Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

  1. #1

    Default B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    [note: per discussions with sir Loki and the ongoing debate in RB's 'blog' thread, I whipped up a short and timely piece for the blog. It has not been published there yet; the text is below. I'm not sure how this vetting process should work, but have at it.]

    The Washington Post had an interesting article detailing ‘frictions’ arising between aid agencies and various nations over the transportation bottlenecks in delivering aid to Haiti; notably, US control over the beleaguered airport had ruffled some feathers.

    What’s remarkable about the situation, actually, is how quickly the US military was able to establish a sizeable force in the country that is able to direct and control the relief effort. While theoretically under the auspices of the UN’s various agencies (notably surviving elements of MINUSTAH and WFP personnel), the immediate aid distribution is effectively run by the US with contributions from a handful of other countries.

    Within a day of the earthquake, a USAF Special Tactics Squadron had secured the chaos at the airport and had reestablished a modicum of control over the airspace and air traffic control. Coast Guard cutters were already offshore and evaluating damage to the port facilities, and major naval forces were already underway – a giant hospital ship was prepping to leave Baltimore, an aircraft carrier was quickly reassigned, and a handful of smaller ships (frigates, amphibious assault vessels, etc.) were speeding towards the island. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of food, water, and medicines were already being loaded onto transport planes, and thousands of troops were mobilizing for transport to Haiti by the end of the week. Meanwhile, the rest of the global response was piecemeal – a C-17 or C-130 here, a hastily converted passenger plane there. Even the most comprehensive and fastest teams – notably a large Israeli field hospital, and admirably fast reactions from Brazil and Canada – were dwarfed by the size, speed and organization of the US aid effort.

    Why did this happen? Part of the reason is the proximity of Haiti to the US, and the relative ease of quickly supplying the island. The much more important cause, though, is that the US is the only country with the ability to mount such an effort. Even strained by two sustained war efforts and countless worldwide deployments, the US logistics system is unrivalled. Pre-positioned stocks of rations and medicines (yes, and weapons) are secreted around the globe. US troops have significant forward bases all over the planet, and most importantly, the US Navy has 11 floating nuclear-powered cities able to render global assistance within a couple days notice. Coupled with the remarkable (albeit strained) airlift capacity of the USAF, it is not surprising that when speedy deployment is needed – whether military or humanitarian – the world looks to the United States. No other country or coalition thereof comes even close.

    This is the enduring power of the United States. Its economic power, while still great, is no longer quite as hegemonic as in days of yore, and there is no doubt that we live in a multipolar world. But for the foreseeable future, the US is going to be the most important player in world politics, because it is the only country with the means to respond effectively to an international crisis.

    This reality has not gone unnoticed by other aspiring powers, of course. China is looking to drastically reorient its military for projection capability, including opaque plans for a small carrier fleet. Britain and France have never relinquished Great Power ambitions, and continue to fund modest projection capabilities, though much curtailed from their heyday. Russia nurtures hopes of a future renaissance, and currently displays a thin façade of military preparedness. The EU has established ‘rapid reaction forces’ and European nations are urgently attempting to procure transport aircraft (which may be rather difficult in light of a possible cancellation of the A400M). Yet all of these efforts are paltry, underfunded, and lack the support of a large, distributed global logistics network upon which the US relies for fuel, food, weapons, and rapid reaction personnel.

    Whether it’s transporting APCs to stop genocide in Rwanda, reversing an invasion of Kuwait, or providing quick, comprehensive humanitarian aid in the wake of disaster, the world looks to the US for help. US policy planners should pay careful heed to this opportunity and responsibility. Continued investment in maintaining this projection infrastructure, and the careful application of worldwide power – both hard and soft – will ensure US dominance of world affairs for decades to come.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  2. #2

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    In contrast, there seems to be little to no Royal Navy presence in relief efforts round Haiti ATM. This fact may be connected with the use of various RFA amphibious & logistics ships in on anti-piracy and other patrol work because of the lack of frigates & destroyers.

    According to teh guberment:

    We are in touch with the Ministry of Defence about the possible use of Royal Naval vessels in the vicinity, and we will co-ordinate with the United States, which has a much more active presence in the country. Two years ago, when four hurricanes hit the country in one month, we were able to send four hospital ships to help, which would be vital on this occasion, when we know that there have been casualties in hospitals.
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... 9.7#g511.0

    Of course, since four years ago several more ships have been decommissioned, plus we're in the middle of a recession.

    Hopefully, those involved in the CVF program and the higher ups of the Royal Navy will pointed at the deployment of the Vinson and coughing loudly.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  3. #3

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    A great article. Where can one find this blog of which you speak?
    You do not become a dissident just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.
    Havel, Vaclav

  4. #4

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    True, although I recall reading somewhere (uhh, I'll have to dig it up) that the RN was indeed sending a couple of ships, though nothing major - something on the same order as the French contribution. The big difference is not just the scale of the possible deployment - it's the speed. The US has enough carrier strike groups scattered around (not to mention the Tarawa, Wasp, and soon-to-be America class amphibious assault craft, which can double as small carrier decks if needed) to get anywhere near a coast with pretty significant assets within a couple of days - far faster than even the most robust response of the RN.

    In this context, I think US policy planners should think carefully of the role of future naval acquisitions. Much of the current debate revolves around how many ships of a given class are needed for warfighting against current and future threats. I think a much more important consideration is how many ships (and of what classes) are required to maintain US global reach. It's a subtly different concern, but an important distinction.

    In the last few years, the USN has been cautiously exploring expanded non-military soft power roles for its navy. They've been elaborating on seabasing concepts in delivery of humanitarian supplies during an African tour in 2008; hospital ships have been sent on extended 'goodwill' tours offering free healthcare to tens of thousands of people in S. American countries, etc. It's going to be an interesting time, seeing the evolving nature of naval needs when seen in the context of long lead times and ballooning budgets. The Navy still needs to have unsurpassed muscle, but it also needs to be much more flexible, while keeping its global reach and dropping costs. It's clear that things are in flux - the debate over costly and experimental littoral ships, the overpriced and unsuitable DDX destroyer replacement program, and the increasing vulnerability (and $10 billion + pricetag) of supercarriers... it's a big mess. But at the end of the day, America needs to realize that having a flexible and robust logistics and projection system pays off in political clout on the world stage.

    Similar things could be said about air transport, but the ongoing debate surrounding those has a somewhat different complexion.

    A great article. Where can one find this blog of which you speak?
    http://www.theworldforgotten.com . It was originally proposed by Loki and Wraith (with me cheering them on) as a AtariCC-like political events blog. In the upheaval, they are also now hosting our new home. Hopefully the blog can become an integral part of the community.

    Ender
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  5. #5

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    The two tier navy approach is one we seem to be taking with the FSC program, if it ever materializes (after about ten years, it has been decided to build some kind of frigate with a gun on the front, some missiles and a hanger for a helicopter at the back). They are going to build one class for warfighting and another, cheaper and more numerous class for routine patrol work. Which is all well and good on paper, but you just know that whenever the shit goes down somewhere in the world these patrol ships are going to be put in front line duties anyway, and thus find themselves totally unsuitable for what they've been asked to do.

    It seems that only the USN can really afford to build ships numerous enough to ensure global reach and powerful enough to hold its own in combat situations.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    The article is interesting, but you're not really clear about its purpose. Is it about power projection (which would start a debate about imperial overstretch and its risks most likely) or are you merely advocating sufficient investment in the navy? The latter seems to be the case, but that also could be because of the reactions of Steely. I can understand if people are interested in something like that, but for me navy-(re-)focussing sort of killed the desire to react on topic.
    Congratulations America

  7. #7

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    I think wiggin is advocating a specific kind if naval investment, to give it a broader utility beyond blowing shit up - i.e. soft power.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Yeah, I gathered as much. But the naval angle you picked up upon isn't obvious in the article itself. The comment isn't so much on the message of the first post as if it would be suitable for the blog. (There is a debate going on about how to go about that). Seen in that debate I think the article could be clearer about its purpose.
    Congratulations America

  9. #9

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Honestly, I want the piece to be commenting on policy planning in general - for example, in Rwanda in 1994, it wasn't a lack of projection power, but a reluctance to use it, that ended up with the US indirectly killing several hundred thousand people. On the other hand, the ongoing debates on scaling down the US' forward base network in the name of budgets and questions on the size and composition of our navy are also an important consideration.

    I was already 100+ words over my limit, so I felt that getting into detailed policy recommendations was a bit beyond my purview. I tried to allude to it as both an 'opportunity and responsibility' - an opportunity to have serious relevance in the world stage beyond brute military and economic power, and a responsibility to use our (hard and soft) projection power with care. Both of these goals require careful crafting of policy on the maintenance and use of projection power.

    Perhaps I should invite the reader to respond in comments about specific policy recommendations?

    I also wanted to use the piece to suggest that rumors of the US' demise as a superpower are seriously exaggerated. I firmly believe that it's going to take a long time for our current situation to change. Projection power is part of it, though I have a much broader critique of US declinism (coupled with some warning for those optimists who swing too far in the other direction). I've been thinking about that a lot lately, and likely a lot of my early posts will be focusing on different aspects of that debate.

    Ender
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  10. #10

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    I have a serious nitpick on the declaration that the world is multipolar at the moment, since there still isn't even one other credible pole besides the US, though various powers aspire to get there eventually (EU, China, Russian resurgence). Overall a very nice article. I disagree with Hazir, it's on-point enough as-is.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #11

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    I agree with Fuzzy's nitpick, but otherwise think you're fully on target. I also don't think it would be reasonable for you to cover more given the space constraints, though you're of course free to cover that ground in another blog post. The world is not multipolar by any stretch of the imagination. The US is far above any other country militarily (half of all military spending in the world), economically (almost a quarter of the world's GDP, with no other country having an economy even half as large), technologically (a vast majority of the major advances are done at American universities), or culturally (not many trying to copy Chinese or Japanese culture). We're probably heading toward a multipolar world, but that will take decades. I'm not convinced China can maintain its present growth rate once its GDP per capita hits $10-15k (which is currently Taiwan's level), which means that even though it might match America's total GDP, it will still be far behind in terms of standard of living. Militarily, Chinese political system doesn't really allow for innovation, so China will constantly be playing catch up to American technological advances. There's also a decent chance it will end up with a bloody civil war at some point. India has a more realistic shot of equaling the US, but that will take many decades. The EU could theoretically become a US-equal, but that will take decades of integration (assuming it succeeds).

    I do agree on the emphasis on power projection, though I'd argue that an economic component is almost as important as the military one nowadays. A country that is powerful in every way but has no means to project that power isn't going to be able to convince others that it can use carrots or sticks to influence their policy choices, which means it's not going to be taken as seriously as it otherwise would be. The military is obviously key here, but you'd be surprised how much leverage a country can get from being able to threaten the use of economic "weapons" (I'd argue this is the only reason China can be deemed to be powerful today).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    A fair criticism of my 'multipolar' opinion. I guess I always see it as the flip side of a unipolar or hegemonic world. I think Krauthammer was right about his unipolar moment after the fall of the Soviet Union - there was no power or group of powers that could have a significant influence on US policy or aspirations. Yet while I would agree that the world today doesn't truly possess any other 'poles' that can challenge the US at the moment (though of course there are various contenders in the wings), I think the world has gotten a lot more muddled than the relative impunity of US policy in the early 90s. Perhaps multipolar is the wrong word... I'll revise the blog post.

    Otherwise, shall we publish?

    Loki - I agree in principle that economic power/coercion is also pretty important, but the amount of US leverage in that area is steadily decreasing. It's still pretty powerful, especially when we can get all of our rich friends to follow suit. But realistically, we should have forced China to fix their monetary policy years ago, and we haven't for the simple reason that we don't have the leverage.

    Ender
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    One has to ask though if the ability to project soft power is best served by using the military for this purpose. I think it would make sense to not justify having (for example) warships with their potential use in humanitarian missions. I have little doubt that in most cases using the civil alternative would be more cost effective than using military assets.

    Also, how much is the American public willing to live with the possibility that their military in order to stay on top in quite the way it is today will consume a bigger part of the cake than the relatively small part it takes up today. Wiggin rightly points out that even though the US is the hegemon in military terms, it is far from having a similar status in economic terms.
    Congratulations America

  14. #14

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    I posted a lengthy reply on the blog to your basic assertion, though it still needs moderation.

    As for the question of the American people, I don't think that projection power will take up significantly more resources (as a fraction of GDP) than it currently does. That is probably the most pricey part of our budget, when you factor in extra personnel costs for all of those overseas deployments coupled with equipment/fuel/maintenance costs for our far-flung military. A focus on homeland defense and a minimal expeditionary capability (as in most militaries today, and as was US doctrine until this century) would be far cheaper, but maintaining that edge will not be much more expensive that current costs.

    On other issues of declinism, I have more blog posts on that topic. I think the economic case is somewhat overstated. I'm planning on writing a piece next week about a great analysis I saw in the Economist a month or so back... it had good things to say about America's future.

    Ender
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    I just read your piece on the blog, but following Loki's opinion like a meek sheep (for just this time) I will react to it here.

    I will not disagree with what you wrote as such, indeed the military has such a capacity readily available. That however doesn't mean that a similar civilian capacity couldn't be built up as a cheaper alternative to a bloated army that needs not only to be able to fight 2,5 conflicts anywhere in the world any longer but also needs to be there in case disaster strikes. Maybe I don't see all sides of the cost-effectiveness of a military vs a civilian redundancy plan, but I would sure like to see such a comparison being made by my government if I were to foot the bill for it in the end.

    There are clearly roles for which the army is better fit to do the job, security of aid-workers and order in Haiti right now would come to mind.

    I merely have a general idea of the military budget of the USA and I know that the normal budget is relatively small compared to the GDP of the country, but does that take into account how much money is needed to keep the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq going?
    Congratulations America

  16. #16

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    As of now, the budget is some $650 billion. That includes most things that were previously 'emergency appropriations' to pay for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It doesn't include some other long-term costs, though (IIRC the VA is a separate budget?). After impressive increases in the last few years, Gates is trying to keep the military budget growth to inflation or even lower. Most of this involves cuts in poorly performing or unnecessary weapons programs. When operations scale down in our two major theaters of war, things will get quite a bit cheaper as well.

    As for the greater question of a coordination of civilian logistics to support relief efforts, it's certainly done in small quantities - classically, there is a giant Russian cargo plane that is occasionally contracted to move outsized equipment or huge amounts of supplies. But that's one plane, and it only exists because the Soviet government developed it for another purpose (the space program), but sold it when things got tough. Smaller cargo planes are contracted from a variety of companies by NGOs and governments, but they rarely have the speed or ramp-up capabilities that the military does.

    I guess I feel that a coordination of existing non-governmental civilian logistics would be completely inadequate for the rigorous needs, and that leaves the option of a civilian governmental organization purchasing and maintaining such a capability. If so, though, I fail to see where most of the savings would come in, as it would still be an inefficient government-run program, and the capacity would generally be sitting idle most of the time. *shrugs* A detailed cost analysis would not be unreasonable, though.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  17. #17

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Would you and Hazir mind copying your comments from the blog onto here (Hazir first)?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    One could ask the question if a nation needs guns for the projection of ’soft power’ or just the means to get the job done.
    I would dare to say without even the least bit of research that a civilian ship used for transport or as a hospital would most likely be a more cost effective way to project soft power than keeping the navy at its present high level just in case it needs to be used for humanitarian crises.

    It’s a tendency these days of military’s to prove that they are doing a useful job by taking on tasks they weren’t really hired for, and I seriously doubt if that’s a good thing at all.

    (does this mean the reactions on the blog are going to go?)
    Congratulations America

  19. #19

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    The consensus so far is to get rid of comments on the blog posts and redirect all the replies here.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #20

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    And my response is below...



    In a way you’re right, Hazir. But the fact of the matter is that civilian transportation networks don’t have the redundancy and excess capacity of military ones, nor the speed. A classic case is air transport: heavy lifting of big equipment simply isn’t done by most civilian transports, and they run their cargo planes at capacity as it is. The military intentionally keeps significant numbers of large transports in reserve at pre-positioned locations to deliver troops/equipment in time of war. Ditto for naval deployments. For that matter, specialized equipment (water distillation, hospitals, etc.) simply aren’t part of the civilian repertoire. Add the fact that humanitarian disasters (and other opportunities for exercising soft power) invariably come with difficult security situations, and it’s not unreasonable to rely on the military for such capabilities.

    Is it possible that a civilian governmental agency could be created to provide some coordinating structure to corporate transportation networks and mandate excess capacity? Certainly. I just bet it would be reproducing effort to some extent when many of the capabilities are already covered by the military.

    I certainly agree that we needn’t look to the military for everything, and soft power can be projected in a number of ways - USAID, after all, has been heavily involved in this most recent intervention in Haiti. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that the military is trained and intended to carry out ‘hard power’ missions to the exclusion of soft power missions. The role of the military is to provide the practical application of US foreign policy. While traditionally that has been a fairly limited role to the use of force, the complexity of emerging conflicts has meant that DOD personnel are increasingly acting as diplomats, social scientists, humanitarians, and more. Just look at recent counterinsurgency doctrines for plenty of examples. Thus, it might not be so unreasonable (and perhaps more efficient?) to deploy the military in a broader context - they are merely instruments of US policy, further our interests overseas. These can all theoretically contribute to their original mandate of defending the US and her interests.

    Thank you for your thoughtful words!
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  21. #21

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir
    One has to ask though if the ability to project soft power is best served by using the military for this purpose. I think it would make sense to not justify having (for example) warships with their potential use in humanitarian missions. I have little doubt that in most cases using the civil alternative would be more cost effective than using military assets.
    Is it as feasible, from a policy-perspective, without the dual-use component? As far as I know, no one has ever even suggested this sort of large-scale relief-projection infrastructure before and there are reasons for that. First, if the resources are tasked exclusively for relief then the pressure is going to be monumental to use them constantly for lesser causes rather than the more infrequent big relief efforts, frittering them away and diluting their impact. Which might actually turn out to be a good thing, overall, but will not provide the return necessary to justify the extra effort above and beyond what is done for general aid right now. Second, these projection resources are useless without the dedicated manpower to support them. The large pool of available, disciplined and organized manpower is a significant multiplier, as key to providing a large aid presence in an immediate time frame as the prepositioned stocks and logistics train, and it's not something I think can be done without making a quasi-military organization anyway.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir
    One has to ask though if the ability to project soft power is best served by using the military for this purpose. I think it would make sense to not justify having (for example) warships with their potential use in humanitarian missions. I have little doubt that in most cases using the civil alternative would be more cost effective than using military assets.
    Is it as feasible, from a policy-perspective, without the dual-use component? As far as I know, no one has ever even suggested this sort of large-scale relief-projection infrastructure before and there are reasons for that. First, if the resources are tasked exclusively for relief then the pressure is going to be monumental to use them constantly for lesser causes rather than the more infrequent big relief efforts, frittering them away and diluting their impact. Which might actually turn out to be a good thing, overall, but will not provide the return necessary to justify the extra effort above and beyond what is done for general aid right now. Second, these projection resources are useless without the dedicated manpower to support them. The large pool of available, disciplined and organized manpower is a significant multiplier, as key to providing a large aid presence in an immediate time frame as the prepositioned stocks and logistics train, and it's not something I think can be done without making a quasi-military organization anyway.
    The question is valid, just as valid as the question I posed. Indeed the fact that the armed forces are there already could weigh heavily in favour of going that way. However, neither question is asked as we speak because inertia proscribes that the armed forces are used for no other reason that they are there. Drawing the conclusing from the fact that the armed forces do a damn good job in Haiti, that their humanitarian value should be taken into account by their upkeep, for me is a step too far untill we have a somewhat more solid grasp on if we're not throwing money the wrong way i.e. helping people in the least cost-effective way.

    I'm somewhat sceptical if armed forces start acting humanitarian to prove they have a right to exist. It's not just the US armed forces that occasionally turns into emergency aid workers, the Dutch armed forces have got this same tendency. And I am seriously doubting this is a good thing.
    Congratulations America

  23. #23

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir
    I'm somewhat sceptical if armed forces start acting humanitarian to prove they have a right to exist. It's not just the US armed forces that occasionally turns into emergency aid workers, the Dutch armed forces have got this same tendency. And I am seriously doubting this is a good thing.
    I strongly disagree that armed forces are being used as humanitarian organizations to support their continued existence. Rather, they exist for other reasons entirely (namely, carrying out the foreign policy of their respective nation, by force if necessary). It's just that such a ready-made capability has plenty of other uses in foreign policy that were not originally intended.

    I get your basic argument, Hazir - perhaps it would be possible to have a civilian 'reserve corps' to at least team up with existing logistical infrastructure to better provide humanitarian aid. Yet the structure, deployment, and discipline of the military has so many advantages that I find it hard to imagine a wholly non-military effort would be effective.

    Ender

    edit: An interesting piece that touches on the increased role of the US military in rapid response to humanitarian disasters:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  24. #24
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir
    The question is valid, just as valid as the question I posed. Indeed the fact that the armed forces are there already could weigh heavily in favour of going that way. However, neither question is asked as we speak because inertia proscribes that the armed forces are used for no other reason that they are there. Drawing the conclusing from the fact that the armed forces do a damn good job in Haiti, that their humanitarian value should be taken into account by their upkeep, for me is a step too far untill we have a somewhat more solid grasp on if we're not throwing money the wrong way i.e. helping people in the least cost-effective way.

    I'm somewhat sceptical if armed forces start acting humanitarian to prove they have a right to exist. It's not just the US armed forces that occasionally turns into emergency aid workers, the Dutch armed forces have got this same tendency. And I am seriously doubting this is a good thing.
    Keep in mind that it requires rather specialised tasks to provide this kind of aid, especially if the infrastructure is completely destroyed. I think the only organisation even capable of setting up an airport, a port, etc., would be the military. The military also has the ability to set up hospitals, always has doctors on stand-by, while civilian doctors would be working in a normal hospital. Calling them away harms your own citizens. And last but not least, the military is always already spread out over the globe. The US has carriers and hospital ships scattered across the world, always relatively close. A civilian organisation would most likely only have one homebase.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  25. #25

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6994452.ece
    Now, isn't that interesting; exactly the kind of reasoning I find highly suspicious. 'Because you cut back on the budget for the navy we can't help the poor people in Haiti'. Yeah, they probably could have done a lot of good IF they'd still had been there. But is that really a good reason to keep the fleet in the area?
    Congratulations America

  27. #27

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    There's normally a frigate or something in the area to do anti-drug work - intercepting smugglers - and to show the flag in the over-seas territories.

    So, yes.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint
    There's normally a frigate or something in the area to do anti-drug work - intercepting smugglers - and to show the flag in the over-seas territories.

    So, yes.
    That's something different than helping victims of earthquakes. The gist of the article isn't that they should be there to carry out the work of aid workers in disaster areas. That's not a traditional task for the navy, but all of a sudden everybody is telling us that we should keep the armed forced on strength, because they are such great help in disasters. I am still not convinced you need big guns on your ship to have a floating hospital.
    Congratulations America

  29. #29

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    The purpose behind having a military of global reach is to be able to respond quickly to an unexpected crisis. One example of such a crisis is a devastating earthquake which requires an immediate humanitarian response. Another example might be something which requires an armed response, like some tin pot dictator trying to grab one of our tiny island or a violent conflict which breaking out which requires the evacuation of British nations or others from friendly nations.

    There is no money to build a fleets of hospital and cargo ships with helipads and have them permanently deployed around the global in case the shit hits the fan. However, given that there is already a need to have warships stationed around the globe to arrest drug traffickers and pirates, evacuate embassies and shoot missiles at terrorist pickup trucks then the fact are also perfectly placed and equipped to respond quickly to humanitarian disasters is another reason to fund the navy properly.

    A warship is not so much a weapon (though it can be) but a sort of counter, or playing piece on the map which allows you to influence events to a greater or lesser extent in whatever part of the world it happens to be in.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  30. #30
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435

    Default Re: B:Logistics, projection power, and the making of superpowers

    Most, if not all, tasks you mentioend in there are being carried out around the globe by (NATO)allies all the time. What's the added benfit of being in the carribean if the Dutch, the Americans, and probably more, are already there too? You can't be everywhere.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •