Power projection: A new naval plan — we must stop eviscerating America's Navy
It's time for the Navy to focus on threats in the Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean. And that must be done as it overcomes grim budgetary pressures.
In the works for more than a year and expected to be made public soon, America's new maritime strategy must correct flaws in the Navy's 2007 blueprint by addressing China and specifying required forces. So says Hudson Institute scholar Seth Cropsey. He's a former naval officer and deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Mr. Cropsey identifies China's increasing efforts to bar U.S. seapower from the Western Pacific and turmoil in the Eastern Mediterranean — Turkey's Islamist turn, Syria's civil war, Egypt's ongoing unrest — as key challenges. He urges that the revised strategy be geared to prevent “China or Iran from becoming the hegemon of its region” while keeping the Eastern Mediterranean free of “tribal/religious warfare” and nuclear proliferation and securing Persian Gulf energy sources.
But for the Navy to execute that strategy, the nation must resolve long-term shipbuilding budget shortfalls that he says threaten to “eviscerate American seapower by as much as half of its current strength — 285 combatant ships — within the next decade and a half.”
As Cropsey says, “The largest strategic challenge facing the United States is to rebuild the seapower on which our status as a great power rests.”
Let's get on with it.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The atom smasher
- Open records: Hold the phone?
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Sunday pops
- Snow shovelers needed: A call for volunteers
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes