The View from Admiral Aquilino's Chair

...the good and the unfortunate

The Posture Statement by Commander INDOPACOM, Admiral John C. Aquilino, USN is out.

You can read the full thing here.

I generally approve the scene setting, specifically on the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

…we must recognize that the most dangerous national security challenges are evolving faster than our current government processes allow us to address them. Each of our three major state threats in the USINDOPACOM area of responsibility (AOR) – the People's Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) – are taking unprecedented actions that challenge international norms and advance authoritarianism.

…

…the PRC is the only country that has the capability, capacity, and intent to upend the international order. Even amidst slowing economic growth, the PRC continues its aggressive military buildup, modernization, and coercive gray-zone operations. All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping’s directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Furthermore, the PLA’s actions indicate their ability to meet Xi’s preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed.

…

On a scale not seen since WWII, the PLA's buildup is occurring across land, sea, air, space, cyber, and information domains. Despite challenges presented by COVID-19 and an economic downturn, the PRC's official defense budget has risen over 16% from 192 billion USD to 223.5 billion USD. In the three years since I took command, the PLA has added over 400 fighter aircraft (almost all 4th and 5th generation variants), more than 20 major warships (guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates), and has more than doubled its inventory of ballistic and cruise missiles. Likewise, China has increased the number of satellites launched by over 50% during this period, yielding a five-fold increase since 2020. Perhaps most concerning has been the rapid pace at which the PRC has bolstered its nuclear arsenal, increasing its warhead inventory by well over 100% since 2020

This is an otherwise solid document that I encourage everyone to read, but as I progressed through its 43 pages, I started to feel something was “off.”

Of course, it starts by pushing out what is a unfortunately applied acronym; VEO.

You will first find VEO used back in the Obama Administration in reference to domestic terrorist threats. It was not often used, but not infrequently. About 5-years ago it started to slip into the international arena. The most charitable reason is that people just want to use new words. The more likely reason is that it is a way to avoid using the “I” word for the source of almost all of this threat - a threat responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans over the last quarter century, the maiming of tens of thousands, and the waste of trillions-with-a-t dollars; Islamic-based extremist terrorist organizations.

It has not gone anywhere. As a matter of fact, two and a half years ago we bent the knee in a negotiated surrender and retreat under file to the Taliban in Afghanistan FFS. American forces throughout Asia and the Pacific are helping our friends counter this threat…but…nothing. You cannot defeat something you cannot properly define.

‘Ole Sal’s favorite shortcut, the word search, kind of proves that is what is going on here. Let’s start with VEO:

Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs)

Transnational and ethno-nationalist violent extremist organizations remain active across the Indo-Pacific region. The December 2023 bombing of a Catholic Mass in the southern Philippines that killed four is only the most recent reminder. While VEO strength as a whole in the region is far from its pinnacle, and security forces throughout the region have thinned VEO ranks, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent violent extremists from planning and executing attacks.

Of note, “terror” and its variations is only used seven times. Five of the seven was as part of “counter terrorism.”

Nothing about religion is mentioned anywhere, even though it is a significant aspect of conflict in The Philippines, Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar), and to a smaller extent elsewhere…wait…I’m wrong. “Climate” is mentioned six times, so that religion was mentioned.

Funny, given the role of ethnicity in so many of the conflicts internal and external in INDOPACOM, nothing related to “ethnic” is mentioned at all. Zip.

Don’t tell me that is a loaded term best avoided. “Gender” was mentioned six times…so we have that.

Admiral Aquilino has a staff problem at INDOPACOM. I don’t think it is him, but his staff seems to be worm-ridden with either a leftist in a senior position, or a few junior staff weenies who for reasons best explained by them, are injecting domestic political agendas in to security documents - and they have intimidated everyone up to the 4-star level who reviewed the document such that senior people did not remove it up the chop-chain.

Want to signal to domestic political constituencies in national security documents? I think that is malpractice, but if so, that is the job of the SECDEF Staff to play the political game, if they must, as they are political appointees. This in unnecessary.

You can have the best stew in the world, but just one nugget of dog-poo turns it in to dog-poo stew.

INDOPACOM is a military staff. Aquilina already has 4-stars. He does not have to do this, but here we are. His name is on the document - he owns this. Good luck with that.

h/t SJS