Comments on: Maritime Strategy 2007: The Team Leader Speaks http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/21/maritime-strategy-2007-the-team-leader-speaks Looking for clues at the scene of the crime Thu, 10 May 2012 22:57:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: MR T's Haircut http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/21/maritime-strategy-2007-the-team-leader-speaks/comment-page-1#comment-597 MR T's Haircut Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:05:42 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/21/maritime-strategy-2007-the-author-speaks/#comment-597 Strategy, First of all, thanks for the energy and effort. I see the humor in your dilemma with being rerouted to work VADM Morgan's tasker. Death by PPT. Thank you for the insight into the development. I do know that you have an enormous amount of time invested in the strategy. I hope you will not take our resistance or questions as an offense against you or your comrades. Like my old Chief used to say, "If I didn't care, I wouldn't be bitching so passionately." I am displeased with the climate change points. I will address those in the other thread. I am also disappointed in the lack of specificity identifying a threat, or enemy. The MS86 was long on clear plain talk regarding the enemy threat. Calling the Soviets out by name. There was opportunity to do so with this new strategy yet that remained silent. No China, No Iran, No Syria, only nameless, faceless, "transnational actors". I am pleased with one point of the strategy however, and that is deterrence. The "Major Power War" deterrence mentioned in the document leads me to assume that when your teams were developing this strategy, it was realized that the value and theory of deterrence will only work against a "Major Power". The review of the 86 MS showed that the center piece of that strategy was no longer viable, that true deterrence against asymmetrical threats will no longer work. What is your opinion of the definition of "Major Power deterrence" and do you think the Navy Warfighting leadership recognizes that deterrence has little value against "terror networks" and "transnational actors"? (lastly did you guys shoot the guy that came up with the gauche Jack Bauer buzzwords?) r/ MTH Strategy,

First of all, thanks for the energy and effort. I see the humor in your dilemma with being rerouted to work VADM Morgan’s tasker. Death by PPT.
Thank you for the insight into the development. I do know that you have an enormous amount of time invested in the strategy. I hope you will not take our resistance or questions as an offense against you or your comrades. Like my old Chief used to say, “If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t be bitching so passionately.”

I am displeased with the climate change points. I will address those in the other thread. I am also disappointed in the lack of specificity identifying a threat, or enemy. The MS86 was long on clear plain talk regarding the enemy threat. Calling the Soviets out by name. There was opportunity to do so with this new strategy yet that remained silent. No China, No Iran, No Syria, only nameless, faceless, “transnational actors”.

I am pleased with one point of the strategy however, and that is deterrence. The “Major Power War” deterrence mentioned in the document leads me to assume that when your teams were developing this strategy, it was realized that the value and theory of deterrence will only work against a “Major Power”. The review of the 86 MS showed that the center piece of that strategy was no longer viable, that true deterrence against asymmetrical threats will no longer work. What is your opinion of the definition of “Major Power deterrence” and do you think the Navy Warfighting leadership recognizes that deterrence has little value against “terror networks” and “transnational actors”?

(lastly did you guys shoot the guy that came up with the gauche Jack Bauer buzzwords?)

r/
MTH

   0 likes

]]> By: MR T\\\'s Haircut http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/21/maritime-strategy-2007-the-team-leader-speaks/comment-page-1#comment-596 MR T\\\'s Haircut Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:43:43 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/21/maritime-strategy-2007-the-author-speaks/#comment-596 Strategy1, Thanks for peak up the dress. I am sure your investment in this was blood and sweat and tears. It is natural to defend your investment in time and energy, and I look forward to your insight into the thinking that made this the way ahead (Speaking for myself, the lack of clear definition of an enemy and plain talk in the document is dissappointing) I am encouraged by the "major power deterrence" piece. I take it that the wargamers figured out that deterrence only works on major powers with much to lose. The 86MS was centered on the deterrent theme. This is outdated and I am curious if your teams to this into account? MTH Strategy1,

Thanks for peak up the dress. I am sure your investment in this was blood and sweat and tears. It is natural to defend your investment in time and energy, and I look forward to your insight into the thinking that made this the way ahead (Speaking for myself, the lack of clear definition of an enemy and plain talk in the document is dissappointing)

I am encouraged by the “major power deterrence” piece. I take it that the wargamers figured out that deterrence only works on major powers with much to lose. The 86MS was centered on the deterrent theme. This is outdated and I am curious if your teams to this into account?

MTH

   0 likes

]]>