Archive for the ‘war’ Category

While everyone was focused on the dumpster fire that is Afghanistan, an innocuous NAVADMIN (a Naval message that relates to administrative issues) came out on the 23rd of August, subject line OPNAVINST 3100.6K. NAVADMINs are normally pretty boring. They cover policy like how you can use your GI Bill, when people get promoted, or various annual awards.

OPNAVINST 3100.6 is the instruction that covers situation reports (SITREPs). SITREPs are required reports that Navy units send when bad things happen. For example, if a Sailor is arrested for drunk driving, a unit would notify their immediate superior in command (the “ISIC”) by using a formatted message called a Navy Unit Sitrep. OPNAVINST 3100.6 gives you the exact format to send this message, which are also called OPREP-3 messages (short for Operational Report). The instruction covers more serious messages too. In those cases, units might send an OPREP-3 Navy Blue message. This message goes to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) office, as well as the ISIC and others. Incidents that require a Navy Blue are more serious or carry negative media attention, hence the need to notify the CNO lest he be surprised. A good example was when COVID-19 was first discovered, any Navy person that contracted it required an OPREP-3 Navy Blue message.

The most recent change to OPNAVINST 3100.6 is now version K and added this section:

4. MAJOR PERSONNEL INCIDENT CHANGES INCLUDE: [SRB, EXTREMIST BEHAVIORS,
BULLYING, ETC.]
4.A. ADDED PERSONNEL INCIDENT REPORTING FOR SUPREMACIST OR EXTREMIST
BEHAVIORS.

Bullying? Supremacist Activity? Extremist Activity? Yup, these all require varying forms of Navy Sitrep messages. We don’t know what level (that’s not released), so we have to guess what becomes a Unit Sitrep and what becomes a Navy Blue. At a minimum, every time we have something resembling bullying, supremacist or extremist activity, a message must be sent out.

This becomes a tsunami of messages when we define extremist groups as:

– an organization that espouses supremacist causes;
– attempts to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation or religion;
– advocates using force or violence;
– or otherwise engages in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

Navy Discussion Guide on Extremism

So, if a Navy member participates in an Antifa protest, do we label him as an extremist? They certainly “advocate for the use of violence.”

What about Black Panthers?

A Black Panther Party member brings a shotgun into the state Capitol, May 2, 1967. He was one of two dozen armed Panthers who entered the building. (Photo: Walt Zeboski/Associated Press)

What if someone accuses Republicans of “depriving them of civil rights” (like we’re seeing with the voter registration issues)?

Vox headline

Is being a Catholic extremist because they won’t give Communion to someone that is openly living a homosexual lifestyle?

The problem with this broad definition is that it is broad and goal posts move all the time. People used to argue that homosexual unions would never impact Christians, until Christian bakers were sued for not making wedding cakes. Or the goal post moves the other way, and protests that burned down homes and businesses become “mostly peaceful,” and obviously didn’t incite any violence whatsoever. BTW, it’s been illegal to be in extremist groups since 1990, and people do get kicked out for racism (watch episode four of the PBS series Carrier for an example).

Besides, didn’t we make service members sit through training for this that covered:

Speech that incites violence or criminal activity that threatens to undermine our government and Constitution is not protected by the First Amendment.

and Vandalizing government property and storming a police barrier is not an exercise of First Amendment
rights.

Extremists don’t have a place in our Navy, but when we make the definition really broad, soon we’re all going to get painted as extremists. When that happens (and its a when now, not an if), why would you want to join the Navy? Remember that the Navy is constantly bringing in new people, to the tune of around 40,000 every year. People sign up for a variety of reasons, but one big assumption is the fairness and meritocratic environment that the Navy claims to have. When you remove that, or even appear to do so, it removes a large incentive to join. It’s already hard enough to get people to join, especially if you want people with high technical skills. I fear that this change is going to drive people to leave after a first enlistment and not bother staying around, if for no other reason then the worry they’ll be labeled as a bully or extremist.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

A quick commentary on the Afghan debacle, might have made it up before Kabul falls.

A lot of people who counted on us are going to be slaughtered thanks to Biden and his “expert” military leaders who say folks like me are the real threat.

The only enemy this Biden Administration and their woke Military leaders are prepared and anxious to fight are us.

Newspaper from the Battle for Crete in World War 2

History is best learned in person. While I was temporarily stationed on Crete in support of the ongoing conflict in Libya, I had a chance to visit a local museum that featured Cretan history from ancient times to the present. There was a large room devoted to the Battle of Crete, where the forces of Nazi Germany first fought a naval engagement, and then invaded Crete in one of the largest parachute drops in history. While Germany did successfully invade, it came at a great cost, and the Germans were hesitant to use parachute tactics in the future.

The newspaper above has a few interesting titles. First, its a good reminder that things weren’t all that certain in 1941 in Europe. Losing Crete, and followed by a massive German invasion of Russia soon after, left Europe’s position pretty uncertain. It’s easy to read history now and say “Well, its obvious the US would prevail,” but at the time it wasn’t so certain. I also had to smile at the “Capture of Fallujah” headline, since Fallujah continues to be as important back then as it is in modern times.

Walking in the nearby cemetery I found graves from both Allied and Axis powers. The graves are simple. I don’t recognize any of the names. I know the facts of the battles they fought in, but the actual people, outside of a few significant generals and admirals, are unknown to me.

I suspect that this is the same feeling many Americans get walking through Arlington National Cemetery. Sure, if you have a loved one buried there, its a different feeling. But most people don’t, and during Memorial Day, its hard to know what we’re supposed to feel about the graves we walk by. Sad? Respectful? Mournful?

I think the reason its difficult is because we’re taught history from an events perspective, especially for wars. These groups of people, using these weapons, fought over this place on a map, and this group won. But the truth is that each of those people that fought have a back story. A loved one at home. A family that misses them. They are fighting for many different reasons. Maybe they were drafted, or maybe they enlisted because they really believe in their country. Maybe they joined to climb further in the ranks, or maybe this is a one-and-done enlistment.

When we get the chance to hear these personal stories, they stick with us. You can’t read the book Unbroken (or watch the movie) and not be moved by it. Same goes for stories like Hacksaw Ridge or even Black Hawk Down. It’s easy to gloss over history in a cold, calculating way when its presented as figures, numbers, and geography, but its a lot harder when we hear about the individual people behind the battles. We identify with people.

So this Memorial Day, I encourage people that often struggle with “How am I supposed to react” to take the time to learn one story. Learn about the in-depth story of someone that gave their life for their country. Talk to a veteran about someone they knew that died fighting for their country. Make that individual connection. Don’t get too worried about the big picture stuff, instead, focus on one individual story. That will make it much more personal and meaningful.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Image courtesy of USNI

In the 1950s and 1960s, the term “Made in Japan” was a way of pointing out the poor quality of items, particularly vehicles, coming from Japan. Recovering from World War 2, Japanese manufacturing was just getting back on its feet, while America had enjoyed not being bombed or nuked into submission. But the Japanese were pretty industrious, and while American cars continued to decline in quality, particularly in gas mileage, Japanese vehicles slowly improved. All that was needed was a spark, and when the oil crisis happened in 1973, imports of the more fuel efficient Japanese cars soared. “Made in Japan” no longer implied poor quality.

“Made in China” is going through the same throes now. The picture above is the LUYANG III destroyer. If it looks uncannily like a US Destroyer, you’re not wrong, and capability-wise, its pretty close in many respects. The PLA Navy is on pace to crank out 2-3 of these every year. That alone is scary, but more importantly, the LUYANG III represents a Chinese 3 step building plan that involved failing fast, then making a big investment.

China didn’t have the most robust ship building, and its first LUYANG model, the Type 052B, was more of a test platform. They built two of these and learned a LOT about shipbuilding in the process. The Type 052B isn’t very capable in a big fight, but the point was to build something and be OK at failing a lot.

The next failed step was the Type 052C. Here China added extensive air search capabilities and used only Chinese systems. They also made these at different shipyards, exposing them to the issues created when you build ships in an enterprise. It’s not a bad ship, but again, was built to teach the Chinese how to build warships.

Enter the Type 052D, the LUYANG III. Extremely capable warship. Now that China has the right design, its cranking these out quickly. There are 13 in service and 11 in construction now. To put this in perspective, in 2019 the US Navy commissioned 2 new destroyers, and 8 total ships, one of which was an aircraft carrier.

Speaking of aircraft carriers, China is working on carrier #4 now. You’ll see the same “fail fast” pattern here as well. First carrier was a Ukrainian purchase. It sucks, but it was mostly designed to teach China how to operate with a carrier. The second carrier was China’s first Russian-knock off, the Shandong, and it taught the Chinese how to build something pretty large. The third carrier, with an estimated 85K tonnage, will likely be completely Chinese design and help iron out bugs in the design process. Talks about carrier number 4 being nuclear are already happening. I’m guessing that when China begins carrier #5, it will have a design it likes and will crank out 10 of them in a row.

In the meantime, we can’t get a US shipyard to crank out a warship on-time or on-budget, and we’re cutting the shipbuilding budget anyway. We have more experience than the Chinese Navy, but that gap is closing as the Chinese deploy around the world, including near constant deployments to the Middle East and Europe.

Give it five years, and China’s Navy will have the numbers and equipment to be better than the US Navy in nearly any combat situation. That should scare us.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.