![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The Icon: It's the DD(X), the US Navy's 21st-Century Destroyer. As some folks may or may not know, I've been working in the Defense field for some time. My group at work is in the process of firming up the product line brochure and communications plan for Navy PEO Ships. I happen to really like that photo (the bigger one is beautiful) so it's my current icon of choice. (My father also happens to be a senior systems engineer on the DD(X) program for another firm.)
Cleveland Indians outfielder, Coco Crisp, may have the coolest name in sports.
NBA Finals: For anyone on this list that actually follows pro-ball, I must admit I'm pretty shocked at just how much of an ass-whipping the Pistons are laying on the Lakers. Almost as shocking as Tom Tolbert and his hideous 1970's style plaid suits - so ugly even Herb Tarleck wouldn't wear them.
Last Friday: My thanks for those who offered empathy for my complaints. As it turned out, I'm a big whiny crybaby, with nothing much to moan about. The office was empty, I got tons of work done, and there was zero traffic on the roads after all.
Ralph Wiley died last night of a heart attack at the age of 52. For those who don't follow sports, you probably won't know or care. Wiley wrote 28 cover articles for Sports Illustrated, had a column on ESPN.Com Page 2, and was the author of several books including Why Black People Tend to Shout. Wiley was funny, sharp, and witty - one of the rare sports commentators who could speak in vernacular without being lame, who could offer social commentary without seeming like a pompous blowhard, and who had genuine insight. I'll miss reading him.
Cleveland Indians outfielder, Coco Crisp, may have the coolest name in sports.
NBA Finals: For anyone on this list that actually follows pro-ball, I must admit I'm pretty shocked at just how much of an ass-whipping the Pistons are laying on the Lakers. Almost as shocking as Tom Tolbert and his hideous 1970's style plaid suits - so ugly even Herb Tarleck wouldn't wear them.
Last Friday: My thanks for those who offered empathy for my complaints. As it turned out, I'm a big whiny crybaby, with nothing much to moan about. The office was empty, I got tons of work done, and there was zero traffic on the roads after all.
Ralph Wiley died last night of a heart attack at the age of 52. For those who don't follow sports, you probably won't know or care. Wiley wrote 28 cover articles for Sports Illustrated, had a column on ESPN.Com Page 2, and was the author of several books including Why Black People Tend to Shout. Wiley was funny, sharp, and witty - one of the rare sports commentators who could speak in vernacular without being lame, who could offer social commentary without seeming like a pompous blowhard, and who had genuine insight. I'll miss reading him.
no subject
no subject
As to the 76ers, I think they miss his coaching, but given the personnel and the way he seems to burn out after about 5 years in any one job, I don't know how much better Philly'd have been with him this year anyway.
Still, it's funny to see the Pistons win with all these good players the Bullets unloaded in dopey trades. If I cared about them one tiny fraction as much as I cared about Maryland I'd be so incredibly annoyed now.
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's prettier now that I know what's going on.
no subject
It is a bit hard to tell, seeing as I'm shrinking down a big graphic, and a lot of the detail gets lost.
no subject
no subject
And? Wow on the ass-whipping. The Pistons are doing quite the number on them and everywhere I look I see pouting Lakers.
Psst. Did you see the Pats rings? Day-um.
no subject
no subject
no subject
He covered pretty much everything - his boxing sort of stood out because very few people still care about it.
no subject
Re: Certainly, please do...
Go take it up with Charlie Hamilton or Vern Clark.
Re: Certainly, please do...
So, I think I have a sense as to why you want to be engaged in conversation. Why, exactly, should I be interested in having a conversation with you?
That's the source of the Anti-Stratnav71-ish sentiment. I've not said, either way, what I actually think, or to what extent I may or may not agree with you. At this point, I'm wondering why it is I should bother.
You posted in my LJ. Justify the value to me in replying to you.
The value is that
Here is a picture (http://www.weblogimages.com/v.p?uid=lunasea16&pid=116602) of this man. He doesn't like to brag, but I do. This is a picture of the Captain reading his third Acheivment medal in 5 years. This was taken the day he made Chief, which he did in 9 years. The anchors he recieved that day are very special and have been in service for over 11 years. And yes, that is our family with him.
Will this man change his opinion on something he feels is an insult to every sailor? Probably not. He is in the Coast Guard for a reason. He has the sea in his veins. The issues he brings up are legitimate, even if strongly worded. He feels strongly and this is reflected in what he said. The designers failed to take into consideration that SAILORS will be on this thing and people go to sea for various reasons, one of the big ones being the sea itself. Otherwise, why not join one of the other branches of the Armed Forces? His points are very valid because they affect morale. He didn't even mention the other uses for that money, such as improved housing and pay. It is rather demoralizing when the government spends money unnecessarily when you have to worry about making ends meet and basic necessities like shelter. Are you aware that many military families have to receive public assistance? My own family had to do this at one point.
You have shown no evidence of "giv[ing] anything resembling serious consideration as to the merits of an argument counter to the position you've established. Unless, as means to see to debunk them" for pretty much every discussion. Based on your comments in my and other people's journals, I was under the impression that you invited disagreement. I am sorry I misinformed my husband. I will tell him in the future you just want to hear about what a pretty drawing you new icon is. At least it replaced that ridiculous Panda which was an affront to every member of the Coast Guard.
Re: The value is that
Your husband sought me out. He has chosen to instigate this particular line of conversation. And he has done so in a manner that does not invite discussion. If I want to have this conversation with him, as opposed to some other sailor, why should I? Why should I feel inclined to engage his argumentation?
Will this man change his opinion on something he feels is an insult to every sailor? Probably not.
If he's pissed at the DD(X), and not particularly interested in hearing about the merits he might have, then why post to this particular response? To pick a fight? He may feel very strongly, and I don't begrudge him that - but why should I care to fight back? I'm not getting paid for my time here.
What's he done to entice me to entreat with him? Really?
It's ironic that this comes following our discussion of Anti-American sentiment. Your husband may well be the most wonderful man on the planet, he may have every medal the country offers, and he may well have the most morally valid argument ever. But the manner in which he communicates is such that I have little particular interest investing my energy responding to him.
That's as big a contributor to the Anti-American sentiment abroad as your "diseased tree" theorizing. If improving worldwide support for the US is your aim, and this is how you choose to interact with those around you, then you aren't going to have much success no matter how 'right' you are.
Now maybe, your husband does care about me and my opinion, and isn't just interested in telling me how right he is, and how wrong I am. Maybe he's hoping to educate and sway me. I may or may not actually agree with your husband on any number of points. But, he's communicated in such a way as to alienate me, and not make me particularly interested in talking to him. If you want me listen, try another pitch, because you aren't speaking in language I care to reply to.
My door is open. People can come in and post what they like. They're free to disagree. I think I've been fairly good at handling disagreement. I don't mind that your husband disagrees with me. However, if people actually want me to respond, want me to give respect, then it would help if they present comments with at least some veneer of respect themselves.
There is a major difference between how mu husband has responded
If you wish not to engage him, why say anything, let alone something dismissive and/or that shows disdain for him? You did fight back, by saying anything at all. You attacked him in those few lines. "Your desire to be negligent" does not reflect on my husband or how he worded this. It is your desire and reflects on you. Even the nations that don't trust us and severely dislike what we've been doing have supported us, even if limitedly.
I think this does illustrate something very important about how our foreign policy is conducted. My favorite Kissenger quote is his definition of diplomacy that comes from his book of that name: Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell and having them look forward to the ride.
As long as we word things in a way to dupe others, we consider what we do to be effective. That only works for so long. We have been underhanded and duplicitous in our international dealings. Why should anyone trust us? My husband could have come in here all sugar and spice with the purpose of showing you that this "ship" is wrong on so many levels. He didn't. He was open and honest in his opinion. He didn't couch his terms. He openly said that ship should go to hell.
As far as I'm concerned, the US has rightfully lost the trust of other nations. We are in a similar position that Germany was post WWII. It will take at least a generation for us to regain that trust. That process will only begin once we acknowledge we screwed up and acted immorally.
I value forthright honesty over "speaking a language I care to reply to." It is the only way out of the quagmire the US has gotten itself into on so many levels. Perhaps the community you belong to doesn't, but like I have said previous, that community and how they think is the problem.
Re: There is a major difference between how mu husband has responded
Your husband didn't merely "strongly word" his response. He attacked. And I didn't feel like getting into an argument over DD(X) with him.
Now obviously, you must have some value in conversing with me, or you wouldn't reply. And I have some value in conversing, and as such indicated my own lack of interest in following up to that particular line of inquiry.
He was open and honest in his opinion. He didn't couch his terms. He openly said that ship should go to hell.
And that's great. I just have no particular interest in getting into that shouting match. If he wants to be part of my community (as indicated by posting in my space) he can moderate himself. If that's not something he values, than I'm not going to have much interest in dealing with him.
There - we've turned this into a values debate. Not a "diplomacy" debate. You want
We have been underhanded and duplicitous in our international dealings. Why should anyone trust us?...As far as I'm concerned, the US has rightfully lost the trust of other nations. We are in a similar position that Germany was post WWII.
Perhaps you should expand your scope of concern. People trust us to pursue what we percieve our interests to be. They do not trust us to persue their interests, execpt insamuch as they believe our interests correspond with their own. That's what states do. That's what people do. Rhetoric to the contrary.
Consider the Internment policy during World War II. Or Roosevelt's policy regarding European Jews. Those were pretty massive contradictions of those "Four Freedoms" Roosevelt spoke on. Didn't cost the US must "trust". Hasn't cost the US alliances.
Even the nations that don't trust us and severely dislike what we've been doing have supported us, even if limitedly.
This comment largely invalidates the bulk of your arguments about the nature of international relations. Groups will cooperate with the US regardless of whether they trust us or not - in accordance to what extent it is in their perceived best interests to do so. The "values" you argue about serve to influence these perceptions of interests. They do not define them in total.
I am curious
I do not see what "value" this has for you that conversing with someone like my husband doesn't have. The value in it for me is that it keeps me from unpacking and allows me to uncork those liberal brain cells that have to remain behind closed doors because of the communities I operate in. It also showed me a few things that I will post about later in my journal.
My point though is if you have a "lack of interest in following up this particular line of inquiry" why respond at all, let alone in the manner you did? To be honest, it would give you the opportunity to extol the virtues of that "ship" not for the benefit of my husband who won't change his mind, but the other people that read your journal. I know that is why I tend to respond to people that I know won't change their mind. It isn't for their benefit, but that of my audience.
My husband attacked that "ship." Your response was a personal attack. If you don't see the difference, no wonder our country is so messed up.
Re: I am curious
In communicating in my journal, you and your husband want to accomplish a few things.
1. You wish to say what you want to say - in whatever manner you wish.
2. You wish to have me respond to what you've said.
In my journal, I've given you leave to say whatever you want. You can have #1. If you want #2, you'll have to respond in ways that make me particularly interested in speaking to you, and on the matter you'd wish for.
Your husband, and anyone who replies to me, has the option of speaking in ways that don't annoy me. This will make me more willing to engage you, rather than ignore the substance he was initially interested in pursuing. Namely, the merits of the DD(X).
What do you want? In my journal, I have the power to respond to you however I see fit. You don't. But, you do have the power and the opportunity, through the manner in which you treat with me, to influence how I choose to respond. You can (A) use that opportunity to convince me to speak on the merits of DD(x). You can use that opportunity, to (B) motivate me to not speak on the merits of DD(X).
You got the latter. Is that what you wanted? Considering again, that you can't get (A) with me from brute force - you have to decide what the value you place on (A) is. And to what extent you might wish to moderate #1 (the manner in which you say whatever you wish to say) in order to achieve better result on issue #2 - my response.
To be honest, it would give you the opportunity to extol the virtues of that "ship" not for the benefit of my husband who won't change his mind, but the other people that read your journal.
I have that opportunity with or without your husband.
Bring it back to Checkpoint. If the Council of Watchers wants to have any influence over the manner in which Buffy exerts her power (regardless of whether they think she's right or wrong) they have to play ball with her. They need her more than she needs them. They want more from her than she wants from them.
Whether or not I want to extol the virtues of that ship at length, I don't need your husband to do it. For me it's an option - an option he failed to motivate me to exercise.
You may wish to keep this in mind the next time you wish to get somebody to do something they aren't compelled to do. Perhaps, you've learned a valuable lesson. That if you wish to get people to respond to you, you'll have to work a bit and perhaps commit a bit toward motivating them to do so. Or, alternatively, you've learned yet again that you are far to superior to do that. And can remain contendly free from having to compromise your "forthrightness".
I'll be okay either way.
Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several
There are more than two parties involved in any discussion in the journals or on the boards. There is the journal owner/original thread originator, the commenter and the audience. Much of what I say I really don't expect a response from the owner/originator. It'd be nice, but not really necessary. I write for the same reason that Angel fights, to be someone. When I speak, I define myself with every word. What words I choose to use will determine who I am.
I could play ball. I'm not untrained in rhetoric. I choose not to do that. To do so would portray me unrealistically to the audience, that third party involved here. When speaking with someone who isn't going to change his mind and just wants to give me a lesson, whatever lesson that is, why would speaking with such an individual be more important than voicing my opinion to the general audience?
and this is a lesson that the US needs to learn. When we speak to nation X, we aren't just speaking to them. The entire world may be and probably is listening. When we are duplicitous in our dealings with one nation, even if it is in our national interest not to be with another, why should any other nations trust us? When we support a dictator and then years later go after him, how does that make us look?
To be perfectly honest if I want the merits of that "ship," I can do one of two things, I can pick up The Navy Times or I can google it. The wonders of living in an information age. I was more curious to see you justify it, since it not only informs me about the ship, but you. Every time someone opens his mouth/moves his fingers he speaks about two things, the topic and himself.
The fun part of this exchange was I got EXACTLY what I wanted. I didn't want to know about some "ship." I wanted to know about you. Thank you for providing me with this information. With or without your cooperation, this information can be obtained. Your lack of cooperation spoke rather loudly.
Am I far superior for my forthrightness? That is for the audience to determine. I illustrated who I was and I am quite content with what I said and how I said it. I didn't just not compromise my forthrightness. I didn't compromise myself.
Maybe you learned a bit about me.
Re: Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several
Why then, not just cut me out, and speak directly to the audience?
Re: Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several
That is my approach to most things in life. I am a psychologist. I wouldn't have studied it, if people and why they believe or do what they do didn't fascinate me. You are a person. You fascinate me.
That doesn't mean that presenting myself honestly is going to take precedence over this fascination. I'm pretty self-centered and I fascinate me too. Sometimes I amaze myself with what I write. I go back and think, "Wow, I wrote that."
Now onto diplomacy, or lack thereof lately
Once upon a time, our interests went beyond economics. Once upon a time, we did believe in what those sacred documents said. Once upon a time, Wilson and FDR worked very hard to foster a moral order. THOSE were our interests or at least our interests included them. Now what are our interests?
We violated Geneva for heavens sake!!!! The most sacred international treaty, we are in gross breach of. What meaning does our signature have on any treaty any more? A treaty is only as good as those signatures and if our word means nothing, what good are treaties? One of the first things Bush did in office was to dump the ABM treaty. At least he did that according to protocal.
We won't sign Kyoto, which we helped write. We won't sign the Geneva Protocals. We won't sign onto the International Criminal Court. How many members of Congress want us to pull out of NATO and the UN? We don't respect international organizations or agreements. Those are the instruments of peace. We don't respect peace.
Those were pretty massive contradictions of those "Four Freedoms" Roosevelt spoke on. Didn't cost the US must "trust". Hasn't cost the US alliances.
For the time, those weren't gross breaches. Fast forward a few decades and we are the one that are lagging when it comes to development. How many so-called civilized nations still have the death penalty? How many so-called civilized nations are trying to squeeze through a loop hole in Geneva so we can torture people? How many ACTUALLY did violate Geneva? We aren't that different from the so-called "Axis of Evil."
We were supposed to lead Bush, Sr's "New World Order." How can his son undermine this? I summed up the Reagan administration with two words "evil empire." I can sum up George, Jr with three words "go it alone." At a time when the world was more than willing to cooperate with us and that New World Order could have been strengthened, he spat repeatedly on the world community. Now we won't be the leader. We might not even be part of it.
This comment largely invalidates the bulk of your arguments about the nature of international relations
Actually it doesn't. It shows how great nations like the UK, France, Canada and all the other nations that are supporting us are. Thing is, that support is extremely limited and dwindling. Spain pulled out completely. It's only Spain you may think, but as anti-American sentiment grows, it will overcome other nations' ability to overlook our repeated insults and transgressions.
What will happen when aiding us is not in their perceived best interests (which are what? Economic? defense?). These nice quantifiable measures that the security community uses can only be for quantifiable things, like dollars and lives. How much is a life worth any way? How much is freedom worth? Is freedom of the press worth the millions of dollars certain individuals will horde when they can control the oil wells?
That is what gets me. We aren't talking about national interests. One trip to your local gas station will show you how much my interests are being affected. We are talking about the interests of a very select group of individuals that will horde their winnings.
THAT is what the international community trust us to do, support the limited interests of those select individuals. It isn't about national interest or what the people want. It isn't about allies or honoring our commitments. It isn't about wanting peace and being willing to do what is necessary to attain that. It is about dollars for a select few.
I do not believe that other nations are operating this way. They do do what is in their best interests, those interests being more than what ours is. Those interests are what ours USED to be.
Re: Now onto diplomacy, or lack thereof lately
And how good a job of that did Wilson do? (Aside from when he wasn't busy propping up dicatorships and intervening in Latin America.)
The answer - not a very good job. And not just because of the lousy bad people you like to rail against. But because the manner in which Wilson conducted his policy made people less inclined to speak to him. While Wilson extolled the values of democracy and freedom abroad, he deliberately excluded from consultation and negotiation those of his constituents who disagreed with any aspects of his dogma.
And that contributed rather significantly to his inability to actually make reality those fine notions he extolled.
That's my biggest problem with you. Presuming you believe in these values, you've done a terrible job convincing me that I should work with you to put them forward. As Wilson did a terrible job convincing his audience.
But it's a democracy - and as such - Wilson couldn't compel his audience to go along with him. He needed to convince them, to motivate them, and get them excited to follow him. He couldn't control how the citizen felt. He only had the power to influence his audience to go along with him. And he failed to do so. A lot of the blame for that rests upon his shoulders.
What will happen when aiding us is not in their perceived best interests
What always happens in such cases. We can aim to coerce or persuade. And we can succeed or fail in that endeavor. Whether one roots for the US to succeed or fail is another matter. Whether one approves of the various methods the US employs to coerce or persuade is also another matter. Personally, I hope the US employs persuasive tactics - specifically, a change in both policy and diplomatic tone to a strategy that is far more inclusive of the concerns of others, and a strategy that better allows other states to align their interests with ours, and which aligns our interests with theirs.
The current administration seems disinterested in doing so to any degree. I expect they'll not be particularly successful, and that they'll lose more governments that were predisposed to be cooperative otherwise. As they lost Turkey before the war, and lost allies in Spain and India since the war.
That is what gets me. We aren't talking about national interests. One trip to your local gas station will show you how much my interests are being affected. We are talking about the interests of a very select group of individuals that will horde their winnings.
Presuming you have any respect for your fellow citizens to determine their own interests in a democratic society, then we are in fact talking about their interests too. Interests, as the public has some degree of support for the administration, you either wish to disregard or are unaware of. (Though I am puzzled at such motivation, too.)
If you think people are such dupes, or are so callow - because only a dupe or a callow individual could go along with the current administration, then there is no democratic system that will work. Our public will remain the same sort of people that got duped, or were callow. Best to go back to the Philosopher King.
Re: Now onto diplomacy, or lack thereof lately
You're a history type person. You've read stuff, I'll assume. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you haven't read FDR's "Four Freedoms" address to Congress. If that didn't convince you of anything, there is no way I'm going to. There are plenty of mostly men that have put this stuff rather well. I don't need to convince you of anything. If you rate a person on how convincing they are, you must love used car salesmen.
This attitude that the burden is all on me, that's one of the things that is wrong with America. We don't take responsibility for what we believe. It is up to others to convince us. We just go with whatever we are told. If we are told two or more different things, we go with what sounds the best. We don't investigate things ourselves.
If you think people are such dupes, or are so callow - because only a dupe or a callow individual could go along with the current administration, then there is no democratic system that will work.
There is a system that works, one this administration has done everything in its power to prevent, one with an educated electorate and a press that actually earns the designation Fourth Estate.
Re: Certainly, please do...
To be honest, I have questions about the program myself, and serveral factors that go beyond immediate military necessity. We have a limited amount of resources, and various needs that compete for them and a distinct Guns vs. Butter conflict.
I certainly don't agree with a lot of the current administration's policy.
Were the nation's foreign policy up to me, presuming I considered going to war with Iraq a necessity, I would have developed a strategy that made more nations interested in commiting support to the effort. Not simply by tricking or compelling them, but by reflecting their own interests in joining such a venture. Such an action would have shared the burdens and costs of going to war. It would have helped our standing. It would have been more responsible to our citizens, and to those abroad who look toward America.
And, when it comes to the domestic situation, it would have placed far less of a strain on our own citizens.
Re: Certainly, please do...
It was impossibly unlikely to yield much success, and recklessly expensive. So what were the merits?
Well - the possible belief that such a system would render nuclear missiles obsolete, and bring a sense of security and relief. And, it would keep a large and critical sector of the defense industry employed at a time when that industry was going away.
NMD was never going to bring us much security, since we could likely obtain defense against Russian missiles through effective diplomacy anyway. And as we've since learned Missile Launch is hardly the most pressing threat to defend against. For the most part, then, NMD was a waste. Beyond the extent that it kept people employed and in the business.
Is that where DD(X) is? I'm not entirely certain.
Re: Certainly, please do...
But, the United States does have the potential to serve as "World Policeman" - and presumably under more judicious leadership, as a force to bolster peace, stability, and freedom throughout the world. It serves our interests to do so. Presuming they respect the capability of American leadership, it serves the interest of much of the world as well.
I happen to believe the US could accomplish much with a greater emphasis on diplomacy, foreign aid, and cultural exhanges than we currently have. An emphasis that would be far more cost-effective in both quantitative and qualitative ways.
But it also requires a military force.
The particulars of that force, are not really very well reflected in our current fleet. The Arleigh Burkes are still in production, but they were designed primarily for blue water operation, and for cold war scenarios we don't face anymore. The Navy has a DDG modernization plan, and the Flight IIA ships are more reflective of current requirements than DDG-51, but it's expensive. That's why the Spruances are getting mothballed - the weren't worth the operating costs.
The future of the navy, if it responds to the threats we expect to face - lies in shallow water operations. The newer surface combatant programs, LCS and DD(X) are oriented around such concepts.
As for cost, I fully expect the ships to cost more than we probably should spend on them. The sad fact is that ship programs are expensive, and they take years. We're not going to see the first DD(X) in the water until at least 2011. But if it's the ship we actually need, then we're stuck spending on it now.
Vern Clark's solution, to this point, has been to save money with the newer class of ships through lowered operating costs. Ships that are reconfigurable, are better networked for joint interoperability, on open architecture systems than can be far more easily upgraded than the DD's were. And through "optimal manning" - which is code for reducing the number of sailors on the ships. The hope, is that the projected benefits from efficiency and from more suitable capability and technical development will justify the cost of the ship.
And, of course, the programs are also there to keep the Navy's dockyards and infrastructure busy when the Arleigh Burke's are complete. We don't just have to sell the new ships to congress. We have to convince the congress not to order more Arleigh Burkes.
Do I think we should spend as much on the military buildup as we do? I don't know. Some projects are mistakes, like SEAHORSE. Some, like the BPAUV's, I think offer a lot of value both militarily and commercially.
Were the budget up to me, I'd be paying more in taxes than I do. Tuition at public universities wouldn't be rising to the extent that it is. We would spend more resources on butter and less on guns. And in no small part, because I think we can accomplish far more of our foreign aims through persuasive means than coercive.
I don't happen to agree with the administration on many of their policies. I disagree with the administration on almost every means by which they wish to enact their policies - not only because I think they're morally suspect, but also because I don't think they'd be successful in accomplishing the aims they purport to seek.
As to the DD(X) - I'm not entirely certain. If we have aspirations of a forward presence in the world, than we will need a future class of ships to meet the needs we'll face, rather than ships designed for the cold war. As to whether it's worth the cost, I'm not sure myself.
Re: Certainly, please do...
As a note, the Ticonderoga's replacement, the CG(X) won't see water until 2019 at the earliest (and likely later) - by which time the 38 year-old CG-47 would already be decomissioned.
They were designed for blue water operations because, quite frankly, that is the Navy’s job, projecting American power overseas. When it comes to responding to threats they see requiring shallow water operations, that isn’t their job. It’s mine, or more specifically the job of the Coast Guard.
But what about shallow water threats overseas? Do you expect the Coast Guard to go into the Persian Gulf? (Most of which is less than 180 feet deep)
The LCS and DD(X) are supposed to be directed more towards littoral warfare abroad, because our deep water dominance is so great that there is far less expectation that US ships will see battle in the open seas that the Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes were designed for. They are far more likely to be called upon to support the Army and Marines, operating in coastal regions. That's the power projection capacity they're tasked to meet.
The defense industry is bloated and sustaining itself for its own sake. If we truly want to meet the challenges and threats we now face, we need to be willing to significantly restructure our organizations and adjust spending priorities.
You'll get no argument on that from me. As I've said many times, much of the US needs can be met more cheaply through alliance anyway. And I certainly think a budgetary priorities should be shifted - starting with a revamp of the administration's silly tax policies. The Coast Guard and Border Patrol should be getting better funding than they do. I won't dispute that at all. But that doesn't mean I think we should put the kibosh on DD(X) altogether.
Re: Certainly, please do...
We like to say that now. That's not quite the truth. They funded SDI because they really believed in it, and because they really wanted it. Spending the Soviet Union into the ground was something of a discovery along the way. Long after we had any need to spend anyone into the ground, there is prominent backing for NMD. Back in '97, when I was writing on it, the Rumsfeld Commission was calling as loudly for NMD as they possibly could. Despite most threat studies, and scientific backing - if not for the priority shift caused by the WoT, it'd still be a top priority program.
Prior to WWII we didn’t have a massive defense industry. We mobilized civilian industry to create the things we needed.
On that score, one of the problematic issues is America's declining industrial base. The US has shifted further and further to an information-service based economy, and that fuels a lot of insecurity about the availability for a manufacturing base should one prove necessary. You could see that sentiment in the steel tariff debate. While the overall economic interest of the vast majority of the citizens of the country was best served by the decline in domestic steel production (and those steelworkers being transformed into other sectors) a lot of folks question whether America should have interdependence in that. It's a far greater worry if we take this to defense industries.
I think there's a certain degree of legitimacy to those concerns. The economy will run fine without a large military-industrial sector. But it might not be an economy with much of an industrial sector.
That’s why we have the UN. If we balance the load between all members and not act unilaterally when we don’t get our way, that body will function as it is supposed to.
There are areas the UN is very well suited to, but warfighting isn't one of them. I think the UN has performed well in Peacekeeping roles. But during active hostilities, I don't think it can work well. Certainly, the international system works better if the US operates hand-in-hand with a vast coalition of partners, rather than as a cowboy, but this isn't necessarily an area the UN will ever work well on.
I find it highly ironic and hypocritical that the Neo-Cons, and many others on the Right, who were so dead set against the idea of us taking on that role and engaging in nation building during the Clinton years, are now the ones leading the battle cry about how bringing democracy to Iraq is going to transform the Middle East for freedom.
As do I. Of course, I don't think the NeoCons were really all that concerned with Middle East democracy, because if they were, I think they'd have developed some sort of a plan for the aftermath before they actually went to war. Mostly, I think they very firmly believed they had to topple Iraq, and convinced themselves that everything would work out for the best solely because they believed they were right. Chosen by god, if you will. The talk of "Middle East Democracy" is just more empty rhetoric to prop up what was always just gut-feel policy.