Jul 08 2010
RIMPAC- Foreign Policy Tool or Snoozer?
Every two years, the U.S. Navy hosts what it claims to be the largest multinational maritime exercise in the world. This years’ RIMPAC 2010 is a 32-ship and 14-nation soiree in the warm Hawaiian waters.
Themed, “Combined Agility, Synergy and Support,” RIMPAC includes ships and units from Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and the United States.
A reported 20,000 participants will play in gunnery, missile, anti-submarine, and air defense exercises, as well as maritime interdiction and vessel boardings (Arrrggghhh, mateys!) and more. There’s an amphibious exercise, the hottest ticket at these games (courtesy of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab-PAC), but more on that in another post.
Despite the size, locale and agenda, these games seem anything but exciting. Take away the French, and really, what’s left?
SNOOZEPAC is 38 days of too many visitors gorging themselves on foreign and U.S. naval delicacies. Air assets become personal taxis transporting their fares from vessel to vessel. (Maybe that’s how it got its rep as the world’s largest floating cocktail party.)
A Third Fleet official says the training provides opportunities these nations might not otherwise have. (Whose fault is that?) The gunnery range opportunities alone for the U.S. ships is said to be worth the price of admission. The helo-taxis would be flying anyway, so why not operate with other nations? Few get to land on Pacific Rim vessels. (Few may want to.)
In the end, RIMPAC may be more foreign policy tool than military mixer. It comes at a good time. The U.S could use some goodwill with Japan on the heels of the Okinawa controversy and F-22 refusals. Relations have been tense with our allies who are dying in wars their nations barely support.
Sure this is not a show on par with what Washington, D.C., normally offers, but it brings in a reported $43 million to the local economy. It may be SNOOZER of an exercise, but the 14 nations seem to think the training (or liberty) is hot and the locals are pleased with an infusion of cool cash.
Rumor update: Gen. Jim Mattis has canceled his trip to RIMPAC. Could CENTCOM be more than a dream?
A floating Cocktail Party? In the Navy? Why I’ve never … !
Ya know, what the heck. We’re in the record setting mode for deficit spending so why not shell out mega-change so that other countries can train their navies. We may or may not get anything out of it other tan a boodoggle, but te Navy can always use more of those, right?. Besides, it’s bringing in millions of $$$ to the local economy. Heck, there’s economic stimulous if you ask me. That’s the answer to the nation’s economic ills. If your community needs $$$ just get the Navy to hold an exercise in it.
Boom! Done! Next problem.
[...] Rim of the Pacific exercise, at which take-no-prisoners blogger Gina DiNicolo has leveled this broadside: Despite the size, locale and agenda, these games seem anything but exciting. Take away the French, [...]
“A floating Cocktail Party? In the Navy? Why I’ve never … !”
Certainly not in *our* US Navy since Josephus Daniels, as Secretary of the Navy “banned alcohol from United States Navy ships in General Order 99 of 1 June 1914. ” A ban that has stood until the present day.
Gina’s “floating Cocktail Party” refers to the joint exercise’s involvement of 13 *other* nation’s ships, many of whom follow the Brit Royal Navy’s practice. Although the RN’s grog ration has gone away, their sailors are allowed to drink aboard ship in their off duty hours (not free, as in grog ration days, but at typical military EM club prices). I’ve taken advantage of that on many a visit to a RN or Canadian ship docked nearby in the evenings when their mess deck, after dinner, has been turned into a slop chute (USMC for EM club) for the off-duty crew. As a mere enlisted snuffy, I can only envy the attraction of those ships’ wardrooms to visiting VIPs flying in during RIMPACs. Gina’s “floating Cocktail Party” characterization, I suspect, has more than a grain of truth in it.
Deponent remains silent on the other pros and cons of SNOOZEPAC raised by ArmyGuy.
[Josephus Daniels quote from his Wikipedia entry.]
Isn’t it preferable for the US to go it alone in its foreign and defence policies and not rely on tiresome allies? Isn’t that what the Bush doctrine was all about and aren’t all US military officers (retired and active) Republicans anyway? From this article it looks as though the answers to these questions are all in the affirmative.
So what’s your point? Yes, sometimes it is better to go it alone. Sometimes it is better to cut the tangled line. Sometimes it is better to drop the dead weight of “allies” who don’t pull their share of the load. Moreover, it would behoove the US to have the capability to “go it alone” lest they risk survival. History has shown us time and again that a country can’t afford to risk its security on the backs of allies. Bad move. One only has to look at Poland and Czechoslovakia during WWII for an example.
Your statement iregarding republican officers is w/o merit . I know plenty of democrats in the officer corps. Not sure where you get your info.
Mr. Gibson,
I cannot tell if you are kidding or serious. Your post has merit either way.
[...] key section of her post, up on the Military Officers Association of America blog, Inside the Headquarters: Despite the size, locale and agenda, these games seem anything but [...]
[...] building and joint operations.” After attending the event, she retitled the event “SNOOZEPAC” on her blog and proceeded to infer the meeting of the minds was little more than a gorgefest and floating [...]
[...] said that her blog post is her own point of view and be taken separately from her work as a PR contractor. Obviously, the [...]
[...] Here is the complete post. [...]
I find the value these commenters place on “jobs” intriguing. That the Warfighting Lab and I parted company is just how things go sometimes. I find this more an issue of control than hysteria over an accurate, albeit provocative, blog entry. I will tell you the lab says it was upset because it was a guest of the Navy’s “RIMPAC” exercise. I guess that is true on some level, but the Navy needs the Marine Corps for help in the relevance department.
Again, this is about control. How can the lab control what a contractor writes, especially if the work is accurate and penned off the clock? I don’t think we have an answer for that.
I was told by the head of public affairs for Quantico that the decision to get rid of me came from “many levels above the lab.” I was negotiating the H1 (in Honolulu) through traffic, so I did not ask a lot of questions. I don’t know what he meant, and it simply did not matter.
The RIMPAC entry was thought-provoking and somewhat complimentary. It was informative. These things happen between clients and contractors and can be quite liberating.