Share This Page

U.S. unprepared to patrol, secure vital Arctic region

| Friday, Nov. 23, 2012, 8:57 p.m.

In the final presidential debate, when explaining why the Navy has fewer ships than in 1916, President Obama famously quipped that the United States also has "fewer horses and bayonets," setting off a debate over quality versus quantity.

In the Arctic - an increasingly important part of the world - the situation is simpler. When it comes to patrolling and securing the Arctic, the United States has neither quality nor quantity.

Melting Arctic sea ice is opening up previously unnavigable areas to shipping and drilling. Already, the maritime area in which the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for safety, security and environmental protection missions is experiencing a significant increase in traffic.

To meet this challenge, the Coast Guard has three Arctic-capable icebreakers: two heavy-duty icebreakers - both of which were commissioned in the mid-1970s - and a more modern medium-duty icebreaker, the Healy. Were all three operational, the United States would lag behind several other Arctic nations in capabilities; in fact, only one, the Healy, is currently operational. According to a Coast Guard study, it will need at least six heavy-duty and four medium icebreakers just to meet mission requirements.

The 2013 fiscal-year budget includes money to begin the acquisition of one icebreaker, but it remains unpassed. With the threat of automatic spending cuts in early 2013 - and other cuts to the defense budget likely even if the so-called fiscal cliff is averted - there seems to be little appetite in Washington to invest in new and upgraded Arctic-capable systems.

Thus, for all the talk of projecting power abroad and ensuring the freedom of the seas, we are unable to effectively patrol the waters off our own territory, and this in an area whose importance is growing at a rate perhaps second only to that of the Asia-Pacific region.

In the meantime, other Arctic nations are taking the initiative. Norway, Canada and Russia have made developing both their military and civilian capabilities in the Arctic a priority.

The United States' lack of investment in the Arctic is not limited to the military. Obama routinely speaks of investing in America's infrastructure and rebuilding roads and rails. In most of north Alaska, there simply isn't much infrastructure to rebuild. It must, instead, be built in the first place.

The manner and extent to which we develop the Arctic remains, admittedly, undecided and controversial, especially with regard to the extraction of its natural resources. Amid significant opposition from environmental groups, Shell Oil has begun drilling offshore wells in the Alaskan Arctic, though setbacks have delayed completion of the wells until the summer of 2013 at the earliest.

The reality is that the Arctic is increasingly busy. Cruise ships are already operating in the region; it is only a matter of time before freight and tanker shipping follows.

From the original purchase of Alaska being derided as "Seward's Folly," the United States has long had an ambivalent relationship with the Arctic. But there probably will come a point when it will be forced to reckon with its role as an Arctic nation, whether or not we are prepared. We would do well to invest in our capabilities there now, lest we find ourselves reliant on little more than sled dogs and ice picks.

Seth Andre Myers is a research associate in the national security studies program of the Council on Foreign Relations.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.