Split on Iran

The dilemma on Iran is that no matter what we do, it could end badly, and to do nothing may be worse. In either case let's not fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

Americans split on Iran action: poll
Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:09pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are concerned about Iran's nuclear program but split on whether the United States should take military action to shut it down if diplomatic efforts fail, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll released on Monday.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said the United States should use economic sanctions and diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program and 18 percent favored military action, the poll found.

However, 46 percent said military action should be taken either now or if diplomacy fails while 45 percent ruled out a military strike altogether, USA Today said.

Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse taking military steps, the poll said.

President George W. Bush has suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three. Bush last week imposed sanctions on Iran's military and its financial sector, hoping to increase pressure on Tehran to stop uranium enrichment and curb what the U.S. government says are terrorist activities.

Iran has so far refused to heed United Nations demands to halt nuclear work that has both civilian and military uses.

Three of four Americans polled said they were concerned the United States "will not do enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons," USA Today said.

An equal number also said they were concerned that the United States will be too quick to use military force against Iran.

The telephone survey of 1,024 adults was taken Friday through Sunday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Musharraf Should Ignore the US and UK.

Musharraf will get no advice from the US or UK that will do him any good. Britain is slathered in political correctness and the Bush-Carter Administration is still delusional with the push for democracy in the Islamic world.

Musharraf warned: hold elections and quit as army chief


Envoys to spell out ultimatum in talks today in Pakistan

Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Julian Borger
Monday November 5, 2007
The Guardian

The US and Britain are today expected to demand that Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, honour pledges to hold elections in the next two months and step down as the army chief, or face a cut in western support.
The diplomatic showdown will come in the form of a meeting in Islamabad between the Pakistani leader and a group of ambassadors, two days after he declared emergency rule - and three days after giving assurances to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, that he would stick to an election deadline in mid-January, and step down as head of the country's army.


Last night Pakistan's prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, called those promises into question when he said the government had not decided when to hold the elections and warned they could be delayed by up to a year. Wielding his new powers with an iron fist yesterday, Gen Musharraf rounded up hundreds of opposition and human rights activists and introduced tight media regulations. Mr Aziz's statement directly contradicted personal assurances Gen Musharraf apparently gave to Mr Brown and Ms Rice on the eve of the emergency declaration.
The pledge to the prime minister was made on Friday, when Mr Brown telephoned Mr Musharraf and expressed concern over reports that an emergency decree was being planned.

"He [Mr Brown] said we had heard he was considering this and we thought it was a bad idea," a British official said.

Downing Street and the Foreign Office denied claims from Islamabad yesterday that Britain had, in fact, sanctioned Gen Musharraf's declaration.

A Musharraf aide told the Guardian that the Pakistani president had "satisfied" objections raised by Mr Brown during the conversation. "There was pressure from the US and Britain in the beginning. But later on, when the government gave them the detail that elections will be held on time, and the president will take off his uniform, they did not have any objections," the official said, on condition of anonymity. A Foreign Office official insisted "no consent was implied or given".

In his address to the nation on Saturday night Gen Musharraf said the step was necessary to combat growing Islamist extremism that has seen a succession of suicide bombings and a battle in the previously peaceful northern area of Swat.

But yesterday his police turned their batons on political opponents and human rights critics from a wide spectrum of society - although notably not from Benazir Bhutto's People's party. Ms Bhutto, who has been edging towards a power-sharing deal with Gen Musharraf for months, condemned emergency rule but did not call her supporters on to the streets.

In Lahore police armed with assault rifles raided the offices of the national human rights commission.

Police seized camera equipment belonging to journalists. The ousted chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, was trapped behind a cordon of police at his Islamabad house.

The leader of the lawyer's movement, Aitzaz Ahsan, was held incommunicado at Adiala Jail near Rawalpindi. Tammy Haq, a colleague who attempted to visit him, said she feared he was being tortured. "I've seen martial law before, my brother was in jail, and this is exactly the same," she said.

Mr Aziz said the former cricketer Imran Khan and retired intelligence chief Hamid Gul were among 500 people being held in preventative detention. Private TV channels remained off air and senior journalists said they feared arrest. The only news coverage came through the state TV channel, which broadcast a report into the lack of press freedom in India.

The British and US reaction has so far been cautious. It has fallen short of condemnation. More severe measures, as well as a reassessment of western aid to the Musharraf government will hinge on today's critical meeting.

"What we will make very clear is that the government must keep to the commitment to hold elections on time, the commitment to take off the uniform, the commitment to a free press, the commitment to reach out other parties, and the commitment to release political prisoners," a senior British official said. "How they respond to that will determine how our reaction thereafter."

Ms Rice, speaking to journalists in Jerusalem, said yesterday the US would "review" aid to Pakistan, which has totalled $11bn (£5.5bn) since 2001.

British officials said they would reassess aid in coordination with the US.

In Lahore a human rights campaigner, Asma Jahangir, sent an email from home where she has been placed under detention for 90 days. "Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires," she wrote.

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president of the ruling PML-Q party, said the decision to impose emergency rule was triggered by fears that the supreme court would rule against Gen Musharraf's recent re-election in a legal appeal. A friendly judge passed the information to the government last Wednesday. "He said the verdict may be unanimous. So we had no choice," he told the Guardian. "The debate was whether to impose emergency before or after [the court ruling]."

Asked how long the emergency measures would be in place Mr Aziz said: "As long as it is necessary."

Musharraf Prefers to be a General. Pray He Not Become a Shah.

General Musharraf has crossed the Rubicon. Unless he wants to end with a rope around his neck or a bullet in his brain, he needs to be more ruthless and determined to see his coup completed. Pakistan is not going to be ruled by an elected president. If Musharraf listens to the US and the West, Pakistan will become another Iran after the Shah, only worse. It will be an Iran with nuclear weapons. A democratic change in Pakistan will only weaken the central government and play into the hands of the Islamists. US pressure on Pakistan to become a democracy, by the Bush Administration, is right out of the Jimmy Carter play book on losing.

Musharraf would be wise to look at the mistakes made by Batista in Cuba or the Shah in Iran and copy what the Chinese Communists did after Tiananmen Square. There is no democratic alternative for Pakistan as long as the Islamists infiltrate Pakistan society. Waziristan is ungovernable. Musharraf would be wise to recognize Waziristan as an independent state, let the crazies go there, and allow the West to figure out what to do with them. Musharraf has the worst job on the planet. He deserves our sympathy.

Musharraf declares martial law in Pakistan
By Massoud Ansari in Islamabad Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:16am GMT 04/11/2007

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan last night declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and was expected to halt planned parliamentary elections for at least a year.

In a dramatic move ahead of an expected ruling by the Supreme Court to disqualify him as president, General Musharraf ordered soldiers into the court building to tell the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, that he was sacked.

Just 30 minutes after news was broadcast that the government was imposing emergency law, eight judges of the Supreme Court met and declared Gen Musharraf's orders "unconstitutional" and "illegal". But even as they did so, police and soldiers began detaining lawyers.

They also took most television and radio stations off the air and disrupted mobile telephone networks in the capital, Islamabad, and other cities.

Armoured vehicles moved into Islamabad soon after sunset and soldiers took over strategic buildings, including parliament. The streets emptied rapidly as residents returned to their homes.


Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and opposition party leader who returned to Pakistan from exile last month, last night flew back to Karachi from Dubai, where she had been visiting family. She was escorted from the airport towards her house - itself surrounded by troops - by more than 100 police guards.

She said she believed that emergency rule was designed to delay elections by "at least one or two years".

Nisar Khuhro, a senior PPP leader, declared: "We cannot accept the derailment of democracy and will definitely resist and rally around people against it. Otherwise we will be back to square one."

Aitzaz Ahsan, a leading opposition lawyer who is president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said outside his home: "One man has taken an entire nation hostage. The time has come for Gen Musharraf to go."

Fellow lawyers shouted "Go Musharraf, go!" as Mr Ahsan was arrested and driven away by police, giving a defiant victory sign to his supporters.

Gen Musharraf blamed the imposition of emergency law on the need for a crackdown which had been prevented by the judiciary. The proclamation order claimed that militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers were being released from prisons on the orders of the judges.

It added: "Some members of the judiciary are working at cross-purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism."

In a recorded television address last night, Gen Musharraf said emergency powers were needed to defend Pakistan from Islamic fundamentalists.

"Extremists are roaming around freely and they are not scared of law enforcement agencies," he said. "They want to run a parallel government and impose their extremist views on the rest of the country. It is a direct challenge to the stability of Pakistan."

After giving the majority of his address in Urdu, he gave a special message in English, asking Western nations to give Pakistan time to implement democracy.

"Please do not expect or demand your level of democracy which you learned over a number of centuries. Please give us time," he said.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Gen Musharraf's decision was made secretly on Friday. Soldiers were discreetly deployed across the country in preparation for yesterday's move.



In a television address Gen Musharraf said emergency powers were needed to defend Pakistan from islamic fundamentalists

Sources at the country's broadcasting authority, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, said they had orders to keep the dozens of independent television channels off the air indefinitely. Only the official state station was broadcasting subdued news reports last night.

The Supreme Court had been expected to rule this week on whether or not Gen Musharraf's recent re-election by MPs to a third term of office was valid. It forbade the election commission to declare the result officially until the case had been decided.

The plan - encouraged by America and Britain - had been for Ms Bhutto to support Gen Musharraf as president in return for the freedom to contest parliamentary elections, from which she hoped to emerge prime minister.

Gen Musharraf made up his mind to declare emergency law after hearing that the chief justice planned to summon the head of Pakistan's intelligence agencies this week to ask why hundreds of people were being held without charge.

Constitutional experts said the fact that eight of the court's 13 judges had immediately ruled the declaration of emergency illegal suggested that they would refuse to swear a new oath of loyalty.

Baz Khan Kakar, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, said: "The country will be in chaos as there will be no courts functioning." But the government said last night that another judge, Hameed Dogar, had been sworn in as the new chief justice.

Al Qaeda Defeated in Anbar. Al-Maliki Suspicious. Al Gore Leads over Hillary.

Remind you of Hillary, just a little bit?

All true. Good news from our favorite province: Anbar 'almost' free from al Qaeda's grip Washington Times , but even better news for those entertained by Democratic politics. Strange as it seems, Iraq may not be quite as large in the coming presidential election as once thought. More and more concern about the economy, energy, environment and immigration seem to be ratcheting Iraq down the political thermometer. And how about our own Nurse Ratched, was there a little bit of a melt down in the campaign of Hillary Clinton?

It seems as if a lot of Democrats think so:

Al Gore Leads Top Democratic Candidates in "Blind Bio" Poll
Submitted by Julie on November 2, 2007 - 7:50pm. Elections 2008 News Politics U.S. Politics

Zogby International recently conducted a "blind bio" telephone poll which revealed that former Vice President Al Gore is currently favored over leading Democratic candidates by likely Democratic Party voters across the nation.

In a "blind bio" poll, candidates names are not used. Instead, their names are replaced with a brief description of their biographies.

The poll showed that when likely Democratic voters were given descriptions of the top three Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, along with the biography of Al Gore, Gore won with 35% support. Clinton captured 24%, Obama snagged 22%, and Edwards trailed far behind with just 10% support. Gore's bio was the top choice for both men (39%) and women (31%)m and was most favored by younger voters.

Self-described liberal Democrats strongly favored Al Gore's bio (43%), over those of Clinton (21%), Edwards (17%), and Obama (12%). Moderate Democratic voters, who are believe to most closely represent the choices of likely Democratic voters overall, also showed the greatest preference for Gore's bio at 36%.

The poll was commissioned by AlGore.org, an organization dedicated to getting Al Gore to run for the presidency, and was conducted from October 24-27, 2007. It included 527 likely Democratic voters nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.

Pakistani TV, Radio Off the Air. Land Lines and Mobile Phones Down.

Musharraf imposes emergency rule BBC

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule, state-run TV has said, amid reports that police have surrounded the Supreme Court.
Judges are believed to be inside the building in Islamabad, reports say.

Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.

Gen Musharraf is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Land and mobile telephone lines are down in Islamabad, reports say.

Private channels Geo News and Dawn News earlier quoted unnamed sources as saying the government had made up its mind to declare emergency rule. Shortly afterwards they came off air.

One TV channel reported that emergency rule may involve the suspension of the constitution.

Parliamentary elections are due in January - it is not clear whether they will go ahead.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after years of self-exile to lead her party in the elections, is currently in Dubai on a personal visit.

Which of These Were Registered to Vote?

I'll Give you a Hint. There were eight!

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL WSJ

'This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier'
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.

But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.

While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting.

Mr. Carter has personal knowledge of why such laws are needed. He recounts in his book "Turning Point" how his 1962 race for Georgia State Senate involved a local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court challenge before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.

Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).

Friday, November 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Given a Choice, Why Would a Parent Want Their Children in a Public School?

Given a choice, there is not one East Coast American city where I would want my children in a public school. There are pockets of suburban schools which would be acceptable. Most of these schools would be fixable if the federal government would get out of public education and all parents of all students paid a modest tuition regardless of income. The diversity cultists, school unions and single parent homes have taken a huge toll on American Public Schools. The single payer system for public education needs to be changed in order to change the public school system and only then will the middle classes return.


SOUTH'S PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE NOW MAINLY LOW INCOME
For the first time in 40 years, more than half of public school students in the South are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 1, 2007 edition

ATLANTA - The plight of the South's school-reform movement now hangs on kids from families that make less than $36,000 a year.

For the first time in 40 years, two new studies show, more than half of public school students in the South are eligible for free or reduced lunch – a watershed moment in a 15-year wealth slide that comes amid resurging racial and economic inequalities in the former Confederacy. The rise is part of a nationwide surge: Low-income students now represent 12 percentage points more of the student body than in 1990.

In response, schools from the Delta's cypress region to the Carolina pine flats face a struggle: How to continue to improve test scores, attract good teachers, and reduce dropout rates amid growth of a group of students whom studies show have greater difficulty reaching grade-level benchmarks?

"Measuring low-income students' success is now measuring the majority of students' success," says Steve Suitts, co-author of "A New Majority," a study released Tuesday by the Southern Education Fund (SEF) in Atlanta.

Nationwide, two overarching factors seem to be driving public-school woes, experts say: In recent years, the erosion of middle-class, blue-collar jobs has led to more people working for lower wages, and many parents who can afford private school have taken their children out of public schools altogether. This skews the average income of remaining families lower. The South in particular has been hard hit by the closing of textile plants in South Carolina and the changing coal economy of the Appalachian highlands. Another reason for the shift, some experts note, is the influx of poorer Latinos at least into the Carolinas and Georgia.

FROM ONE STATE TO 13

In 1989, Mississippi was the only state with a majority of students who needed free or reduced lunch, according to the SEF study. In 2006, 13 states had a majority of low-income students, 11 of them in the South. The only states in the South unlikely to hit the tipping point are Virginia, with 33 percent, and Maryland, at 31 percent. (North Carolina hovered at 49 percent last year.)

Some 54 percent of students in the region come from families who make less than $36,000 annually, the cutoff point to qualify for free or reduced lunch, compared with a national average of 46 percent.

"Something has happened in the nation from 1990 to 2006, where our economic base has gotten more bottom-heavy," says Joan Lord, vice president for education policy at the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta, which released its own study this week that found the same phenomenon.

This is not to say that lower income automatically equals lower grades. Some of the best public high schools in the nation, many of them racially and economically integrated, are in the South. But in aggregate, the disparities are apparent. In Alabama, for instance, 43 percent of low-income students scored below basic, the lowest passing classification, on the 2007 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) math test, compared with 14 percent of students with incomes above $36,000.

What's more, studies show that low-income students are more likely to be held back in first and second grade and more likely to drop out of high school.

Those who do graduate from high school are less likely to go on to get a college degree.

"I think this data brings home why progress has been slow in improving education achievement in the South," says Cynthia Brown, a school policy expert at the Center for American Progress.

Many Southerners say the erosion of wealth in the public schools also reveals deeply ingrained attitudes in the South, where strong legislatures, weak governors, fiscal conservatism, and racial stereotypes stymie school progress. "I don't know how many times I've heard that public schools are really for the black kids," says Neal Thigpen, a political scientist at Francis Marion University in Florence, S.C.

The civil rights era challenge to raise up black people through education is at stake, says William Taylor, chairman of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights in Washington. "If we're going to figure out how to get out of it, we have to figure out ways to change the dynamics."

Some school districts are implementing a variety of solutions. In Miami-Dade County, school officials are setting up "parent academies" in local churches and community halls in an attempt to make education a higher priority for families.

In Perry County, Ala., predominantly black schools with 80 percent low-income students regularly graduate 90 percent of their high-schoolers. Teaching the basics and character education are part of that success, residents there say.

RISE OF RESEGREGATION

In some cases, districts that once sought to integrate feel they must re-embrace resegregation as a way to keep the public schools intact. Tuscaloosa, Ala., recently rezoned its middle schools, effectively ending the busing of black city kids to a suburban school.

School board member Ernestine Tucker, who voted against the plan, said the threat from white parents was implicit but obvious: "Rezone, or we pull our kids out of the public schools." "The only difference there is they have options," she says. "We don't have the same options."

Seapower in the 21st Century

The U.S. unveils a collaborative plan for policing the seas

by Robert D. Kaplan

The Navy's New Flat-Earth Strategy

Over the decades our Navy has been slowly disappearing on us. At the end of World War II we had 6,700 ships. Throughout the Cold War we had around 600 ships. In the 1990s we had more than 350. Now we are down to fewer than 280. This decline is occurring while China is in the midst of a shipbuilding and acquisition craze that will result in the People's Liberation Army Navy having more ships than the United States Navy sometime in the next decade. Qualitatively, the United States will still very much have the edge, but China is catching up. And China is merely one of many challenges—terrorism, piracy, port security, and humanitarian disaster assistance are others—that the Navy now faces.

The Navy has plans to increase the number of ships from below 280 to more than 310. But according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service, cost overruns of 34 percent, plus other factors, mean that these plans may be overly optimistic. In fact, over the next decade and beyond, if the Navy builds only seven ships per year with a fleet whose life expectancy is 30 years, the total number of its ships may dwindle to the low 200s. And yet we live in a world where 75 percent of the Earth's population is within 200 miles of the sea, and in an era when 90 percent of commerce travels by sea, including two-thirds of petroleum exports.

Such is the sobering context for the United States's new maritime strategy, just released after many months of study—particularly at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The study was commissioned by Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen, recently promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was released by the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard—the first time the three maritime services have jointly authored a common strategy.

This is very much a diplomatic document, meaning it is necessary to read between the lines. Without mentioning China and without going into specific numbers—or even asserting the need for more ships—the 16-page document makes the case for a Navy that must do, if not everything, then nearly everything. And it makes its case within an intellectual framework that should resonate with the public and a Democratic Congress: the dialectic of globalization. "Our Nation's interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance."

As this document sees it, our world is interconnected, its population clustered in dense, pulsing demographic ganglia near the seas that will be prone to disruptions such as asymmetric attacks and natural disasters. The document pointedly does not rule out great-power military conflicts, asserting that "peace does not preserve itself." But according to the new strategy, even great-power conflicts are apt to be subtle and asymmetric. There is little talk here of conventional sea and land battles and the need to spread democracy. This is a post-Iraq document, with an emphasis on soft power. Indeed, the war in Iraq appears less relevant to the document than the Indian Ocean tsunami emergency of December 2004/January 2005. To wit: "Building on relationships forged in times of calm, we will continue to mitigate human suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts ... Human suffering moves us to act, and the expeditionary character of maritime forces uniquely positions them to provide assistance."

The title of the report aptly describes its essence: "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower" is all about cooperation between the three maritime services and, more significantly, between the United States and allied nations. For the past few years, Admiral Mullen has been talking about a 1,000-ship Navy—an international coalition of friendly navies to share intelligence and help each other police the world's coasts and seas. The phrase "1,000-ship Navy" does not appear in the document. (I heard reports and rumors that the Bush administration did not like it.) But the spirit of the 1,000-ship Navy and "collective security" is everywhere in these pages. In fact, the new strategy goes further than Admiral Mullen's concept, expanding the definition of partnership beyond friendly navies to other institutions. "No one nation has the resources required to provide safety and security throughout the entire maritime domain. Increasingly, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and the private sector will form partnerships of common interest to counter ... emerging threats."

In essence, this new maritime strategy represents a restrained, nuanced yearning for a bigger Navy, albeit one whose mission will be cooperation with other navies. That requires more than just new ships. "A key to fostering such relationships is development of sufficient cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise among our Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen to nurture effective interaction with diverse international partners." Such training costs money and creates bureaucratic challenges, but it helps lay the groundwork for an exceedingly gradual, elegant decline of the Navy's capabilities—a future in which it has fewer platforms but gets more out of the ones it does have by working more closely with others.

Strategies make bets, often subtly. This document does not disappoint. While it refers to the need to project massive power in a conventional conflict, its focus represents a clear wager that it would be a mistake to mirror-image a future peer competitor like China. "Adversaries are unlikely to attempt conventional force-on-force conflict and, to the extent that maritime forces could be openly challenged, their plans will almost certainly rely on asymmetric attack and surprise, achieved through stealth, deception, or ambiguity." In other words, even if China does emerge as a peer competitor as the Soviet Union once was, it will act subtly and be just one of myriad threats that the United States is best positioned to handle through a Navy that's forward deployed and interlocked with allied ones. As bets go, this seems like a reasonable one—but it's still a bet.

Bottom line: The new maritime strategy posits an unconventional naval vision for a flat world, as Thomas Friedman calls it. Consistent with that vision, it also calls for a powered-down command structure, with junior officers better trained and more influential than ever, working in dispersed networks around the world, in which marines and coastguardsmen are integrated with sailors in the same units: each unit built around a specific task, be it combat, irregular warfare, or humanitarian relief.

Hard-liners will be frustrated by the spirit of the new maritime strategy, if not its language. Yet because the new strategy travels with the prevailing political winds in Washington, it is likely to win support among Congress and the larger public. And that could produce what the Navy needs but the new strategy doesn't really talk about: more ships.

The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710u/kaplan-navy.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form