Branches? We don't need no stinkin' branches!

I prefer a Waltzian disaggregation of the Armed Forces over this archaic "branch" notion.

System Level - Strategic deterrence to maintain the global political and economic system. Nuclear weapons, high technology research done by DARPA, and the gradual prototype development of major weapons platforms like the DDG-1000.

State Level - Maintain an intervention force that deploys on a surge basis against a rogue state or regime. This force must be able to rapidly mobilize and deploy against states that violate the basic rules of international governance. Like committing genocide or developing WMDs. Airborne BCTs, CVNs/LHDs/LHAs, major surface combatants, Marine RCTs, etc.

Individual Level - The counter-insurgency, training, and advisory force. The force that rolls in after the Marines but before State Dept. They come in with international parters, OGAs, NGOs, etc. Primarily people based. Advising teams, infantry, civil affairs, psy ops, etc.

Special Operations - They perform tasks in all three areas but they really specialize in managing the transistions between these levels. Some, like SEALs and Rangers, mainly work between the system and state level. Others, like Special Forces, are specialized for somewhere between the State and individual level. The super secret squirrels in 1st SFOD or ST 6, work between the individual level and maintaining the overall global status quo.

There is probably room for another level of analysis for groups, especially in the context of ethnically-driven conflict. Kurds, Iraqi Sunnis, Pashtun, etc. Something else to think about it . . .

In the Korengal Valley . . .

I try to avoid chest thumping when US military forces engage the enemy and are victorious. I refrained from commenting on the successful end of the hostage situation off the coast of Somalia because I recognize the dangerous escalation it represents. While I am glad for the safe return of the Captain, what was a money-driven criminal activity now includes a revenge-driven ideological conflict with (who else?) the United States.

Death should neither inspire glee, nor paralyze with fear, but instead should draw a healthy respect from those of us to whom it is a constant companion. As such, every decision we make carries with it a certain finality, every choice carries the weight of the world. In the Korengal Valley, a 2nd Lieutenant named Smith made an excellent choice selecting an ambush site that resulted in definitive victory against insurgents in that area.

New York Times

About 50 yards separated the two sides, but Lieutenant Smith did not want to start shooting too soon, he said, “because if too many lived then we’d be up there fighting them all night.”

Hopefully this action will enable more population-centric strategies to succeed. Such strategies, tedious and fragile as they are, represent the only means of creating enough stability to build the governance and economic infrastructure to allow us to someday leave without eventually returning. Now the Army must capitalize on the information operations (IO) potential of this fight to create a narrative that the Insurgents can offer only endless war against an ever-shrinking global community, where as the Coalition can offer economic development and opportunity, and better institutions of governance. Of course, we have to live up to our ideals as well.

Nevertheless, the Soldiers of 1st ID in the Korengal Valley have given us the opportunity not to fail them. And for that, they have my appreciation as great Soldiers and fellow brothers-in-arms.

To Boldy Go . . .

Seeing as how I am a complete nerd, I am preposterously excited for this movie. Note the Trans-America Tower on the right side of the background.

In order to keep things within the scope of this blog, let's take a moment to consider the strategic implications of the way the world will look in 2300, around the time when USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) launches. I'll be using UN demographic data (pdf!) keeping in mind that one of the study's own essays begins with the assertion that, "Once more the United Nations Population Division has boldly gone where few demographers have dared go before." Here goes.

• The average life expectancy will range from 87 to 106 years, depending on country of origin. That is a lot of social entitlement spending for governments to be responsible for.
  
• The world median age will be 48 years. Guess the retirement age is going to have to rise quite a bit.
• Population estimates range from a staggering 36.4 billion (start building those planetary explorers NOW!) to a shriveled 2.3 billion (who is going to pay social security then?). The most likely medium scenario which allows for growth to a peak around 2050 followed by a slight decline and then slower, non-exponential growth rates puts the population at a more manageable 9 billion around 2300.
• Europe will decline from today's 730 million or so to 611 million
• North America will rise in population from 316 million to 534 million
• The Oceania region sees growth from 31 million to 48 million
• Latin America and the Caribbean expands from 520 million to 723 million
• Asia will grow dramatically from 3.7 billion today to 4.9 billion
• And Africa will grow the most, from 793 million to 2.1 billion
• Given the amount of people being born in poorer regions (which will be most affected by global warming) this will likely result in not a bright utopian techno-paradise, nor (thanks to economic growth) a dystopian overcrowded nightmare. Rather, the world will look, at least from an economic inequality standpoint, much as it does today.
• I suspect that by this time, advances in education and the spread of information and technology will make population the most valuable source of national power. In the realization of a Flat World, as Thomas Friedman calls it, if everyone is more or less equally capable, then true power will come from those that have the most people.
• Accordingly, I present to you, the G-20 (most populous nations):

1. India
2. China
3. The United States of America
   
4. Pakistan
5. Nigeria
6. Indonesia
7. Bangladesh
8. Brazil
9. Ethiopia
10. The Democratic Republic of the Congo
11. Uganda
12. Yemen
13. Mexico
14. Philippines
15. Egypt
16. Vietnam
17. Iran
18. Japan
19. Nigeria
20. The Russian Federation

• Of course, that assumes that the predominant actor will still be nation-states. I believe there is strong evidence to suggest that regional unions, if not the most important actors in international politics, will surely be at least as powerful as the EU is today. Accordingly, here is a ranking based on today's major regional groups. Perhaps this will be the future UN Social Council?

1. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (~2 billion)
   
2. The African Union (~2 billion)
   
3. China (~1.3 billion)
   
4. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (~600 million)
   
5. The European Union (~550 million)
   
6. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (~650 million)
   
7. Union of South American Nations (~550 million)
8. Eurasian Economic Community (~200 million)
   
9. Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) (~200 million)
10. Iran (100 million)
11. Japan (100 million)
12. All others less than 100 million each

From this I believe a natural rule set arises that could lead to representation for future global legislature. Each political entity would be awarded a number of seats proportional to their population.

Notably, the population of say, an internationally built starship would be expected to have similar representation. That is: 24% South Asian, 26% African, 16% Chinese, 7% North American, 7% from ASEAN, 6% from the EU, 6% from South America, 2% from Russia or its neighbors, 2% from the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) and 1% each from Japan, Iran, the Pacfic Islands Forum and the Caribbean Community.

A future UN Security Council that determines how such a vessel is used would probably have a single representative from each of the actors listed above, as well as a unified Korea. Voting is determined by how much money each player is willing to spend on any given endeavour. No veto power. Thus it would represent every major military and economic power on the planet:

• The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
  
• The European Union
• The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America
  
• The Union of South American Nations
• The African Union
• The Eurasian Economic Community
• Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf
  
• The Caribbean Community
• The Pacific Islands Forum
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
• China
  
• Iran
• Japan
• Korea

What to do about Somalia?

In observing the pirate attack on the US-flagged cargo ship, Maersk Alabama, I can't help but recognize how inadequate our institutions are for dealing with international crimes. Seeing as how this is going to be a very international 21st century, the longer we delay on this matter, the longer we suffer. Common solutions alternate between reverting to an 18th-century mindset or engaging in a strategically infeasible 3rd concurrent nation-building effort in Somalia. I don't believe that we can hang our way out of the prevailing economic concerns driving Somalis toward piracy, nor do we have the manpower or resources, even with the help of our allies, to create a stable Somalia. In the long-term, the latter is the only real solution, but in the mean time, we can do better.

Currently, the Obama administration has utilized the Kenyan court system as a stop-gap measure for addressing piracy. Given that most crimes happen in international waters, the only difference between having the Kenyan courts handle captured pirates and having the US courts do it is that Kenya is in Africa. This helps avoid charges of US imperialism, but really is only a cosmetic difference.

And piracy is far from the only international crime that needs an international framework to be addressed. Human trafficking, the international illicit narcotics trade, terrorism and fanaticism, all need to be addressed by a global quorum. These are common threats that require common, established, solutions.

The "west" by itself no longer constitutes such a quorum. Any such creation would have to have the support of the G-20 nations. Parochial interests regarding sovereignty would have to give way to a realization that these illicit actors pose a grave threat to domestic economic and social well-being, as well as national security. The Hague was a nice try, but the concept has to move beyond war crimes or even a single, consolidated location. I am talking about a global court system that has prosecutorial powers, as well as a system for finding suitable imprisonment facilities.

Such a system would greatly benefit the US, allowing us to demystify terrorists and have them tried publicly, where their sins and unglamorous lifestyle would be on full display. Narcotics traffickers could be tried outside their home country where court systems may be too corrupt to be effective, human traffickers as well would be unable to find refuge in their home country.

We have established a set of rules, regulations, courts, and best practices in the realm of warfare. The Gevena Conventions, the Hague, all are representative of a larger rule set that governs inter-state warfare. We need a similar system to address international crimes. Or they will continue to plague us.

UPDATE: Does Fred Kaplan read the blog? Same idea published in Slate.

Gates announces FY10 Defense budget

It's going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. And because he tried to ease people into it by taking a couple years to switch things up, its going to get ugly with Congress members firing his own quotes back at him from when he defended various platforms. Not many surprises, most changes have been leaked for weeks:

AF

• F-22's hold at 187
• Increase F-35 purchase
• More ISR aircraft
• Tankers getting punted to next year
• C-17 production will end at 205, I guess that's enough
  

Navy

• CVN's cut to 10
• LCS procurement gets expanded, along with JHSV
  

Army

• FCS family of vehicles is done, but the toys developed to support it remain
• The BCT shell game is being put on hold, we stay at 45 versus increasing to the theoretical 48
• Increased funding to fly and maintain helicopter support

Marines

• Delay of 11th LPD and the MLP
  
• And if FCS vehicles got the axe, it can't be healthy for EFV

Strategic

• Missle Defense Agency rightfully gets castrated, with a change in focus from strategic to theatre
• Beginning selection of a new SSBN . . . given the expense of that platform, seems a strange time to start on that
• Other programs awaiting evaluation given the President's moves to restart strategic arms limitation talks

Defense

• Taking all those independent contractors and moving them onto the regular civilian payroll, doesn't change much other than increasing accountability and transparency, which is a very good thing

Read the full announcement here. There are reactions and coverage at Danger Room, Information Dissemination, Barnett's weblog, and well, pretty much everyone has something to say about it.

On safe havens . . .

Going after every regional safe haven presents many challenges, and some would say it is better that we retreat within our borders and build a, "Fortress America," as a means of self defense. I present the following, originally posted as a comment on Abu Muqawama:

Fortress America has the advantage of being the cheapest course of action, but that is about it.

It doesn't take a lot to stir the pot and foster resentment against the US. Like it or not, wherever someone sees economic expansion eroding human welfare, we will be seen as the culprit. We are the face of Globalization, and will continue to be so for the next several decades at least.

Certainly our involvement in Southwest Asia was minuscule in September of 2001 in comparison to what it is today. But that was not enough to protect us. We can't have American security without global security, whether it be military, economic, or social in nature.

Firewalling ourselves off from the world can't protect our businesses that rely on international trade and finance to function, it will leave a tremendous security gap in many regions that rely on the US military presence for regional stability. If we pull out of the southwest Pacific, regional players like Japan and China will step up and quite possibly trigger an arms race. If we pull out of Southwest Asia, the same will occur with Saudi Arabia and Iran. It won't take long for these problems to reach us back on our continent.

The real key is to work with regional partners to create a cooperative global security establishment. Build up the AU and let them address Somalia. Work with the PLAN to patrol the Malacca Straits, Create partnerships with Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to address the poppy trade.

We won't go after every terrorist haven, but we will train, equip, and support the regional leaders that do. We set the agenda and give the locals a push in the right direction, and let them do it their way. I think that is the real essence of a, "New American Security."