RealClearPolitics - Articles - Austin Bay
- TR's Big Stick: The Great White Fleet's Voyage
In a recent interview, naval historian Dr. A.A. Nofi agreed with that assessment. "The voyage was an announcement," Nofi said. "America had been quietly building up the second-largest navy in the world, and no one was paying attention. The Great White Fleet said, 'Hey, we're here.'"
Nofi said, however, there was another reason to send the fleet, one that had less to do with showoff bravado and more to do with calculated geostrategic signaling in the wake of Japan's victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. An Asian power had defeated a European power in a major naval engagement that featured the movement of the Russian fleet from European waters to East Asia. "In the immediate political context (of the early 20th century)," Nofi said, "the fleet's voyage was a message to Japan that said that unlike Russia, if America has to cross the ocean to fight you, its navy will be there in force and ready."
Having mediated the peace negotiations between Japan and Russia, Roosevelt was acutely aware of Japan's military capabilities. In 1906, TR received the Nobel Peace Prize for his successful mediation. The Great White Fleet embodied TR's dictum, "Talk softly and carry a big stick." The fleet was a "big stick" behind a man with a peace prize.
A big stick indeed -- peace through strength, a later generation would call it -- "but the Great White Fleet also garnered an extraordinary amount of good will for the U.S.," Nofi added, a different kind of publicity payoff. The fleet generated positive buzz; its arrival in a port of call was good PR for the port. Elements of the fleet also assisted in the Messina (Sicily) earthquake of 1908. "Some of the fleet's ships were in the vicinity," Nofi said, "and responded, similar to the way U.S. military forces aided victims of the terrible tsunami of 2005 (which smashed Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka)."
The voyage provided the U.S. Navy with operational insights that would prove useful during the next 100 years, especially in terms of exposing U.S. Navy planners to the problem of truly global logistics. A huge battleship squadron steaming around the planet in peacetime is impressive, however, wartime combat requires sustaining the fleet with fuel and ammunition.
The Navy hired private colliers from around the world to support the voyage. "In effect," Nofi said, "the USN was using contractors for global support. So using contractors like KBR isn't a new idea." However, Nofi pointed out, the Navy ultimately decided it was a bad idea, or at least an inadequate answer. "It took the Navy until the 1930s to convince Congress to purchase sufficient support ships -- fleet auxiliaries so the Navy could support its warships" in transoceanic combat operations.
The Great White Fleet's voyage took place in peacetime, when contractors (the privately owned colliers) were eager and available. "Upon analyzing extended naval movements (such as the Great White Fleet)," Nofi said, "the question the Navy faced was would these privately owned support ships be available in wartime? Moreover, would their crews be willing to sail with battle fleets in hostile waters?" The Navy concluded if it had to fight a global war, it needed its own auxiliaries manned by Navy personnel who knew that fighting in wars was their job.
The same question confronts contemporary war planners. In the 1990s, the Pentagon decided to cut military support structure and hire private contractors.
- Potholes Swallowing Martyrs
"Yes. And if you do not (show such willingness to use military force), Iran will become stronger. They with Hezbollah, their ally, already defeated the Israelis (in south Lebanon) in 2006. They say so."
"You're sure they did?" I asked.
"Oh, yes," he assured me. "That is the Arab perception."
"The Arab street's perception?" I smirked, my tone dipping into sarcasm.
"Yes," the Arab said, a bit antagonized by my tone. "Hezbollah has shown its guerrillas are willing to die, to martyr. They will not quit."
"An endless intifada fought by a limitless supply of martyrs, attacking both Israel and Arab regimes?"
"Yes, exactly," he said, fearfully. "They win when America leaves."
"If I told you we were already attacking Iran -- where it is truly vulnerable -- and defeating the carefully constructed myth of the martyr, which I agree Hezbollah uses in its pitch to perception, in its attack on your will, would you believe me?"
"No."
"Well -- "
This exchange -- which I've momentarily suspended -- took place three weeks ago, before the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) suggested Iran's corrupt mullahcrats suspended (also momentarily?) their nuclear weapons program in 2003.
If the NIE is accurate, this is very good news. In the wake of Saddam's fall, Libya terminated its nuclear program. However, before sighing with relief, we must remember intel is always (always) inadequate. Everyone with real experience in the intel and operations business also knows that intelligence assessments are often wrong, which is why "level of risk" guides smart planning. As better intel becomes available, the smartest plans require adaptation.
So Iran's nuclear facilities may ultimately be bombed. I've no doubt Iran's cagey mullahs have an "intent to acquire" nuclear weapons. But -- as I told my Arab interlocutor -- a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran benefits the ruling thugs politically. It may well harm Iran's domestic opposition.
"So," he laughed, "do you say (U.N. and EU) economic and political sanctions will work (on the Iranians)?"
"They will have an effect, as well as targeting the bank accounts of the most corrupt officials. But the truth is, we have their carefully created martyr myth surrounded ... in Gaza, Palestine.
"Now," I continued, "before you tell me about the Arab street, like some Los Angeles Times commentator, think for a moment about Gaza. It has become Hamastan. In Gaza, Hamas has no Lebanese government to creep beneath and confuse the issue of borders. In fact, Gaza has borders, which are sealable by Egypt and Israel. The photos of Hamas gunmen executing Fatah security men in the street (from mid-2007) sharply define the Palestinian Hamas-Fatah civil war. That split and those photos limit the propaganda blast from the usual anti-American and anti-Israeli sources who, I suspect, will scream their mantra as the siege of Gaza proceeds.
"And yes, that siege is an attack on Iran and Hezbollah, for in Gaza the martyrs become responsible for jobs, sewers, garbage and potholes. Suicide bombs and rockets fired at Israel don't provide jobs or fix sewers. If Fatah is smart, it will make sure the BBC and Fox record every moment of Gaza's decay. The ultimate impotence of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah -- the endgame of their bravado and belligerence -- will be on display. It's actually Khomeinist Iran in miniature, potholes swallowing the martyrs' revolution."
"You are sure this is an attack on Iran?"
"On nearly 30 years of Iranian policy."
"But what if the Israelis and Egyptians do not sustain this siege?"
"Then Iran gets over, and we lose, and your justified fears are confirmed. Hamas hates Egypt's government, however, and Iran says it will nuke Israel. Here's the weakness in this attack. The weak card, the wild card is, Fatah. It has to fix the potholes in the West Bank instead of stealing aid money. The coup de grace is a revitalized Palestinian West Bank versus Gaza's dead zone and Iranian-inspired hopelessness."
"This might work over time, but not in the short run. We are vulnerable in the short run."
"Yes," I agreed, sadly, "the short run is a risk."
- Al-Qaida's Emerging Defeat
Resolution 1546 was officially passed on June 8, 2004. If you're a wire-service editor, eight months is an eon -- but if you're trying to politically reinvent Mesopotamia, it's a millisecond. The January 2005 Iraqi election succeeded, giving terrorists and tyrants a disturbing "purple finger" -- the very public ink stains marking the fingers of Iraqi voters.
That election was an incremental success, but one of many. This week's publicized call for a more "normalized" U.S.-Iraq relationship is another indication that the incremental successes are accumulating. Every increment can become a decrement, but war is a dynamic process -- and from a historical perspective the dynamic direction in Iraq has favored the United States -- in other words, the big trend suggests an emerging success.
I know, that runs counter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's April 2007 declaration that the United States "lost" in Iraq, but it was Reid's choice to make himself a sad historical footnote.
This emerging success required lots of money and unfortunately involved lots of blood. I had another document on my Baghdad desk, Musab al-Zarqawi's February 2004 letter to al-Qaida's leaders, in which he lamented al-Qaida's looming defeat.
He also desc