So, How is that National Commission on the Future of the Navy Doing?

nothing in DC happens by accident

It has been a year and a couple of weeks since we last discussed the National Commission on the Future of the Navy. There has been some news lately, so let’s get caught up, as I want to run a little theory by you.

Last week, our friend Bryan McGrath noted that a lifeline was provided to the drop-dead date;

There has been (for this delayed and unloved effort) some activity of late, to include news of additional appointees and insertion of language in the 2025 version of the law that created the Commission, language extending its mandate until July of 2025 (an additional twelve months past its current expiry).  As an appointed member of the Commission, I am enthusiastic at the prospect of finally getting to work, but as a neophyte observer of how things get done in our nation’s capital, I have yet to square the circle on how a Commission whose legal end date is July 1, 2024 can be extended without signed legislation. But I will leave those things to the experts and just continue to throttle my work life on the off-chance that the system figures this out.

Who is on it? You’ll recognize a few names.

• Mackenzie Eaglen, appointed by the Senate Minority Leader (R)

• Mitch Waldman, appointed by the Senate Armes Services Committee Ranking Member (R)

• Bryan McGrath, appointed by the House Armed Services Chair (R)

• Scott O'Neil, appointed by the Speaker of the House (R)

• Trip Barber, appointed by the House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member (D)

• Tommy Ross, appointed by the Senate Majority Leader (D)

• Filemon Vela, House Minority Leader (D)

• Harlan Ullman, appointed by the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair (D)

That is four (R) and four (D) appointments, nice and balanced as one would hope - as let us be clear - there is every reason in the world, our world that is 3/4 water, for the argument in favor of our North American republic’s Navy to have a sound future to be a non-partisan/bi-partisan issue of concern.

But is it, really? It appears someone doesn’t think so.

Things did not get moving over the last year because (D) simply did not nominate their people. The (R) did.

The navalist credentials of Eaglen and McGrath go without saying for regulars.

Waldman’s CV should humble anyone.

O’Neil is not someone I would go into an argument with unprepared.

Barber? People who matter to me like him and he’s another guy I’d need to bring my A-game to discuss anything of substance.

Ross is a political player, sure, but is in the game, knows the business…and isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

Vela? Ummm…a former (D) Congressman with some experience on the HASC, and, OK, I can see the utility of that. He was, I believe the second to last nomination - I think. The (R) did not nominate a former Congressman. If one must, he wouldn’t be my first choice to add that flavor to the mix, I would have preferred Elaine Luria, but oh well. No one asked me.

Ullman? I believe he was the last or second to last card pulled. That name might ring a bell to some who have been around a while. The 81-year-old has been haunting the DC natsec arena for decades with all the right credentials from all the right places that created 2024 for us, but besides throwing a shadow at a panel here and there, I am - and perhaps this is bad on me - not all that familiar with his books or work. He matters to people who matter though, and I guess that is what matters.

Besides the lost opportunity to bring in some new blood under 50 who has a significant amount of work on naval matters the last decade or two that could inject some creative friction on the panel, here is my quibble with Ullman: he is one of the parents of the disastrous “Shock & Awe” theory that along with the basketful of ideas from The Smartest People in the Room™ fed the brains that are indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the expenditure of trillions of dollars on lost wars and generational damage to our nation’s image. He was wrong there, wrong before the Russo-Ukrainian War kicked off in 2022. Perhaps it is time to give some time to someone else in this arena.

Yes, this is a touchy subject for me - as it dominated the last decade of my time on active duty.

Is that unfair of me? A decision was made to overlook this track record and again, OK. Besides that, on naval issues, besides a short plea for more money a few months ago, the topic is only tangentially mentioned in Ullman’s significant scholarship. Unusual, perhaps, for a retired Navy Captain, but it is all right there and should be noted.

(D) waited until the last minute to get a fixture in That Town for decades? For those older than 55, his name might ring a bell, reminding us of a more innocent time in our nation’s capital, but that is just salacious gossip about Sailors being Sailors - but it is a datapoint how long he has been there. That has its pluses and minuses.

Anyway, it isn’t what you know but who knows you - and a lot of people know Ullman, so there he is.

Perhaps he’s considered a dampener to any wild swings by the rest of the panel? Is this a parting gift as a swan song to a friend of long-standing?

Who knows. I hope the above does not look like a personal attack. It isn’t meant as such. I don’t blame him, and perhaps I am being too harsh on him - but he is the odd duck in this group. Everyone else has me nodd’n my head, even the former Congressman, but Ullman?

If nothing else, his selection prompted a little theory I’d like to propose for you that might explain the kludge we have - a kludge that can still do good work and I hope it does - but a kludge nonetheless.

This is the point of the conversation where I put away my closet optimist hat, and take out my simmering cauldron of cynicism. As the sub-title to this post says, nothing in DC happens by accident.

Why so late in nominating the (D) positions on the committee? What can the last two nominations tell us about where the Commission will go from here?

Let’s hope I’m wrong - and there is always a non-zero chance that I am - but here is my theory of the case.

Someone in the (D) arena thinks any results from the Commission will used as a political weapon against the present administration in the election year 2024.

Putting aside the fact that the problems we have today are the results of both political parties’ multiple tenures in the executive branch over the last quarter-century, on the (R) side, (I don’t know O’Neil or Walden all that well) I can, with the greatest confidence, tell you that neither Eaglen nor McGrath have an interest of a partisan effort focused on, “How can we hurt Biden and help Trump?” They are too serious and professional to play that Beltway game on a topic like this. Neither of the other (R) nominees throw off those vibes either.

The causes of today’s problems that brought about the commission are bi-partisan/non-partisan - and so will the results.

Someone convinced (D) leadership otherwise, so they slow-walked their responsibility to appoint members in a timely manner - and the second half of their appointments seem off-frequency from the rest.

Why?

Politics.

They put in a year’s extension so no one can be accused of ignoring the law, but it will push any results to after the election.

That is the only explanation that makes any sense. Here’s the ugly byproduct of this unnecessary Beltway boogie.

Our military bureaucracy already moves at the speed of smell. Of all things, the Chinese Communist Party is better at moving its military in the direction they want than we are. Chew on that a bit; our bureaucracy is worse than people who have Marx, Lenin, and Mao pictures in their offices.

So, as 2027 gets closer, we lose another year. As indications are (D) see this as a (R) project, how will that impact the work to get the best product possible in a non-partisan manner?

That outlines the worst-case scenario.

The best-case scenario is that this group will 6/8 or 8/8 do the right thing as I am sure the same percentage wants to - if you define “the right thing” as putting together the best plan for our Navy’s future and not protecting egos and rice bowls.

The timing is not ideal, not all the appointees are ideal - but you never get the ideal in DC, you get the possible. It is possible, actually probable, that this group will produce what all navalists want.

I really hope Ullman proves my excessive cynicism wrong. I hope he does. He has a breadth of knowledge of DC, the natsec nomenklatura, and can see the calendar as well as I can. He has useful tools that, if used correctly, can be valuable. Moving past the assumptions of politicians, let’s hope we get what is most in line with what having American as the world’s premier naval power for the rest of the 21st Century; a non-partisan issue.