Comments on: The New Maritime Strategy: Responses to Today’s (Oct 24) Reactions http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/25/the-new-maritime-strategy-responses-to-todays-oct-24-reactions Looking for clues at the scene of the crime Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:55:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: ‘A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’ Two Years Later: Three Questions | Steeljaw Scribe http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/25/the-new-maritime-strategy-responses-to-todays-oct-24-reactions/comment-page-1#comment-4504 ‘A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’ Two Years Later: Three Questions | Steeljaw Scribe Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:50:09 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/25/the-new-maritime-strategy-responses-to-todays-oct-24-reactions/#comment-4504 [...] devoted considerable column inch space to various aspects (and in some cases, opened our pages to direct response   from the lead author of the strategy) of the [...] [...] devoted considerable column inch space to various aspects (and in some cases, opened our pages to direct response   from the lead author of the strategy) of the [...]

]]> By: Galrahn http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/25/the-new-maritime-strategy-responses-to-todays-oct-24-reactions/comment-page-1#comment-652 Galrahn Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:00:16 +0000 http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/10/25/the-new-maritime-strategy-responses-to-todays-oct-24-reactions/#comment-652 I don't disagree with the American people being pragmatic or innovative, in fact I specifically said innovative. I'm not sure I buy that this strategy reflects a pragmatic approach combined with an innovative approach though. It is pragmatic in that it addresses the causes and effects of wars large and small, and sets a coarse in prevention of them but only by dealing with the causes other than human competition (humanitarian). I do not agree the Navy doesn't have a role in contributing to addressing the roots of energy demand, the Navy already trains the vast majority of the nations nuclear experts. Additionally, none of the approaches are innovative, even the new discussion on soft power is only acknowledgment of what the Navy has already been doing. It may be in the classified doc, but the unclassified version is searches for innovation in approaches and methods, it doesn't define a single innovative purpose or process. I'd argue the Navy should have taken a pragmatic approach based in innovation in the strategy, and I predict that someone like Bob Work named above is going to produce an alternative strategy concept in the next 12 months that illustrates my point. My case is flawed, I give the impression more ships is a requirement for extending superiority, but I don't think more ships has to be. The historical presidence for our position today in the Royal Navy after 1815, and they reduced ships while extending their superiority. I don't see the new MS building on the lessons of history in its approach to the new strategy. Either way, as you can tell, I'm just being critical at this point, we have what we have and now its time to look for best approaches to implement, I thank you very much for your insights over the last week. I don’t disagree with the American people being pragmatic or innovative, in fact I specifically said innovative.

I’m not sure I buy that this strategy reflects a pragmatic approach combined with an innovative approach though. It is pragmatic in that it addresses the causes and effects of wars large and small, and sets a coarse in prevention of them but only by dealing with the causes other than human competition (humanitarian). I do not agree the Navy doesn’t have a role in contributing to addressing the roots of energy demand, the Navy already trains the vast majority of the nations nuclear experts.

Additionally, none of the approaches are innovative, even the new discussion on soft power is only acknowledgment of what the Navy has already been doing. It may be in the classified doc, but the unclassified version is searches for innovation in approaches and methods, it doesn’t define a single innovative purpose or process.

I’d argue the Navy should have taken a pragmatic approach based in innovation in the strategy, and I predict that someone like Bob Work named above is going to produce an alternative strategy concept in the next 12 months that illustrates my point.

My case is flawed, I give the impression more ships is a requirement for extending superiority, but I don’t think more ships has to be. The historical presidence for our position today in the Royal Navy after 1815, and they reduced ships while extending their superiority. I don’t see the new MS building on the lessons of history in its approach to the new strategy.

Either way, as you can tell, I’m just being critical at this point, we have what we have and now its time to look for best approaches to implement, I thank you very much for your insights over the last week.

]]>