Long time readers know that
ComNavOps was not a fan of recently retired CNO Greenert. In fact, it’s fair to say that ComNavOps
viewed him as the worst CNO in a long, long time. Thus, it was with cautious optimism that
ComNavOps greeted incoming CNO Richardson.
The optimism had less to do with any knowledge of Richardson ’s accomplishments or abilities and more to do with
the belief that a tree stump would do a better job leading the Navy and Richardson could only be an improvement, no matter how bad he
might be.
Alas, those giddy, hopeful
days have slowly given way to disbelief – disbelief that anyone else could
rival Greenert’s incompetence and yet we seem to have a contender in the
making.
Consider all the problems
facing the Navy and all the issues that the CNO could have chosen to take on
and fix. I won’t even list the
problems. You know the litany as well as
I do. So, what has CNO Richardson chosen
to focus on?
His latest focus and
apparent best use of his time is to ban the acronym “A2/AD” (anti-access/area
denial).
“We’re going to scale
down the mention of A2AD,” Adm. John Richardson said Monday, referring to the
acronym for anti-access area denial, a warfighting approach with, he said, a
variety of definitions.
“It’s a term bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition it probably would benefit from, and that ambiguity sends a variety of signals,”Richardson said. “Specifics matter.” (1)
“It’s a term bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition it probably would benefit from, and that ambiguity sends a variety of signals,”
The term does not have a
variety of definitions. In fact, as
military acronyms go, it’s one of the most specific and well understood
ones! Richardson may not understand it but the rest of us do. Recognize, though, that my complaint and
derision stem not from the fact that he’s banned the acronym but that he
considers that to be a priority issue over all the other challenges the Navy
faces. Is this the best use of his time?
What else has he
accomplished in his short tenure? Well,
he appears to have prioritized the long standing system of Navy ratings as more
important than warfighting, training, maintenance, etc. His solution to the non-existent problem is
to eliminate the time honored and specific rating system in favor of a generic
rank label (2). I’m not going to debate
the merits of this but, rather, point out that if this is the best use of the
CNO’s time and the most pressing issue he believes he faces then we truly have
a contender for Greenert’s position of worst CNO in recent history.
“Despite rising
tensions in the South China
Sea, the US Navy’s top admiral
says his Chinese counterparts “by and large” behave professionally, not
provocatively, when the two nations meet at sea. And precisely because of those
ensions, Adm. John
Richardson said, it’s all the more important to emphasize cooperating with
China , not
confronting it.”
How’s that cooperation
working out, there, Adm. Richardson?
We’ve ceded the entire South
China Sea , gotten nothing
in return, and are now watching the Chinese preparing to expand their territory
still further, including annexing the disputed Scarborough Shoal which is also
claimed by the Philippines .
“In March, U.S. Navy chief Admiral John Richardson said the United States had
observed “survey type activity” around Scarborough that could
be a precursor to reclamation. A month later, South
China Morning
Post added fuel to the fire by citing an anonymous source
“close to the PLA Navy” as saying that China would carry
out reclamation work at Scarborough “within
this year.” (3)
Again, the point is not
whether China ultimately will or will not seize the reef (they
will) but, instead, the complete absence of a grasp on reality being
demonstrated by Richardson . China has already proven that they will use any means,
including illegal acts, to further their expansionist agenda. Richardson ’s attempts at appeasement paint a picture of a man
with no grasp of geopolitical or strategic reality or, indeed, any remembrance
of very recent Chinese actions.
In addition to what Richardson has done (and disappointed in the doing) consider what he hasn't done. He hasn't killed the LCS, he hasn't killed the Ford class, he hasn't laid out a solid F-35 CONOPS and acquisition strategy, he hasn't developed a viable amphibious assault doctrine in conjunction with the Marines, he hasn't prioritized warfighting, maintenance, training, and tactics.
Whether you look at what he's done or what he hasn't done, it's all the same: disappointing.
My cautious, feeble hopes
for Richardson are gone. The
only hope I have left is that he proves to be only the second worst CNO I’ve
seen rather than supplanting Greenert as the absolute worst.
______________________________
(1)Defense News website,
“CNO Bans ‘A2/AD’ As Jargon”, Christopher P. Cavas, 3-Oct-2016 ,
(2)USNI News website, “Navy
Eliminating 241-Year-Old Rating System in New Enlisted Rank Overhaul”, Sam
LaGrone, 29-Sep-2016 ,
(3)The Diplomat website, “China Building on Scarborough Shoal? Don't Hold Your Breath.”,
Shannon Tiezzi, 9-Sep-2016 ,
I'm not sure why you held out any hope that the new CNO would change course.
ReplyDelete'How’s that cooperation working out, there, Adm. Richardson? We’ve ceded the entire South China Sea, gotten nothing in return, and are now watching the Chinese preparing to expand their territory still further, including annexing the disputed Scarborough Shoal which is also claimed by the Philippines.'
The unstated response is that everything is going according to plan. The US isn't going to fight for the SCS. They can take comfort in the new trade agreement though.
Hope springs eternal!
DeleteAny CNO is likely to be the corrupt product of the existing system and not radically different than their predecessors.
ReplyDeleteI think that hoping for a better CNO is not going to happen, barring a drastic change in priorities.
"The term does not have a variety of definitions. In fact, as military acronyms go, it’s one of the most specific and well understood ones!"
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your defense of A2/AD. It's just another buzzword that can mean almost anything--any technology or tactic the bad guys use to make it harder for us to do our mission. I see contractors come in all the time saying "I can solve your A2/AD problem!" When you ask them "which A2/AD problem?" you'll get an almost limitless number of answers. A2/AD can mean...
- Long-range missiles that can shoot at us before we can shoot at them
- Jamming of GPS
- Destroying GPS satellites
- Cyber warfare
- Air defense systems
- Jamming of communication networks
- Submarines
- Camouflage
- Hypersonic missiles
- Armed surveillance UAVs
- Swarms of small boats
- Lasers to dazzle satellites
- Mines
- and on and on
I think the CNO is on the right path. This buzzword means all things to all people and throws too many things into the same bucket when they address very different problems.
A2/AD is the concept of denying an enemy the ability to enter an area. The anti-access/denial may involve personnel, equipment, cyber, or anything else that accomplishes the goal. Your list proves that you actually understand the acronym quite clearly. Having noted your excellent understanding, I conclude that you're just engaging in semantics and argument at this point which is an unproductive path.
DeleteThe larger issue of the post was the use of CNO's time. Was this his highest priority issue? Was this the best use of his time?
Unfortunately just like Churchill CNO is the only one who recognizes and tells the issue as it is. It's like the navy leadership team ask the wrong question fixes the wrong issue and buys ships the have no weapons capable of sinking a shop
ReplyDeleteMaybe the CNO had reached someone by this blog and right the ship