVY personnel shouldn't be commented, but prosecuted.
dee illuminati wrote on June 8, 2007 7:35 PM:"Without mastery of the sea -- without Sea Power -- we cannot protect trade, we cannot help those in peril, we cannot provide relief from natural disaster, and we cannot intercede when whole societies are torn asunder by slavery, weapons of mass destruction, drugs, and piracy. Without sea power we cannot hope -- the world cannot hope -- to achieve what President Bush has called 'a balance of power that favors freedom."
from wikipedia on muellen
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/latestcomments.cgi?Fm=dilluminati&To=&EM=on&SNSearch=+Go+&PN=
Some people have been stating precisely what Muellen feels for years as the neocons firm;y tacked the testicles of US forces to the sand of Iraq.
International trade requires what Muellen advocates, globalism demands it, and there is no turning back from an inter-connected economy.
On Pace...
This time, it's the Joint Chiefs chairman, still new to the job, who isn't marching to Rumsfeld's orders.
When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901405.html
The fact of the matter is that if you carry the bucket of neocon swill you smell bad... Pace smells bad thats all so I agree with Gates...
Sounds like to me the professionals are being put back in charge and that the 'litmus' of loyalty to the neocons secondary to genuine national security.
Not only are we desperately late by at least 1/2 decade on an energy policy for national security but we are about 50 count short of new frigates for the type of missions that Muellen correctly envisions..
The Oracle wrote on June 8, 2007 8:41 PM:Bush, Cheney and Gates are looking for any Pentagon officer who will blindly follow orders, including any order given to drop tactical nukes on Iran.
Obviously, more U.S. naval officers have no qualms about being the first members of the U.S. military to drop nukes on another country since the last time this happened at the end of World War II.
In other words, Bush, Cheney and Gates are choosing U.S. naval officers for high positions who have as little conscience as they have, especially if one of the requirements for their being chosen is their rubber-stamping the use of nukes against any other foreign nation.
It will be interesting to see if Admiral Mullen is extensively grilled on this little issue during his confirmation hearing.
cp wrote on June 9, 2007 12:21 AM:The Oracle:
Anonymous wrote on June 9, 2007 9:12 AM:you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Just because someone in the Navy is chosen for a job does not mean that they have "little conscience." And no, it is not obvious that more naval officers have no qualms about dropping nukes. Just like any other members of the military, they follow orders. That doesn't mean that they follow them blindly. You have trashed the entire US Navy in order to trash Bush and Gates, merely because they followed orders and probably fully agreed with them. Attacking members of the US Navy is tiresome at best.
Oracle your comments are the type of drivel that really has no input to a discussion, the reality that there is a position that needs to be filled, a confirmation hearing, and then the larger debate of the war... makes for your "Epistemological Evel Knievel" jump in logic a crash. What Muellen brings is a focus on what is 'genuinely' needed in force surge power projection based on the simple fact that 70% of the globe is water and that more than 90% of naval force is used in whatr is called littoral zones.
The Deepwater - Integrated Coast Guard Systems, is beset with some problems that arise from an attempt to retrofit existing vessels with new electronics and propulsion systems. In short the idea to cut out the mid-section of existing craft, replace the power generation and install new screws, and then include a new midsection... or make the craft larger has failed... there was also shoddy work for cabling that allowed high levels of EMF bleed that made this initial 'good idea' fall short.
The Navy and the United States is at least 1/2 decade behind on creating a new generation of vessels that meet the requirements that we will face!
The discussion of the war, whom started it, if Muellen is or is not a 'loyal bushie,' 'federalist society member,' 'neocon,' or 'JISA koolaid drinker' does not diminish the fact that he sees the defficiencies and has correctly promoted a solution.
Allot of people were frustrated with the neocons BEFORE the war started, and frankly if you are 'not on record then' with principled and reasoned objections... mud-slinging Muellen now is a waste of time if indeed the man warranted it which he does not.
JMHO
Jack wrote on June 9, 2007 9:45 AM:There is no indication that this guy is any less of a Loyal Bushie than his predecessor. This administration has polluted the military leadership with partisan ideologues like no other. The new Chairman will have to prove he's not just another neocon politician-in-uniform.
This is all just reshuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The real "Captain of the ship" is still the same, and it's none other than George "The Decider" Bush Jr. Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the new "War Czar" and the others are just the crew whose job is primarily to prevent any blame from getting to the President. Unfortunately, the neocon Jim Jones cult zombies still remaining loyal to this mob aren't the only passengers, we all are, and our ship has hit the iceberg and has started to sink. Hopefully the next Administration won't be as full of chickenhawk oilmen who escaped from service in Vietnam with their rich daddy's help and endless college deferments.
Calvin Wright wrote on June 9, 2007 11:21 AM:Who ever suggests that the confirmation hearings will
behindthefall wrote on June 9, 2007 7:27 PM:not be thorough and aggresive is wrong. Bush and Co.
will not appoint anyone to any post, that will not
follow the Bush line. Lets get it on!
As for "Perfect" Pete. Remember the Spartans.
Navy is getting the top jobs right now bcause it is the Navy which is going to be ordered to nuke Iran.
The Oracle wrote on June 9, 2007 8:08 PM:Major U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Major U.S. naval presence in the gulf emirates, across the Persian Gulf from Iran. CENTCOM under command of a U.S. Navy admiral. Bush/Cheney now wanting a navy admiral to head the Joint Chiefs.
I believe I see a pattern forming.
And this is not to say that there aren't plenty of "brown-nosers" in the U.S. Air Force, Marines or Army. (Long ago while serving in the U.S. Air Force, I ran into plenty of them, of all stripes and bars).
There are legal orders and illegal orders. I was trained to follow legal orders, even though I might not have the necessary "intel" to understand the purpose behind the legal order.
Ordering the use of nukes against any country that has not attacked us, nor has any official war been declared against, reeks of an illegal order, and therefore highly questionable.
I read awhile back that there was dissension in Air Force ranks over Bush/Cheney using the U.S. Air Force to drop tactical nukes on suspected nuclear sites inside Iran.
Which makes me think that Bush/Cheney have fallen back on Plan B...putting the U.S. Navy in charge of operations in the Persian Gulf region...with nuke-tipped ship-based cruise missiles and carrier-based fighter jets with a nuclear payload being positioned, on standby, for when the order is given...an order that presumably would be unquestionably carried out by the proposed new head of the Joint Chiefs, a U.S. Navy admiral, as well as the current head of CENTCOM, another U.S. Navy admiral.
This is why I'd like to see the Joint Chief's nominee asked in his congressional hearing what he considers legal orders versus illegal orders, and whether he views dropping nukes on another country as being a legally-binding order or an illegal one.
He would be the head of the Bush/Cheney command structure, and I'd just like to know if we're dealing with a "brown-noser," no matter what branch of the military, or someone who will "Just Say No!" if ordered to execute what I consider to be a highly illegal (and immoral) act.
As far as the sailors, soldiers and airmen underneath the Joint Chiefs' command, they'll have to decide for themselves what to do when the time comes, follow a blatantly illegal order or "Just Say...No, Sir."
Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 9, 2007 10:39 PM:The system and the folk who serve it are by design required to serve to the best of their ability. Until Commander Codpiece or his sucessor orders a different mandate, we will continue suffer with his backward-ass expression of manhood.
The solution both here and over there is not military. The solution is political. The solution is the people.
Meah Bottoms wrote on June 10, 2007 9:43 PM:I am concerned about the Naval presence. Not just with the battleships off the Iranian shores, but the current promotions. Remember when Cheney visited the battle ships? With the Lieberman warmongering, I am afraid that Cheney and his friends are beating the drum and the Navy is right there to strike. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Crazy as hell.
Voting Present wrote on June 12, 2007 4:57 PM:These naval officers certainly seem to have been chosed for their greater distance from the action on the ground. Is this connected with a greater willingness to mouthe the mindless loyalty b***s*** demanded by the Bushies? If so, then I hope that they will stop short of condoning the unprovoked use of nu.clear weapons. There are some things that no amount of personal distance can explain or excuse.