The US has issued a new National Military Strategy. You can see it in pdf form here, or you can see it on the Naval Institute News Service here.
Its not really very long. There are only 18 pages of text. Even so, I will provide a “Readers’ Digest” version, or perhaps more properly, a powerpoint version, in that it is in outline form, and offer only limited Coast Guard related comment.
U.S. ENDURING NATIONAL INTERESTS
- The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.
- A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity.
- Respect for universal values at home and around the world.
- A rules-based international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS
- The survival of the Nation.
- The prevention of catastrophic attack against U.S. territory.
- The security of the global economic system.
- The security, confidence, and reliability of our allies.
- The protection of American citizens abroad.
- The preservation and extension of universal values.
NATIONAL MILITARY OBJECTIVES
- Deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries.
- Disrupt, degrade, and defeat violent extremist organizations.
- Strengthen our global network of allies and partners.
- Maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent
- Provide for military defense of the homeland
- Defeat an adversary
- Provide a global, stabilizing presence
- Combat terrorism
- Counter weapons of mass destruction
- Deny an adversary’s objectives
- Respond to crisis and conduct limited contingency operations
- Conduct military engagement and security cooperation
- Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations
- Provide support to civil authorities
- Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster response
There is nothing here that adds to the Coast Guard’s “to do list.” There is no specific mention of the Coast Guard or any other service for that matter. They do talk about working with DHS partners, and a couple of times they mention Coast Guardsmen along with an enumeration of all other types of US military personnel.
There is a recognition of the “Violent Extremist Organization” either acting alone or with support of a Nation State in a form of “Hybrid Warfare.”
DEFENSE OF THE HOMELAND
There may be more emphasis on “defense of the homeland,” but we are a long way from providing the kind of commitment to this, that we saw in the late 1950s and early 60s when we had Nike missile launchers around every US city and hundreds of interceptors on strip alert around the country. At that time there were also Naval Sea Frontiers that were ready to respond to naval threats.
DOD has recently begun to talk about defense against cruise missiles, but really, it is easier to get a weapon of mass destruction into the country by boat than by missile or aircraft.
I would like to particularly highlight the explanation that accompanies the #2 priority, after #1–maintaining a nuclear deterrent, because it certainly involves the Coast Guard,
“Provide for Military Defense of the Homeland. Emerging state and non-state capabilities pose varied and direct threats to our homeland. Thus we are striving to interdict attack preparations abroad, defend against limited ballistic missile attacks, and protect cyber systems and physical infrastructure. Key homeland defense capabilities include resilient space-based and terrestrial indications and warning systems; an integrated intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination architecture; a Ground-Based Interceptor force; a Cyber Mission Force; and, ready ground, air and naval forces, (emphasis applied–Chuck). We also are leveraging domestic and regional partnerships to improve information sharing and unity of effort. These capabilities will better defend us against both high technology threats and terrorist dangers.
Make no mistake, for countering any covert maritime surface threat to the US, the Coast Guard is the “ready naval force,” that is ready to investigate possible hostile contacts. Even if the US had aircraft armed and ready to engage surface vessels, which I doubt, I don’t think anyone is going to send aircraft to sink a ship based on a suspicion, however well founded, that the ship has some nefarious intent. Someone is going to have stop the vessel and attempt a boarding. Navy Bases are few and far between. The only Navy surface combatant on the Atlantic coast based North of the Norfolk complex is the USS Constitution. The only surface ships based on the East Coast are around Norfolk and Jacksonville. On the West Coast they are either in Everett or San Diego. There are none based in Alaska and none on the Gulf Coast. Unless they are holding a Navy Day, celebration the majority of US ports are hundreds of miles from the nearest Navy surface combatant.
The Coast Guard’s position ought to be that we see a problem here, and the Coast Guard is the solution (and here I am not talking about the larger cutters, because they are either going to be deployed or in some sort of stand down if they are in port). The vessels that are going to do the stopping and boarding are most likely to be WPCs or WPBs, but currently they are not really armed to handle anything much more threatening than an angry outboard.
In addition to better weapons, we certainly need to continue to exploit the DOD’s intelligence organization and the Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness hopefully including JLENS if they become more than prototypes.
REACTION. Of course the Chinese had a comment, as did Russia, “Clearly Anit-Russsian.”
It’s like I say. Coast Guard has the same job in peace time as in war, and that is Maritime Security. But it is not the Navy’s job to provide aircraft, but NORAD in my opinion. But I do believe that the Coast Guard needs to have offensive capable aircraft for ASW/anti surface role. I live in Oregon, and I believe we have a incompetent ANG. All F-15’s which were never designed for the surface role. Explain that to me when we’re a coastal state.
F-15E, Strike Eagles, are attack aircraft, but the Air National Guard units that patrol American airspace definitely think of their job as air intercept.
Other than carrier air wing aircraft (F/A-18s), which are based near carrier homeports and have limited range, the most promising aircraft for conducting anti-ship strikes are Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft (P-8s and P-3s). Still I don’t think they are normally armed for this mission and it would probably take several hours to prepare them for such a mission.
which is why I think we need to dump the P-8, and transfer funds over to coast guard to build SC-130J. You can build 2-3 SeaHercs for the price of one P-8. I think we need to have a Coast Guard version of Rimpac where we get together with other coast guards, small allied navies and share tactics and experience like the Japanese have against the North Koreans, and train with and against each other. You always here about Seals training against and with their counterparts, but you never here about the MSST/MSRT training with the Japanese SST.
Sorry about my Ramblin.
Plus, no Navy surface combatants based in Oregon, nor in Northern California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Maine. (or Alaska as I mentioned before.)The vast majority of the US coast is “naked” except for the Coast Guard presence.
Some criticism of the strategy. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/2015/07/12/national-military-strategy-mixed-reaction/29968861/
Pingback: July Member Round-Up