168 Comments

Absolutely correct.

Expand full comment

It is "Validated".

Expand full comment

I beg to differ. The US Navy is inadequate because of the social engineering that has been going on since daddy Bush's misrule. The problem has worsened by several orders of magnitude since 2000. Assuming the Navy survives, there will be a lot of death in combat until the stupidity gets beaten out of it.

At present, no sane young man will join any of the services, and people like me are warning those men away, and for very good reason.

Expand full comment

"A game" is now considered actual violence isn't it?

Expand full comment

A mildly differing opinion is "violence" to those "people."

Expand full comment

Your opinion has harmed me, I shall alert the hall monitor immediately

Expand full comment

Do so only after retreating to your safe space, lest you encounter more violence in the interim, like someone who might dare mis-pronoun you.

Expand full comment

Announcing my gander identity. Pronouns honk/honk

Expand full comment

HAH! Well done.

Perfect gender for Clownworld.

Expand full comment

If by "game" you mean "words with which one might disagree" then you are correct.

Expand full comment

Coambat experience too, nicht wahr?

Expand full comment

WHat? Admiral "Rachel" Levine does not inspire young men?

Expand full comment

Please tread lightly, Sir. Xi is an active duty 4-star Admiral. Retired Zeroes are all subject to recall for some star chamber UCMJ remedializing if we dish dirt on our betters. My own burden is larger retiring as I did an O-3 after 26 years so I pretty much mind my P's & Q's because I have so many more betters....but fewer than I had when I was an E-1. You O-5's and above have it easier as you can thrash peers with impunity, because they are peers. You guys with peerage are lucky. Further, I admire that Admiral Levine does an admirable job in inspiring the exact demographic the Services are trying to attract. Xi is the perfect recruiting poster GURL. Xer Come Hither look can turn potential members into stone, I have heard. Me? I'd wear welders google if I was within gazing distance. I just tell myself, "Flowers, you putz, just you focus on that old school Navy stuff like Rum, Sodomy and the Lashes and try to understand xer POV". When I do that, I find it useful to gargle with Listerine afterward to cleanse away the taste of bile. Gah! 4 frigging stars with only a single promotion. Took me 11 to get to O-3. Wish xi could get xer props...maybe someone steer xer into a Spad or Steuf spinning up on some dark flight deck. Semper fie, Pete. Stay safe. Always lawyer up. :)

Expand full comment

See you at the reducation camp. I get the bottom rack due to my higher rank. Sempre Fi, Dale from a Gator Navy veteran.

Expand full comment

You do realize what flows down from above in those lower racks, don't you?

Expand full comment

Make sure you wait for the thud before you roll out for the General Quarters alarm.

Expand full comment

" Xer Come Hither look can turn potential members into stone, "

Certainly does not turn my member to stone! More like a "come wither" look.

Expand full comment

timactually bon mots factually.

Expand full comment

And they said higher tenure doesn't work...

Expand full comment

Rum is now verboten. Sodomy is condoned and will soon be expected. The Lash is only allowed during puppy play.

Expand full comment

Careful, submrnr. Plead that drunken made you post that. Ask for rehab and forgiveness.

Expand full comment

Do you know Drunknsubmrnr? He's a buddy of mine.

Expand full comment

Probably. We only use first names at AA.

Expand full comment

Just think, if we go to war the PHS becomes part of the Navy and "it" will be an admiral. It's so comforting we will have such tough leaders in charge. /sarc

Expand full comment

Not only the social engineering - the criminal neglect in infrastructure that has happened.

As I have said before - the only thing more expensive than the best military in the world, is the second best.

The choice was made.

Expand full comment

"The choice was made. "

More like choices (plural). Over many years by many people, including the voters. One choice, an all volunteer military, guarantees that we will have a small but expensive military capable only of fighting small expensive wars.

Expand full comment

The choice was mediocrity. In people, in equipment, in politicians.....

Expand full comment

The Navy is inadequate because of a material deficiency in both ships, capabilities and munitions. The personnel problems are just icing on the cake.

Expand full comment

I would say the material problem is a symptom of the personnel problem.

Expand full comment

Then you should be talking about the personnel problem in the Pentagon.

Expand full comment

That's where it all started...after it was caused and then encouraged in the White House and Congress.

Expand full comment

Bingo.

And Bingo again.

Lowered personnel standards leads to lower standards overall.

Expand full comment

You have it backwards. The personnel problems lead to the rest.

Expand full comment

Australia needs a Coast Guard to police its waters. It does not need a Navy - much less one with nuclear powered submarines - to counter non existent threats of invasion or interfere with other nations like the United States does.

Expand full comment

Australia has the Maritime Border Command. It's not called Coast Guard. They have 17 very capable Cape-class patrol vessels. Given that the AUS population is about 2/3 that of California, they have an impressive fleet on a per capita basis compared to the US Coast Guard. If a credible threat of amphibious invasion is the gating criteria for maintaining a blue water navy, then no country needs a navy.

Expand full comment

You are correct and they are very strict when it comes to Port State Control. Your second comment is most thought provoking. Why do we need a huge Navy unless it is to meddle in other peoples affairs?

Expand full comment

How very European of you

Expand full comment

the alternative is to have somebody meddle in ours.

Expand full comment

Like LBJ said if we don't fight those commies in Vietnam we will have to fight them in LA - or words to that effect. How about we all agree not to meddle in each others affairs?

Expand full comment

sure, but exactly HOW has that worked over the last 5000 years?

Sounds like something from a candidate gunning for a state dept job under Jo Bie Den

Expand full comment

How well? Depends if your foreign minisiter is a Palmerston or a Blinken.

Expand full comment

Well, the communists are in both Vietnam, and California...

Expand full comment

We're having to fight commies in Boston, NY, Trenton, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois,....

Expand full comment

Your argument may be valid for an Army, but a nation as dependent upon trade as we are must have a Navy to protect maritime interests

Expand full comment

Agreed. For defense. Alexander Hamilton stated why we needed a Navy. John Adam said not to seek out monsters.

Expand full comment

To prevent other people from meddling with our affairs. Cf Barbary Pirates, ca 1801; British harassment of trade, ca 1812, China, Germany, Japan, etc

Expand full comment

So that's whe we invaded Haiti in 1994. I always knew those Haitians were up to no good.

Expand full comment

Are you really that obtuse? Cuban communists invaded and threatened a large (~1000) group of US Medical Students.

Funny story about that: That weekend, I flew a bunch of Army Guard staff to Sacramento, and back. We got to Van Nuys (our base) and the general wanted to take us out for a drink. A bit early, so we went to the 99th Aero Squadron (in BDUs and flight suits - when a General wishes it.....) and had a drink.

Pretty soon, people started sending us rounds of drinks, snack foods, etc....We didn't know what was going on. Turns out that the news had broken, and people thought we were involved. "No, Ma'am. I'm not a US Ranger".

Expand full comment

I might be that obtuse. I believed Bush and Cheney when they told me Saddam had WMD, was responsible for 911 and was allied to al-Qaeda. Mission Accomplished!

Expand full comment

We need a Navy to insure that the oceans are open. As a island nation established on the principles of free trade and free enterprise we depend upon our navy to keep the sea lanes open to commerce.

Expand full comment

Agreed. But not a Navy to impose the American way of life on everyone else.

Expand full comment

See, that's the beauty of a Navy. All they do is keep the oceans open. The group that forces folks to do stuff? That's an Army.

Expand full comment

Cant argue with that. In the end it is the infantry that determines the outcome.

Expand full comment

That’s insane. Let me describe just how CRITICALLY vulnerable to blockade we are:

1. We have two onshore petroleum refineries. Over half our petrol, diesel, etc comes from offshore.

2. We have less than 60 days of petroleum reserves.

3. Over 40% of our electricity generation comes from gas.

4. The vast majority of the oil and gas we sell comes from offshore wells, where it’s pumped ashore... and then shipped BY SEA to wherever it needs to go. Including our capital cities.

5. The majority of the Western Australian population live in and around Perth. Apart from Fremantle and Kwinana, neither of them great harbors, the main means of supply is a SINGLE railway line across the Nullarbor plain. Over two thousand kilometers of rail line to Port Augusta, two thirds of it practically in sight of the southern coast.

6. Darwin, if anything is even more remote logistically, with the Ghan railway running ~2700 kilometers south to Port Augusta through the interior.

7. The state of Tasmania is an island.

And that’s not even going into mineral exports, agricultural exports, livestock exports...

Expand full comment

Who is threatening to blockade or invade Australia?

Expand full comment

Right now, while we are under the United States security umbrella? Nobody. But the one constant in history is that things change. If the USN is occupied, distracted, or reduced?

Picture this scenario: The US and China are about to start shooting over Taiwan. China, looking for every advantage, sends a task force south to enforce a blockade on Western Australia, informing the Australian government that they will lift the blockade as soon as we renounce all treaties with the United States and recognize their sovereignty over Taiwan.

We of course refuse at first, and a salvo of missiles is fired from the Bight at a wide spread of the southern railway. At the same time, the PLAN informs the world that any ship approaching Perth, Geraldton, or Albany will be either seized or sunk.

The USN is then split between breaking the blockade on one of their oldest allies, and defending Taiwan, which is practically in missile range of the Chinese mainland. And 2 million Australian citizens are now living in shortages of everything from food to electricity.

What then?

Expand full comment

And why exactly does Australia care if China invades Taiwan?

Expand full comment

Oh, I dunno. Maybe for reasons of trade? Maybe as a counterbalance to aggressive Chinese foreign policy actions against Australia?

Expand full comment

As Joe Bei Den says "3 words: semiconductor"

Expand full comment

It's more like Pai Bei Den.

Expand full comment

You’re missing the point. In that scenario, we’re being used as a diversion for the USN. So long as we’re an American ally, that’s a risk we run. It seemed like a minuscule risk for decades, since the USN had no peer or near-peer competitors. But that’s history, and things changed.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you missed relatively recent activities in PNG and the Solomons.

Expand full comment

I am not at all happy about Henderson International Airport being run by the ChiComs.

Expand full comment

That begs ironic thoughts of what nation might be the next one to shell Henderson.

Expand full comment

As if Emperor Xi cared about the lives of his own people. They sabotage and then they can salute the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation as Xi Dada rains death on them from above.

Expand full comment

Laboratory Grade Irony.

Expand full comment

They're, uh, helping developers with tourism infrastructure. Or something like that.

Expand full comment

Nobody, until the war starts.

Expand full comment

If the world is so peaceful Pete, why is Emperor Xinnie the Pooh sending his minions to set up security deals on the great circle route between US and AUS?

Expand full comment

Maybe he's alarmed by the AUKUS alliance. China hasn't forgotten the Opium wars.

Expand full comment

I'm assuming that policing Australian waters includes interdicting boats with Indonesian immigrants far enough out to see that there is no embarrassing video. That sounds more like a Navy assignment.

Expand full comment

Right, because we couldn't use the help farther north...

Expand full comment

Our nation's interests dont stop at the coast or 12 mile limit. Australias align very much with ours. Having a navy capable of contributing to an effort with its allies, specifically, countering a rising and increasingly belligerent China is wholly legitimate. Sure, maybe theyre not on Xis short list for invasion... But, today China is herding Phillipine fishermen out of their own territorial waters. Tomorrow, it might be Taiwan. Then what? A blockade of Japan, Australia, or anyone opposed to their belligerent expansion? Maybe open warfare? And a US response is "meddling"?? Its in everyones best interests for their nations to be able to enjoy their sovereignty and free trade- and to say that China isnt a threat to that is absurd. Theyre not going to go away or suddenly play nice and behave. Ignoring the threat is foolish. History is full of examples of people believing that ignoring the problem, diplomacy, and appeasement were good options. And they were all proven wrong.

Expand full comment

Fishing rights are a sensitive issue for many nations not just great powers. Talking is not appeasing. Not every treaty is Munich 1938.

Expand full comment

Of course they are, especially when a bully like China forces fishermen of smaller nations out of THEIR OWN WATERS!!! Talking is a half step from appeasing- especially if the talking isnt comprised of "if you ____, then we will use our military to ______"!!

Expand full comment

I sm so glad the USS never bullies smaller nations.

Expand full comment

Great reply. Kindergarten much??

So by sidestepping the point, are you saying the nations facing a hostile takeover of their territory, as China claims more and more of the SCS, shouldn't have support?? Or should everyone bow to the Chinese, and give them whatever they want?? At least that way the US wouldnt be 'meddling', because thats whats important... Smh...

Expand full comment

I'm am not willing to go to war over fish. Especially, someone else's fish. Oil was bad enough.

Expand full comment
Sep 20, 2023Liked by CDR Salamander

Australian here. Our ENTIRE defense policy, for the last three decades, can be summed up as “Hold on until the Americans save us.”

We send our special forces, and occasionally our regular battalions, to fight in any coalition that the US is leading. Behind all the hype and propaganda about “The Alliance”, we basically trade the blood of our special forces in exchange for the protection of the United States Navy.

To the short sighted idiots in government, that’s a sweet deal. They can spend less on defense, and more on... anything else!

I once made the mistake of reading the Final Budget Outcome, which records what the government actually spent and where. My blood boiled for about three days after, when I discovered that “Indirect Personal Benefits” made up the majority of the government’s cost of operating... and was at least twice the entire defense budget.

Expand full comment

Your point is sound and, in a basic sense, describes how a large portion of American alliances function around the globe. One (admittedly niche) dimension that it misses though is the real-time organic benefit that AUS (or UK, or NOR, or POL, etc) derive from SOF participation in US campaigns around the globe. It basically isn't possible to have a viable 21st Century SOF capability (particularly black side) without frequent real-world deployment and engagement. Your SOF & Mil leadership knows this, which is part of why they generally lean forward on participating in US-led excursions.

No such thing as a good hunting dog that never goes hunting.

Expand full comment

which is why the wags called our war in Afghanistan, the SOF Olympics

When Denmark is deploying SOF 7,000 km away, there must be more than one reason...

Expand full comment

True enough. And our military leadership and troops know that. I just wish that it was an intentional decision on the part of our civilian leadership.

Expand full comment

Cynics like me could interpret that as meaning that US "campaigns around the globe"

are basically just live-fire training exercises.

Expand full comment

You phrased that in a pretty expansive way, which I’d say misses the mark. But there is absolutely a narrower, more nuanced version of that statement I would say has a lot of truth to it.

Expand full comment

Take a look at actual US expenditures. You are not alone in having boiling blood syndrome!

Expand full comment

I wonder if, when grants are made to foreign nations, if The Big Guy, and his Party, get their 10%?

Expand full comment

Only ten percent you figure?

Expand full comment

It could easily be far more. The Left is corrupt.

Expand full comment

“The left?!” Jared Kushner, a well-known liberal.

Expand full comment

Most of the US' 'allies' have that same defense policy. Look how fast consumables were drawn down giving aid to Ukraine: NATO is totally dependent on the US storage and production capabilities.

Which argues for a hella lot of convoy escort capacity....Sounds like...IDK....WWI, WWII, Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising? What it doesn't sound like is anything the US Navy is capable of doing today. And that is supporting just a quick jaunt across the Atlantic, how will the US supply combat west of the line in the Pacific?

Now, the question of 'should Aus have nuke subs' is one I have opinions on - but rather than spend money in penny-packets and have a little bit of everything, but not enough to do anything with them they should (imho) concentrate on capability and capacity.

Expand full comment

It's going to take a while to get the rot out, I'm afraid. Political types will prefer to reduce defense spending to fund entitlements rather than raising taxes to keep them afloat.

Expand full comment

it will take losing a war. I hope a small one

Expand full comment

We have done that several times in the last half century or so. Doesn't seem to have been very educational.

Expand full comment

Or to use today's vernacular, perhaps those times shouldn't be described as much as loses but outcomes that were "fluid" because the strategic objectives were "fluid."

Expand full comment

Fluid outcomes? Better get a mop....

Expand full comment

For people who fight, are injured, die in a war, there are no small ones.

Expand full comment

LOL, you trying to teach this Vietnam Vet about sending messages via targets picked on the floor of the Oval Office? Or smiling at the Taliban at the Abbey Gate?

good men die...

Expand full comment
Sep 21, 2023·edited Sep 21, 2023

No sir. Vietnam was my father's and brothers war. Dad came home. Brother is somewhere over Thud Ridge.

As I've said before, the last war the US won ended on Sept 2, 1945 on the deck of the USS Missouri. Since then we have had a department of defense, and not won a war. Go figure.

At any rate, even the pissy little wars I have been involved in (the Cold War, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom) have been major wars to those who were killed and injured. And their families.

Expand full comment

"The Vietnam War was a good example. Australian destroyers could quickly replenish tens of thousands of rounds of 5-inch ammunition from the US supply chain. They had ready access to technical support and spare parts as well. The destroyers deployed eight times to Vietnam. Australia sent a British-designed destroyer, once. With 4.5-inch guns, all the ammunition, technical support and spares had to come from Australia or the UK via tortuous supply lines."

Commonality of parts, robust supply chain, and tech support. How non-transformational. If you expect a virtual thousand ship navy to offer serious conventional deterrence, there best be some commonality of components lest a sharp punch in the nose sends yout Tiffany ship limping across the globe back to the Bay of Biscay.

Expand full comment

If we had stayed out of Vietnam perhaps we wouldn't have had to worry about obtaining supplies from Australia.

Expand full comment

It's very hard for to take this strategic review seriously after reading the executive summary and the first problem mentioned is climate change. How many battleships do you need to combat climate change? The next paragraph is labeled "whole of government approach" or what we might call interagency. From my experience, there is nothing that bureaucrats from different agencies love to do more than get together and sign some document. That is considered an accomplishment in and of itself!

Expand full comment

We need those BBs to shell the sources of CO2.

Expand full comment

How many battleships do you need to do anything in the age of 5 gen strike bombers and hypersonic missiles.....or in the age of monoplane dive bombers for that matter?

Expand full comment

Couple of things. Personally have 44 years in U.S. DoD, which leaves a lot of solidly burned neural pathways and memories of "the way we were". Reality check: we simply aren't "that" anymore. That's across the board / all services. We are a lot smaller, a lot of older / outdated equipment that needs to be retired, and personnel in quantity (see recruitment) and quality (see fitness standards, pronouns, mental health issues, etc).

That applies to our allies (who I spent the last ten years of my GS time working with) and in many cases is much worse. For example, the UK navy had 18 surface combatants at one time in the recent past. Sweden had basically lost track of mountains of their reservists combat equipment, and is now frantically trying to rebuild what everyone remembers as a pretty potent force but will take years to replenish.

Bottom line: Forget what you remember about what we used to be, take a good, hard look at where we are today and will be in the very near future. Because that's what you will be going to war with in the Pacific in the next couple of days / months / (hopefully) years. We need a lot of willingness to change, plus a lot of time and money to avoid huge trouble in the very near future.

Expand full comment

“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

― Donald Rumsfeld

Expand full comment

How about those WMD in Iraq.

Expand full comment

You go to war with the casus belli you have, not the casus you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Expand full comment

Agreed, But I think Sun Tzu said something about wars costing much silver.

Expand full comment

We spend much silver every year. More should go to us plebes building stuff that gives the PLAN pause, and less to RAND slide decks that give our servicemembers pause.

Expand full comment

We've been off the superstitious currency standard since 1971.

Expand full comment

You mean the ones that EVERYONE was convinced he had?

Expand full comment

Rumsfeld had nothing to do with CIA's 'slam dunk' prediction. CIA never worked for him. So your point is?

Expand full comment

Rumsfeld set up his own network with Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith and others.

Expand full comment

When there is a threat (with Saddam boasting about his WMDs to anyone who'd listen) you HONOR THE THREAT. To do otherwise is called suicide.

Now, if Iraq didn't have any WMD, Saddam has learned not to claim otherwise.

Expand full comment

Saddam also claimed that he was responsible for the sun rising in the East and the rains falling on the crops.

Expand full comment

Maybe, but that is not a threat, and in fact is a provably false statement so doesn't need to be honored.

Say your neighbor started forti fying his common property line with you. Lights, barbed wire, grabbed a rifle and started patrolling it at night. All legal. All concerning.

Now, he buys a bunch of Claymore Mine trailer hitch inserts on ebay, and one morning you discover a bunch of plastic saying "This side towards enemy" facing your kids playing. Still, 100% legal.

And when you call the cops because you are presumably sane, they will discover if they are real or not. If the guy puts up a fight and gets killed, well....perhaps he should have been less intransigent.

And lets not forget that Saddam Hussein actually invaded a neighbor we had treaties with.

I grant you that we didn't need to invade. We could have just leveled Baghdad with a B61 or two. I'd have been good with that.

Expand full comment

We didnt get upset with Saddam when he invaded Iran.

Expand full comment

Despite that, Rumsfeld's quote is accurate.

Expand full comment

For some odd reason I am inordinately proud that Rumsfeld's signature is the last one on my last OER....

Expand full comment

Agreed. Look at what we have, are planning to have, and how we are performing on it. The 15 carrier 600 ship reborn people who want it to be with cruisers and battleships need to leave the room and come back with a better informed idea.

Expand full comment
Sep 20, 2023·edited Sep 20, 2023

Your false dichotomy wanes in the realities of the Climate Change Conquering LGBTQ1A [see RESFOR algorithms for the rest] Celebrating Armada being built today.

That 600 ship Navy -the number never fully realized anyway- was far from perfect, but highly capable for its time.

But, That Was Then...

Now, all thats coming down the ways is a fleet -that at best- might measure up as a modern analogue to the Russian Imperial Fleet of 1905.

Expand full comment
Sep 20, 2023·edited Sep 20, 2023

"The 15 carrier 600 ship reborn people who want it to be with cruisers and battleships need to leave the room and come back with a better informed idea."

The only effective parts of "today's" Navy are the surviving remnants of that Luddite Flotilla you denigrate....

The Nimitz's date to 1968

The F-18's date to 1973

The H-60's date to 1974

The Burkes date to 1982

Subs are a little newer.

How many are actually at sea today?

(rhetorical question of course)

Expand full comment

And the Nimitz replacements - the Fords....are they MiCAP yet?

Expand full comment

600 ships? At this point 300 ships and 1,000 LRASMs would be an improvement.

Expand full comment

"Forget what you remember about what we used to be"

"the Good Old Days" were never as good as we remember.

Expand full comment

Have to disagree. I showed up at the tail end of the Carter era Navy and left during the Obama regime. The late 80s were far better than now. Waaaay better.

Expand full comment

I joined just before Carter was sworn in (early Jan, 77). Those first four years were horrible - deferred maintenance, vehicles on blocks to keep from burning fuel, reduced flying hours, flights cancelled because spares not available for life support equipment....

It got a hella lot better after that.

Expand full comment

Not to mention the small arms ammo shortages that kept many from live fire training. Some in the Army qualified with their weapons in Basic and that was it.

Expand full comment

Western Military Establishments need to stop following the US Military into oblivion.

Expand full comment

I'm afraid they are doing their best to catch up on the pronoun gap.

Expand full comment

Sure. They could get all their doctrine from Frunze...how's that worked out in Ukraine?

Expand full comment

Just stumbled across this CNAS live feed with Prof Tanya Monro Aussie Chief Defense Scientist...

https://x.com/CNASdc/status/1704496885430378792?s=20

Expand full comment

I don't miss too much. My only question is if China's moves are aggressive or in response to aggression.

Expand full comment
Sep 20, 2023·edited Sep 20, 2023

What? The nine dash line certainly a "love note" to ASEAN nations along with PRC's brazeness stepping well into their respective EEZs? U.S.' handiwork over the years certainly bears scrutiny but ASEAN nations are not boosting their military outlays because the U.S. said pretty please.

Expand full comment

I'm glad we've never done anything brazen like stealing oil from Syria.

Expand full comment

I don't wear rose colored glasses when it comes to the last 50 years of American foreign policy military adventurism. The question you posed is whether China's moves are aggressive or in response to aggression? I would submit that the PI and Viet Nam might have a perspective on China's adventrures in their EEZ's.

Expand full comment

That oil is going to the Kurds.

Expand full comment

Maybe. But last time I looked at the map I saw a ring of American bases around China. Also, we have a dispute with Canada over the status of the NW Passage. We attacked Libya in 1986 because we did not recognize their EEZ claim. Remember the Line of Death. As for Vietnam, we are hardly in a position to talk about claims. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?

Expand full comment

I believe most of those "encircling" bases were in existence when China was still our ally. And we withdrew from the ones in the Philippines. We attacked Libya as a response to the Libyan sponsored terrorist bombing of a nightclub in West Berlin, NOT because we did not recognize Libya's "line of death". You are perhaps confusing that incident with the 1981 and/or 1989 Gulf of Sidra incidents.

Expand full comment

Missiles were fired. Libyan were killed because we did not recognize Libya's claim.

Expand full comment

As to historical accounts. Libya '86... you might want to roll back to news articles circa '86 on the West Berlin nightclub bombing that resulted in the death of American service members.... I was stationed in Naples in '86-'87 and Reagan did not attack Libya over a dispute of Libya's EEZ.

Expand full comment

Missiles were fired. Libyan were killed over the Line of Death.

Expand full comment

The Gulf of Sidra action was well within accepted international norms.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1725&context=jil

"Given the evidence available to the public, the United States did adhere in procedure and form to the concept of proportionality and minimal loss of civilian life. The attacks were against specific military locations and bases where terrorists were believed to operate. Careful deliberation as to the scope of the attacks was made. The attacks were on target with minor deviations. No other targets other than the bases were military objectives. The fact that civilians were affected incidentally to the bombing does not render a violation of the Geneva Conventions."

Also notable was that the USSR did not back Libya's expansive claim to territorial waters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/04/19/libya-says-it-may-allow-soviet-bases/9ee87e84-5a75-4616-ab9b-663f86baea32/

"A few western diplomats have claimed that the Soviets provided little or no intelligence to the Libyans during the Sidra incident and the extent to which Tripoli appeared to be caught unaware by the Tuesday morning raids suggests there was little concrete information here about what was going to happen. The Soviet Union also refuses to acknowledge Libya's territorial claim to the entire Gulf of Sidra. The withdrawal of a Soviet military ship from the harbor here before the raid on Tripoli was also thought by diplomats to be a point of resentment."

Expand full comment

How nice to know.

Expand full comment

Besides we are the good guys and they are the evil doers.

Expand full comment

There is no conflict in Canada. If they start one, two troops of Brownies, the North Dakota Civil Air Patrol and a weekend shooter group from Montana will dissuade them.

Expand full comment

I would not be surprised if Amereica used force on an ally. Sort of like blowing up a pipeline.

Expand full comment

To what end?

Expand full comment

To damage Russian the revenue stream, and to teach those uppity Germans to buy our more expensive product.

Expand full comment

But it looks like the only thing getting blown up is the NATO alliance.

Expand full comment

Aussie here.

Yes, our strategic situation is a mess; partly by geography but largely successive governments mismanagement. And yes, there are a lot of people who will gladly divert funds and attention to the latest woke or green agenda.

But I work closely with some of our Navy folk, and I assure you there are pockets of hope. Some senior officers and senior procurement types who see the problem clearly and are working with a very aggressive posture to address the shortfalls. They face lots of bureaucratic resistance, but they’re not giving up.

Expand full comment

"Yes, our strategic situation is a mess; partly by geography but largely successive governments mismanagement."

That describes the world right now.

Expand full comment

Our current SecDef should acquaint himself with the history of the 1942 Asiatic Fleet, then start doing his damned level best to avoid a reprise. Seems to me we are somewhere between repetitive history and rhyming history, and we desperately need to break out of the kill box.

Expand full comment

Much of our Indo-Pacific posture reminds me of the Brits in Singapore....

Expand full comment

The article by the RADM is behind a PAYWALL that requires a FULL subscription to read. So much for influence.

Expand full comment

How nice to know.

Expand full comment