Land Forces Will Fade, Navy Rise

As the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq and land forces encounter more and more obstacles to operating — fenced in by rising insistence on sovereignty — the U.S. Navy’s role will only grow in importance, says the chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead.

Roughed, speaking at a conference hosted by the University of Chicago on Capitol Hill, offered new versions of the old Marine and Navy mantra that the littoral is where it’s at globally, with at least 26 mega-cities in the littoral zone and much of the world’s production and natural resources moving across the blue oceans from manufacturing plants and oil and gas fields to consumers.

Climate change will only highlight the rising importance of the Navy as fishing patterns shift south and north. And the importance of the opening of the Arctic for longer and longer periods to shipping and fishing fleets “cannot be overstated,” Roughead said, saying it’s the biggest shift since the last Ice Age.

The Navy, he said, is better positioned for such an environment — political and physical — simply because it can operate offshore free of the constraints of inserting forces where they may well not be wanted.

The article seems to illustrate just how politically connected and militarily disconnected the Pentagon leadership has become. Less known is their support for the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). With 322 articles and annexes UNCLOS provides singularly disturbing points, which should be addressed before the CNO can claim any effective role for the Navy. The U.S. has signed and not ratified this treaty, but insists on abiding by it. Here are two worrisome points involving freedom of the seas.

Treaties provide illusions of protection from unreasonable maritime challenges; illusions quickly dispelled by lack of forthright action. Concerning the showdown between U.S. (UNCLOS signed) and P.R.C. (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, China saw no problem in provoking the incident, notwithstanding UNCLOS and prior treaties defining freedom of the seas. Further antidotal evidence emerges from taking of British (UNCLOS ratified) hostages by Iran (UNCLOS signed). In this day of instantaneous communication, the fact the British captain did not fight his command means senior commanders and politicians, including some masquerading in military uniforms, failed miserably when exerting the authority they had confiscated to protect freedom of the seas.

Since Iran is a terrorist state, the first evolutions practiced by Coalition task force units, regardless of any treaties, should have been the continuum of actions opposing anticipated Iranian provocations in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. One should have expected vigorous resistance to boarding of Iranian vessels in Iraqi waters. This and other Iranian intrigues should have elicited timely, consistent, practiced, lethal and non-lethal responses not requiring phone calls to politicians half a world away.

The world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative that this treaty be re-evaluated. One of the many problems for interpretation against us could be Articles 19 and 20 defining innocent passage, while within territorial seas. Acts prejudicial to peace of a coastal state include launching and landing aircraft, and using undersea craft for mine detection. Also a self-interested reading of the articles, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar could be considered an act of propaganda or an act aimed at collecting information. The State Department may assure friendly government relations (remember the U.S.S. Cole), but how many nations can and/or would provide practical sea, air and undersea supremacy guarantees allowing our warships to forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, and tactical radars and communication nets?

Supposedly, the “military activities exemption” would allow us to maintain adequate defenses in territorial waters. However, I do not see the “military activities exemption” as one of the articles. A hostile Council should have no problem defining this term to place our ships at risk of terrorism. For every Great Britain and Poland, which might hold one of 36 Council seats, I can name a Mozambique, Syria, Iran or Burma struggling through a new Dark Age where we are described as an economic predator and/or regime threat. We should not look to friends either when Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet are considered war criminals in Germany, Canada, and Belgium. The Security Council is cut out of the loop, so the veto we needed during the Cold War is not available for issues found within the treaty.

Dr. Scott C. Truver in his U.S. Naval Institute letter contends the Convention does not permit an international tribunal to frustrate Navy operations. He assures us, without any specific reference to the treaty, some undefined protocol can (not will) exclude military activities from treaty resolution provisions.

Before ratification is the time to force meaningful treaty changes, rather than later going hat in hand to persuade for modifications in our interest. In reading this treaty, I believe you will find latitude in article language allowing a hostile U.N. Council to write an enormous body of implementing regulations directed against our ships and planes. Also remember there is no provision allowing the U.S. to use its Security Council veto.

The present provisions codify flaccid senior military/political crisis response by allowing shelter within sternly worded filings demanding prospective rulings from an international tribunal, and avoiding authorization for immediate, direct action to confront challenges. These articles and regulations will bind our Sailors as they go into a “harm’s way” largely undefined in this era of violent peace. When something goes wrong, operators on 285 commissioned ships will pay the price, while 290 plus flag officers, plus Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, as all bullet proof their resumes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.