The Sun Bay Paper Page 27 May 20, 2022 - June 2, 2022 Can the United States only fight one war with a chance of winning? According to Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations (CNO, Navy's senior officer) the answer is yes -- at least when it comes to the U.S. Navy fighting its share of the war. According to Stars and Stripes, during a May 12 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo, asked Gilday: "What would the impact be on the Navy's ability to meet its operational requirements in (Europe) if we had to withhold Navy forces from Europe in order to deter Chinese aggression in (the Pacific)?" Gilday replied that the current fleet of about 298 ships "is not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts." The Navy is "sized to fight one and keep a second adversary in check, but in terms of two all-out conflicts, we are not sized for that." Given the genuine threat posed by communist China -- whose navy is already larger than the U.S. Navy -- this is a jaw-dropping statement for the Navy's senior officer to say on the record. Consider the information and narrative warfare elements -- and the Biden administration emphasizes "perception" above all. At the definite minimum Gilday's assessments rates as a diplomatic perception faux pas -- it signals weakness. At the hyperbolic maximum -- admittedly extreme -- Beijing's imperialist dictatorship could read it as an invitation to attack Taiwan. Given Russia's invasion of Ukraine, never dismiss hyperbolic and idiotic aggression by a dictatorship as impossible. Major caveat: Ukraine's ferocious resistance to Russia's aggression should give Beijing aggressors second and third thoughts. Alas -- Gilday exposes an unfortunate vulnerability. My American political explanation: He wants more money for the Navy and its current acquisition programs. Another reason? Everyone sentient on the Senate Armed Services Committee knows the U.S. military is structured to "fight one and hold one." The first "one" means a must-win war. In this strategic bind we bet we win the one we choose to fight first then we go and win the one we held -- or hope we held. "Win, hold, win" -- a bumper sticker that's the organizing principle. In July 2001 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, through a Pentagon leak, indicated America would no longer field -- and pay for -- a military built to fight a "two war strategy." In the late 1990s a bipartisan Washington consensus believed the U.S. no longer confronted the strategic threat of fighting simultaneous major wars in the Atlantic/Europe and in the Pacific/Asia. In a column written in July 2001 I suggested Rumsfeld was telling America that World War II and its Cold War aftermath had finally come to a strategic endpoint. The Cold War was World War II's long goodbye, with U.S. and Russian troops facing each other in a divided Germany. America's direct involvement in Asian tumults like the Korean and Vietnam wars were the fallout of defeating Japan -- and then confronting communist China and the USSR. To be fair to Rumsfeld's 2001 (but pre-9/11) context, he was addressing a late 1990s' Pentagon planning concept for waging "two major regional wars." Rumsfeld wanted to align Pentagon strategy with budget if not strategic threat. Since 1993 Congress had been spending the so-called end of the Cold War "peace dividend." As for reality? In 1993 Russia was kaput. In 1993 it appeared China wanted to make money. In 2022 China is "the pacing threat." That's Pentagonese for America's most potent enemy. In his pre-testimony written remarks, Gilday employed the slang to make his point: "Sea control and power projection are essential to U.S. national security and long-term economic health." China, "our pacing threat, clearly recognizes this..." In 2018, Congress stipulated the Navy deploy a 355-ship fleet "as soon as practicable," but the fleet has been reduced due to budget requirements. China's fleet already has 355 ships. Lose the big one, what matters the hold? Austin Bay America's Next Wars: Lose One, Hold One? We are in Danger of Destroying the Institutions of a Free Society It’s been two weeks and there’s still no word on who leaked the U.S. Supreme Court draft brief indicating that the court was set to overturn Roe V. Wade and returning the issue of abortion back to the states. At a recent event in Dallas, Texas, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about the leak and his concern for the rule of law and credibility of the court. A roughly 8-minute clip of his talk was published by C-SPAN, in which he said, “I think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. You can’t have a civil society, a free society without a stable legal system. “You can’t have one without stability in things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. I’ve been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is.” Prior to the draft opinion being leaked this year, Thomas said it was impossible to think that even one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone. “No one would ever do that,” he said. “There’s such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, belief in what we were doing, that that was beyond anyone’s understanding or at least anyone's imagination, that someone would do that.” Now, “look where we are,” he said. “That trust and belief is gone forever. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It's like kind of an infidelity, that you can explain it, but you can't undo it.” New York University professor Melissa Murray holds a similar sentiment. She told the New York Times last week that the leak “violates the omertà that traditionally has shrouded the court’s deliberations. To the public, this not only looks like the kind of maneuvering that we’ve come to expect from politicians, it also strips the court of the mystique it has generally enjoyed.” Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts’ reputation is also at stake. He has a lot riding on whether or not the leaker is identified and punished, Dan McLaughlin at National Review Online notes. “John Roberts’s Court is at stake here,” he argues. “If decisions can be leaked in draft form with impunity in order to influence their outcomes, this will become a regular feature of high-profile cases, placing the Court under even worse pressures and threats than already exist.” The Supreme Court isn’t the only institution that’s changing, Thomas said. Universities, colleges, law schools have all changed over the last few decades. Today, the climate on most campuses doesn’t allow for peaceful debate of differing views, instead policies of censorship are creating a “chilling effect” on speech. He recently met with students attending the University of Georgia, where he said students expressed that they can’t publicly affirm pro-life or traditional family views because of the climate on campus. At Yale Law School, his alma mater, students could once freely speak about anything, “it was anything goes, you do your thing I do my thing,” he said. Now. there’s censorship, he said. "I wonder how long we're going to have these institutions at the rate we're undermining them,” Thomas said. “And then I wonder when they're gone or they are destabilized, what we'll have as a country – and I don't think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose them." Bethany Blankley The Center Square
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2ODE3