Interesting read as usual, gentlemen! I think this would be a worthwhile effort, and it reminds me a lot of SECDEF Mattis' Dynamic Force Employment model from a few years ago. However, I feel that in some ways this piece is "barking up the wrong tree" in that it is recommending the Pacific Fleet and Navy staff take actions they do not necessarily have the authority to unilaterally execute. Apologies if I'm mis-reading your proposal, but as described in the article it seems that fully moving to the Deterrence Force/Maneuver Force construct would require it be implemented through the Global Force Management (GFM) process, due to the fact that we are talking about changing what ships are deployed to where and for how long. GFM is an inherently joint process that vests final decision authority in the SECDEF, based on requests from Combatant Commanders (CCMDs). The SECNAV and CNO are reduced to providing recommendations and concurrence to those requests, and if you have had a chance to look at any of the Secretary of Defense Order Books (SDOBs) from any of the recent CVN extensions, their concerns about deployment extensions are routinely over-ruled. As a result, it seems to me that the Deterrence Force/Maneuver Force construct will be dead in the water unless we get not just Naval leadership but also the SECDEF and CCMDs onboard as well. Failing in getting the CCMDs onboard, we will definitely need to get the SECDEF's ear on this since he has the final say. As our inestimable host would say, we need not only Admiral No, we need SECDEF No as well.
Many thanks to Sal for providing the space for this idea.
Excellent article, very well thought out. Thanks!
Interesting read as usual, gentlemen! I think this would be a worthwhile effort, and it reminds me a lot of SECDEF Mattis' Dynamic Force Employment model from a few years ago. However, I feel that in some ways this piece is "barking up the wrong tree" in that it is recommending the Pacific Fleet and Navy staff take actions they do not necessarily have the authority to unilaterally execute. Apologies if I'm mis-reading your proposal, but as described in the article it seems that fully moving to the Deterrence Force/Maneuver Force construct would require it be implemented through the Global Force Management (GFM) process, due to the fact that we are talking about changing what ships are deployed to where and for how long. GFM is an inherently joint process that vests final decision authority in the SECDEF, based on requests from Combatant Commanders (CCMDs). The SECNAV and CNO are reduced to providing recommendations and concurrence to those requests, and if you have had a chance to look at any of the Secretary of Defense Order Books (SDOBs) from any of the recent CVN extensions, their concerns about deployment extensions are routinely over-ruled. As a result, it seems to me that the Deterrence Force/Maneuver Force construct will be dead in the water unless we get not just Naval leadership but also the SECDEF and CCMDs onboard as well. Failing in getting the CCMDs onboard, we will definitely need to get the SECDEF's ear on this since he has the final say. As our inestimable host would say, we need not only Admiral No, we need SECDEF No as well.