As the world takes stock of the upcoming transfer of power in Washington, DC, the US military faces tremendous challenges to what seemed, for a time, its limitless ability to project power around the globe and protect its interests and allies, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
Indeed, America’s enemies have studied the wars of the past and discovered a simple truth: don’t let Washington’s forces, specifically its naval forces, near your coastline — or you invite your own demise. The only way to deter American sea power, the thinking goes – specifically among Chinese strategists – is to develop a vast array of what most military experts have named anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons platforms. Their goal is simple: to impede US naval and expeditionary forces from intervening in any conflict along the so-called “first-island chain.”
From the East China Sea to the shores of Taiwan, all the way to the furthest reaches of the South China Sea, Beijing’s 80,000 sea mines, ultra-quiet submarines, ballistic and cruise “carrier-killer” missiles, sonar nets and other fearsome A2/AD platforms have only one goal in mind: to make America’s navy suffer (or at least to make it believe it will suffer) great losses in the event of a crisis.
Along with other naval dilemmas, from a resurgent Russia in Europe to Iran’s provocations in the Middle East – and both Russia and Iran are developing their own deadly A2/AD capabilities – these are the challenges causing US military planners, and specifically naval planners, the greatest of headaches.
This makes Donald Trump’s pick as Secretary of the Navy all the more crucial. Such a person will be taking on some of the most serious military challenges America and its Asian allies have faced for decades.
So far, the leading pick – as reported by John Hudson at Foreign Policy – is oof a curious nature. Philip Bilden, a relative unknown in US national security and naval circles, seems to have moved ahead of others on the short list. While nothing is certain, and Bilden could very well go on to be a fantastic head of the navy, there is another candidate whose credentials seem to elevate him above all others: the soon-to-be former Virginia Congressman J. Randy Forbes. Chairman of the critically vital Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, he is one of America’s most sought after naval minds.
Bilden could very well go on to be a fantastic head of the navy, there is another candidate whose credentials seem to elevate him above all others
Over the last several years, I have had the opportunity to work with the congressman in various formats and I can honestly say there would be no better person for this position – especially when considering the fact that the role will have a very heavy Asia-Pacific focus.
Forbes has been one of the leading critics of Beijing’s bullying tactics in recent years, and not just when that was the popular or majority viewpoint. From island and military base building, to pushing around key US allies and partners, to enhancing key capabilities that seek to challenges US naval dominance, Forbes has pushed hard to ensure these topics are injected into the daily national security conversations around Washington, as well as in Asian capitals. Forbes has led countless efforts to keep Congress, key staffers, the media and, most importantly, anyone who will listen at the White House, abreast of China’s coercive activities. He would be a strong fit with other Asia hands in the Trump Administration such as Peter Navarro and others who have called tirelessly for a tougher line on China – and with his years of congressional experience, he has much to offer.
Forbes is also one of the few people who could lead the rebuilding of the US Navy to 350 ships, up from the roughly 270 Washington has today. President-elect Trump and Congressman Forbes are perfectly aligned in the need for a much larger, more robust navy. This would include more nuclear-powered attack submarines, aircraft carriers, the next generation of America’s underwater nuclear deterrent, enhanced on-the-water missile defense platforms, and more.
Of all the people Trump could tap for this important position, Forbes is one of the only politically-minded naval experts who understands the challenges the US Navy faces, the strategies that could ensure naval dominance for decades to come, and the weapons systems and funding needed in the years ahead.
Considering the challenges America faces in Asia – from a nuclear-armed North Korea to a China pushing on multiple tracks all along the first-island chain, while nervous allies throughout the region look for support – there is only one man who has the knowledge, experience and expertise to serve as America’s next Secretary of the Navy. And that man is J. Randy Forbes.
Harry J. Kazianis (@grecianformula) is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former US President Richard M. Nixon, and Executive Editor of its publishing arm, The National Interest. He also serves as fellow at both the Potomac Foundation and the Center for China Policy at the University of Nottingham (UK). He is the author of The Tao of A2/AD: China’s Rationale for the Creation of Anti-Access. In the past Kazianis has led the foreign policy communication efforts of the Heritage Foundation and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The views expressed are his own.
Hope he keeps smoking whatever he is on. In the event of war, he can look for his carrier groups on the bottom of the sea, because thats where they will be.
It is interesting how the deployment of US air and sea power seems to be working primarily against effectively low tech opponents.
The emergence of potential near equals in these areas requires a very different type of thinking than has been required in the US for decades. Even then, it bus still quite unclear if the lessons of Vietnam, morphed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, have been learned from.
It is most critical for the US to control the larger sea – trade routes. Shut down the trade routes and you force an opponents economy out of global trade into domestic only activity – a death spiral for any economy. Britain figured this out centuries ago and the US showed it to still be effective in WWII. The second and less important mission of the navy is to be an attacking force. The reason this is less important is that without using nuclear weapons it is so limited. Think of the endless bombings of North Vietnam and the fact that those bombings – heavier than all the bombings of WWII did nothing to control the outcome of the world. The reason this is important to realize is that the attack mission is easily countered with asymmetrical means – long range missiles, mines, quiet subs, cyber-attacks, saboteurs and other means. The US wants to have that capability – but it is useful mainly against weak opponents like Iran or Iraq not against large economies capable of paying for counter-measures like Russia or China. The US is $20T in debt. We cannot afford to be the first-responder in every war. We should encourage the development of regional alliances to cancel would be hegemons like Russia and China and confine our activities mainly to trade interdiction, weapons sales, logistical support and selected interventions using naval power.
A nice theory, but one which doesn’t bear up to inspection. The US hasn’t been cutting off opponents like Iran from all trade, only secondary trade. Iran was able to sell "oil for food" at a hefty discount van market prices. Under this scenario, the US Navy is merely the enforcement arm of transnational corporations rather than a sovereign defense force. I’d suggest looking at some of what General Smedly Butler wrote about his life’s work. There’s also some validity to the Kuhn/Mahan theories at least in terms of the panic the OBOR and Silk Road is causing American strategists.