One huge hole in his argument is about maritime powers. Maritime powers have won wars against continental powers. That is the summary of British history.
He needs to re-read Mahan.
And, moreover, the US is also a continental power, and is able to project that globally at need.
And we have lost in virtually all of those places. Funny that the hero of the Pacific MacArthur was adamant about not getting involved in a ground war in Asia.
US shipyard capacity is now a joke, just like every other part of USA industrial capacity.
NeoCon free trade outsourcing has its consequences.
And the British navy now has more Admirals than ships.
So.
Much of the training of military leaders for a hundred years or more has focused on MacKinder, not Mahan. England’s “ Great Game” now continued.
Look at the strategic positioning of western military bases to encircle the Eurasian landmass and contain the Heartland. Which the Russian-Chinese-Iran strategic partnership threatens to break out via the One Belt project.
And you need to re-read Mackinder.
It is not necessary to accept in its entirety the resonant but overwrought dictum of Sir Halford Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World") to recognize the profound strategic implications of what control of a central land mass means.
I still have my well-worn copy of Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783. from my days as a midshipman.