As the United States faces a series of serious foreign policy challenges, many seemingly spinning out of control, it is hardly a good time to hear doubts about the combat readiness of an important military arm.
In a recent interview, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer told media sources that America’s marine force is capable of executing only half of the missions assigned to it by the Joint Chiefs. “I’m not saying the Joint Chiefs simply blindly tasked us” said Spencer, “but right now we’re fulfilling roughly 50 percent of the tasking.”
According to the Secretary, there are several root causes that are keeping the Navy at a level below what is being demanded of them by top brass. Current advancement tracks and salary standards for instance are often not attractive enough to keep a steady stream of capable officers flowing through the ranks. Training and professionalism also seems to be a major element in the Navy’s efficiency deficit, a fact sadly recognized in the wake of a series of crashes at sea of naval vessels this year.
Unfortunately, a lot of the problem just boils down to money. As Spencer put it: “We really have to rethink this, or at least have the discussion of what the math is behind this so we all understand what we’re really dealing with, as far as resources.”
The struggle the Secretary is describing underscores the increasing importance the Navy has in America’s global strategy.
From the country’s inception, the Navy has always been central in the Unites States’ ability to assert itself at a global level. Even now that technology in the form of intelligence satellites and drones has given the US new far-reach tools, the Navy remains the central element in this regard, certainly at a broader strategic level. It is the Navy that is capable of executing large scale bombardments, delivering high volumes of troops, and moving air strike groups into place anywhere in the world.
It is no surprise that growing hostilities between America and other nations are usually marked by the movement of US Naval assets. Last month, the world watched as three aircraft carrier strike groups closed in on the Korean Peninsula as tensions with North Korea escalated. A few months ago, an Iranian drone came dangerously close to the Nimitz Carrier group in the Persian Gulf, highlighting once again the military readiness of both nations.
In addition to being used as a signal of military preparedness (a fancy term for “scare tactic”), the Navy is often a flexible option for the administration to be involved in global conflicts without committing all the way. In the Yemen civil war for instance, the US is not playing any direct role in the fighting (at least not officially). America is willing, however, to use its Navy to block Iranian shipping from reaching the Houthi rebel proxies in the country who are currently waging a war against a Saudi led coalition.
Indeed the Navy is both versatile and powerful. It has a myriad of important applications that that the United States needs to maintain, from both a practical and deterrence perspective.
So what are we going to do?
To correct his budget problem, Spencer has an idea. At the recent Washington Defense Forum, Spencer described his long vision for the Navy as “fast and frugal”, stating that the current system of investment by the Navy encourages wasteful spending, and places all the risk on the government and ultimately the taxpayer. Spencer envisions creating a cooperative environment between the private industry and the Navy, in which companies have an incentive to invest and take risks developing the needs of the military.
It all sounds like the plan of an economist. And indeed, it is no surprise that this is coming from Spencer, a former Marine pilot, who spent 15 years on Wall Street.
Let’s hope that the relatively new Secretary will be able to push forward a plan that will increase both effectiveness and economy. It seems to be the only option for an administration faced with mounting international crises, and making increasingly more demands of its soldiers at sea.
