Robbin Laird, Author at Second Line of Defense

The Way Ahead for the USCG: The Perspective of Admiral Paul Zukunft, Commandant of the USCG

Posted on December 16, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/16/2016

2016-12-16 By Robbin Laird

The last time I met with Admiral Zukunft was when he was working at the USCG headquarters in California and responsible for USCG Pacific operations. Later he would become Commander, Coast Guard Pacific Area as well.

We had a chance to discuss his perspective on the way ahead for the USCG in his office in Washington DC on November 30, 2016.

Obviously, the election of a new President and the formation of a new Administration will provide a new context for the USCG and its evolving role, but the emphasis which President-elect Trump has put on border security and defense and the decision to appoint General Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security could well provide an expanded context for the USCG.

The USCG plays a crucial role in Western Hemisphere security and defense and certainly General Kelly saw on a regular basis the crucial role the USCG has played in the region and shaping extended security and defense for US borders.

For Admiral Zukunft, the USCG’s role in Western Hemisphere security and defense has been significant, specifically as other DOD and security assets have deployed to the Middle East and the Pacific to deal with other global issues.

The USCG today is quite different from 20 years ago as it operates now within an intelligence and operational web which provides a very different approach to deploying assets up against threats.

According To Admiral Zukunft:

“A key requirement for mission success is leveraging intelligence.

“We work intelligence across our agencies and internationally.

“This is crucial to provide risk informed decision-making.

A Coast Guard Cutter Stratton boarding team member inspects the bridge of a self-propelled semi-submersible interdicted in international waters off the coast of Central America, July 19, 2015. The Stratton’s crew recovered more than six tons of cocaine from the 40-foot vessel. (Coast Guard photo courtesy of Petty Officer 2nd Class LaNola Stone)

“We have constrained resources and we need to prioritize threats across the spectrum of operations.

“For example, in dealing with the afloat drug traffic we focus on the transit zones and work our ability to find choke points on the water and ashore to deal with the drug threat.

“We work with a number of key governments in the Western Hemisphere to shape more effective intervention.

“If you look at DOD’s statement of key priorities, they are not focused on the Western Hemisphere.

“We have the responsibility by default and design.

“And a key part of homeland security is the security of the conveyer belt of maritime trade, which translates to about $4.5 trillion per year, which flow through our waterways and ports.”

uscg_whem_2014

Question: Clearly the limitations on resources is a key challenge but your approach allows you to get maximum return on investment by targeting the resources. How would you highlight that challenge?

Admiral Zukunft: “It is a challenge.

“The Navy’s Perry-class frigates have gone away. On the best of days you have three Coast Guard ships in the Caribbean. That is your entire force to deal with threats in that region.

“We have 80% awareness on the best of days, and perhaps we can target 10% of that drug flow.”

Question: A key asset for recapitalization is your new offshore patrol boats.

Could you discuss their role?

Admiral Zukunft: “We have been struggling to get a program of record of the national security cutter across the finish line, and this is really the biggest acquisition for our service to provide the presence and enforcement assets which can provide for enhanced safety in security in our operations worldwide, but notably for extended border security for the United States.”

Question: The USCG has a much greater role in security than generally recognized because of your legal authorities.

Could you comment on this aspect of the USCG role?

Admiral Zukunft: “We operate not just on our own vessels but we have a presence on the vessels of the US Navy and other nations.

“We are the only entity that has authorities to do anything about the security threats which we are prosecuting at sea.

The Coast Guard Cutter Forward returns to homeport in Portsmouth, Va., Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, after a 45-day patrol in the Caribbean Sea in support of Operation Martillo. The law enforcement crews aboard the Forward teamed with crew members from the Coast Guard Cutter Confidence and an embarked aviation detachment from Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron to counter two illicit tracking interdictions leading to the seizure of more than $50 million in narcotics. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Walter Shinn)

“And we deal with a number of foreign governments in the Western Hemisphere who view the USCG as a key partner in shaping more effective Hemisphere security as well.

“When you lay a map of the world flat and you look at where the USCG has authority, it reaches right up to the territorial seas in the countries surrounding the US and, in many cases, inside the territorial seas.

“With the agreements we have now worldwide we do not have to wait till an anomaly in the manifest of cargo ship alerts us to a threat and simply have to wait till it shops up.

“We can intercept at sea and do a security check”

Question: With regard to the Arctic, there is an obvious need to ramp up US presence and the resources to provide for presence.

How do you view the way ahead?

Admiral Zukunft: “We clearly need a new icebreaker.

“We’ve written the operational requirement documents that make the icebreaker a floating command and control platform.

“We can put a skiff on it. It’s also an instrument to enforce sovereignty.

“Rather then ice hardened, you have actually an ice breaking capability up there as well.

“It is extremely hard to predict what that area’s going to look like in 20, 30 years but without a new icebreaker we will be observers more than participants in shaping Arctic safety and security.

“An independent High Latitude analysis confirmed that we need three and three – three heavy and three medium icebreakers.

“We have helped stand up an Arctic Coast Guard Forum based on the Pacific Coast Guard Forum model.

“This allows the key national stakeholders in Arctic safety and security to work together where possible to enhance safety and security in this dynamic region.

“We are looking to do a mass rescue exercise in 2017 around Iceland that will bring in Denmark and other NATO partners for a collective security effort.

“And to be clear, the USCG is the key sea service for the Arctic, the USN has in effect devolved Arctic security responsibilities to the USCG.”

cg_arctic_strategy

Question: It seems your focus on borders is on a broader rather than narrower concept?

Admiral Zukunft:”It is.

“Rather than having a goal line defense concept, we have a Offensive strategy.

“When I think of a border, it begins at the territorial seas of the Pacific and Caribbean nations, which we deal with.

“We have the ability to detect anomalies, we have authorities, and then when it comes down to the resources to be able to target that threat and meet it on an open playing field, rather then a goal line defense.

“You might call this a layered defense strategy, but I prefer to call it an offensive approach whereby the USCG can leverage its authorities as far removed from the goal line as possible and practicable.

“For example, I have discussed with the CNO the concept that we would create a permanent USCG presence in the South China Sea and related areas.

“This would allow us to expand our working relationship with Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan.

“We can spearhead work with allies on freedom of navigation exercises as well.”

Question: Clearly, you need more resources to expand presence, but the sustainability piece is often lost sight of.

What are your thoughts on the sustainment piece?

Admiral Zukunft: “There is usually much less focus upon sustainability but there are serious shortfalls which need to be addressed.

“We see our role as providing a key contribution to national security in dealing with non-state actors, whether is the threat of piracy, transnational crime or drug dealing.

“The USCG provides unique authorities with titles 10 and 14 to provide for a unique instrument of security, particularly when one is looking at a more offensive approach to protecting our borders.”

Question: Clearly, more platforms accompanied with better ISR and C2 is a key requirement moving forward, but what about the potential for robotic vehicles?

Admiral Zukunft: “It would make sense for UUVs to be part of the USCG future, and we would start with the Arctic as a key area for such operations, to gain enhanced situational awareness in the region.”

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/PaulZukunft.pdf

Editor’s Note: A harbinger of things to come is suggested by this October 10, 2014 news note from the National Defense University.

“On Tuesday 7 October, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and United States Southern Command (US SOUTHCOM) presented “A Conversation on Emerging Challenges in the Western Hemisphere” in Lincoln Auditorium at National Defense University. The event featured a rare discussion between two four-star leaders; Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, USCG, and General John F. Kelley, Commander, US SOUTHCOM, both of whom highlighted the importance of the inter-agency approach to Western Hemisphere challenges.

Both leaders possess broad career experience coordinating across government. General Kelly comes to United States Southern Command from his previous position as the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense from March 2011 to October 2012. In 2010, Admiral Zukunft served as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon Spill of National Significance where he directed more than 47,000 responders, 6,500 vessels and 120 aircraft during the largest oil spill in U.S. history.”

And with regard to new USCG icebreakers, the official position is laid out here:

https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/icebreaker/

The Coast Guard requires at least two new heavy icebreakers to ensure continued access to both polar regions and support the country’s economic, commercial, maritime and national security needs.

The operational polar icebreaking fleet currently includes one 399-foot heavy icebreaker (Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star, commissioned in 1976) and one 420-foot medium icebreaker (Coast Guard Cutter Healy, commissioned in 2000). These cutters are designed for open-water icebreaking and feature reinforced hulls and specially angled bows.

Polar Star underwent a three-year reactivation and returned to operations in late 2013. Since then, Polar Star has completed three Operation Deep Freeze deployments to resupply McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The Coast Guard expects Polar Star to remain in service through approximately 2020 to 2023.

The Coast Guard also has a second heavy icebreaker, Coast Guard Cutter Polar Sea, which was placed in commissioned, inactive status by the service in 2011. The Coast Guard is evaluating options to reactivate the ship, parts from which were used to reactivate Polar Star.

Antarctica--USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10) Polar Icebreaker. U.S. COAST GUARD PHOTO — Antarctica–USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10) Polar Icebreaker. U.S. COAST GUARD PHOTO

Why this program?

The United States has vital national interests in the polar regions. Polar icebreakers enable the U.S. to maintain defense readiness in the Arctic and Antarctic regions; enforce treaties and other laws needed to safeguard both industry and the environment; provide ports, waterways and coastal security; and provide logistical support – including vessel escort – to facilitate the movement of goods and personnel necessary to support scientific research, commerce, national security activities and maritime safety.

The Coast Guard will need a minimum of two new heavy icebreakers to ensure national year-round access to the polar regions and to provide some self-rescue capability.

How is the Coast Guard addressing the need for more polar icebreaking capability?

The Coast Guard is in the Analyze/Select phase of acquiring a new polar icebreaker, which involves evaluating acquisition approaches and assessing the merits of each approach.

The service’s polar icebreaker acquisition program settled operational requirements informed by 11 interagency stakeholders in January 2016, published the requirements in an industry data package, and in March 2016 held an industry day attended by more than 90 organizations.

Future industry engagement, including solicitation of commentary on a draft request for proposal, is projected as specifications develop and the program progresses.

The service intends to begin production activities in 2020 under an accelerated acquisition timeline.

The PRC’s “Great Wall of Sand:” Remembering Tarawa Atoll

Posted on December 15, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/15/2016

2016-12-15 By Ed Timperlake

When reading a recent article on the Chinese illegal build out on islands in the Pacific, I was struck with what the images reminded me of from history.

In an article on “China’s New Spratly Island Defenses,” published by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, several digital globe photos were provided highlighting the build out and its physical characteristics.

One of these photos was of Mischief Reef.

Mischief_markup

This photo is a dead ringer for the Japanese and the Tarawa Atoll.

atoll

The Battle of Tarawa was the first American offensive in the critical central Pacific region.

It was also the first time in the war that the United States faced serious Japanese opposition to an amphibious landing.^[5]

Previous landings had met little or no initial resistance,^[6]^{[N 1]} but this time the 4,500 Japanese defenders were well-supplied and well-prepared, and they fought almost to the last man, exacting a heavy toll on the United States Marine Corps.

The U.S. had suffered similar casualties in other campaigns, for example over the six months of the Guadalcanal Campaign, but in this case the losses were incurred within the space of 76 hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa

More than 1,000 U.S. troops were killed in action and some 2,000 were wounded in only three days of fighting at Tarawa.

Word of the heavy casualties soon reached the U.S. and the public was stunned by the number of American lives lost in taking the tiny island.

However, according to “The Pacific War” by John Costello, U.S. commanders learned important lessons from the Battle of Tarawa that would be applied to future atoll wars, including the need for better reconnaissance, more precise and sustained pre-landing bombardment, additional amphibious landing vehicles and improved equipment: Among other advancements, better-waterproofed radios would be developed.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-tarawa

History in the rear view mirror can be applied to the future as well.

It is important to take the PRC offensive seriously.

Reconsidering Air Force One: Seeking a 21st Century Solution

Posted on December 11, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/11/2016

2016-12-11 By Danny Lam

President Trump stunned the aerospace community by calling for the cancellation of Boeing’s program to replace Air Force One with a new pair of modified 747-800s, citing its $4 billion cost. Experts familiar with the program note the cost is not out of line given the requirements and specifications.

However, the concern is always with cost growth, which caused President Obama to “re-initiate” or effectively cancel and rebid the Marine One replacement fleet program after costs doubled.

Thus, the precedent is there for rebooting wayward programs and scrapping partly built airframes when cost estimates exceeded $13 billion with $3 billion spent.

With any defense / national security oriented procurement, the largest element of costs are “baked in” when requirements are initially specified; and second, added to or modified as “bright ideas” for new features, capabilities, or oversights keep coming. Long lifecycles for designs, few units produced, and the requirement to stockpile scarce parts and spares for the project life of 30 or more years add up to high costs.

Civilian acquisitions tend to focus on, “must fix” oversights or errors in designs. Fixes are prioritized to those affect safety, regulatory compliance, usability and costs as it affect liability and warranty claims, then cost reduction ideas. Comparatively short product life cycles also enable issues to be “caught” in the next iteration.

Most commercial products are not required by law to provide parts or support for products beyond the statutory maximum. All this add up to a civilian industrial dynamic that over time, have outpaced the defense / military space, resulting in the anomaly of civilian Android or iPhones that refresh on a 2 year cycle that far exceed the capabilities of most military equivalents procured at many times the cost.

With this perspective, how might the Air Force One Replacement Program be “rebooted”?

First issue to question is whether the requirements from the 1980s are still appropriate today. 1980s era specifications called for 3 or more engines, and featured facilities for travelling journalists, staff, and conference rooms, totaling 100 persons, in addition to the mandatory features of command and control systems, medical facilities, and defense systems.

P-8 in Truman Exercise

The need to accommodate a large travelling press pool is a quaint throwback to the pre-internet era of media dominated by a few large national broadcasters and a handful of papers of record. A large press pool that is traveling with the President and his entourage adds little of value except to give the President and his officials the opportunity to give “candid” in flight interviews. But it adds to the burden of being self-sufficient in food, and other hotel facilities.

This is at the cost of making logistics much more complex, and imposing size requirements on Air Force One that takes away from its primary mission of providing a secure, safe, comfortable transport and enabling the US executive branch of government to function: commanding and controlling US Forces from anywhere in the event of war or disaster.

Likewise, it is an open question as to what is the appropriate number of staff required on Air Force One. Is there is room to shrink the list by methods and means common in industry such as cross training Presidential staffers? Or for the crew, cross training them to (e.g.) eliminate the need for dedicated medical personnel and secret service agents? What about taking ideas common in the RV industry such as fold-away beds, convertible conference rooms, etc.? Or less elaborate galleys?

Shrinking the headcount capacity and size requirement would in turn, allow smaller aircraft to be considered for Air Force One candidates in a new competition.

Should a new competition be run on this basis, it is conceivable that there are at least two viable candidates:

An artist rendering shows the first image of a new Northrop Grumman Corp long-range bomber B21 in this image released on February 26, 2016. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Handout via Reuters

A Boeing 737 variant that is presently used in three major military versions (C-40 Clipper, 737 AEW&C, and P-8 Poseidon) that will have most of the features required in Air Force One with a smaller footprint. Features like in-flight refueling, secure communications (at a more rudimentary level), countermeasures and some degree of hardening (which can be augmented) already exist.

By mixing and matching from these three variants, it is conceivable that relatively little non-recurring engineering costs are required to get many of the features required by Air Force One.

Whatever developed for the “airborne White House” will be broadly usable / applicable to the whole fleet. Because the 737 will be a common platform with many more units in service that the 747-800, parts and maintenance logistics will also be simplified going forward.

Alternatively, another option could be to study whether Air Force One’s core missions are better served by a radical departure toward a far more safe and secure aircraft that is more likely to survive as a “command post in the sky” during a nuclear war.

The B-21 Raider presently in development may be limited in capacity and ability to offer creature comforts to POTUS and staff given its tight interior space.

But it is a front line, state-of-the-art combat aircraft with nuclear EMP resistance standard, and its stealthy features will make targeting it more challenging.

A B-21 based Air Force One can be operated in pairs, splitting some of the travel staff into the second craft and have them networked with a MADL like secure link.

The “pair” can in turn be accompanied (if required) by another heavily armed B-21 with extensive defensive equipment on board to protect the fleet.

Air Force One based on the Boeing 747 was a symbol of American power for the 20^th Century.

With the proliferation of threats against large civilian airliner based platforms, perhaps it is time to ask fundamental questions as to how best to protect core capabilities for the “flying White House”.

The Air Force One Replacement program is still in its early stages with only $170 million for design awarded so far. There is no better time to take a second look at the program and see if there are better ideas going forward.

Tanker 2.0: The A330 MRTT Evolving as a Global Fleet

Posted on December 6, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/06/2016

2016-11-29 By Robbin Laird

The Airbus tanker is the only advanced tanker in operations and has been so for several years.

Airbus Defence and Space has sold tankers to a number of countries and has done so in what one might call national or serial sales.

Getting the tanker sold, and out in the operational space is shaping a baseline reality.

But with significant operational experience under their belt and with the focal point of Middle East operations, cross-cutting experiences are shaping the way ahead among the nations.

A baseline has been created from which what one might call Tanker 2.0 is emerging.

Tanker 2.0 can be understood in a couple of ways.

The first way is the coalescing of experience to shape a global fleet perspective whereby common experiences and con-ops shape the way ahead for the development of the tanker as well as providing an opportunity for global support.

The 330 Tanker program is not there yet, but with the experience of the nations under their belts and with the forcing function of operating in common in the Middle East, a baseline has been created which clearly can allow for this evolution.

In this phase of Tanker 2.0 the user groups can evolve in their importance.

There will soon be a user group meeting in Madrid. The evolution of the role of the user group was described by one Airbus Defence and Space official as moving in the early days from a brief BY the company to the users to the emergence of genuine interaction AMONG the users to dialogue with the company about the way ahead for tanker modernization and ways to shape a global fleet approach.

The second way would focus on how and paths to upgrade the tanker as a combat asset in the extended battlespace.

Because the plane carries the fuel for tanking in the wings, the internal space of the tanker, which currently is used for passengers or cargo, can be modified in various ways to be much wider combat support asset in the extended battlespace.

There is clearly thinking under way, notably in Australia, about how to take the tanker to this next step from being an MRTT in terms of combining lift and tanking functions to becoming a much wider combat support asset in terms of ISR, and C2 functions.

Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft maintenance crew prepare to launch the jet at dusk, commencing another mission refuelling Coalition aircraft over Iraq. Credit: Australian MOD, 11/24/14

After my recent visit to the Albacete Air Base in Spain, I visited the Airbus Defence and Space facility in Madrid, namely the Getafe facility. I had a chance to discuss the baseline and the way ahead with the head of the tanker program, namely, Antonio Caramazana.

I first met Antonio Caramazana at an Airbus Defence and Space (then Airbus Military) Trade Media brief for the media in 2010. That briefing which he gave only six years ago shows how far the tanker has come in only six years.

https://sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the-a330-mrtt-2010/

We started by getting an update on the status of the tanker and discussing the baseline.

We then went on to discuss the evolution of the aircraft from a platform to a fleet, with the inherent opportunities to shape a global fleet solution.

Question: Certa 2016, what is the current status of sales and operational experience of your tanker?

Antonio Caramazana: We have delivered 28 tankers to date.

We have delivered 14 to the UK; 5 to Australia; 6 to Saudi Arabia and 3 to the UAE.

These aircraft already integrated into operations.

The fleet is operating and is demonstrating its value added.

And all are operating in the Middle East, which has provided a significant opportunity for the users to gain joint knowledge about the tanker and its capabilities.

They are even doing combined operations in a number of cases.

Question: You have sold the aircraft to several customers, but rather than just serial sales, you are seeing cross learning?

Antonio Caramazana: That is true.

For example, in the case of the clearance of receivers of fuel from the aircraft, the traditional approach would see a case by case national approach.

But there a particular national user is doing clearances, which provide certifications for other national users.

This is a culture shift for the air forces, which is provided by having a common aircraft, which is recognized as such by the air forces.

In effect, we are already seeing a global fleet which broaden the impact of the tanker.

For example, U.S. aircraft are being tanked by the various national tanker due to certification being done by specific nations which then allow the U.S. to tank into other national tankers.

Question: The next phase, which I will call Tanker 2.0, is to shape deliberately a global fleet. What are some of the key building blocks in your view to going down this path?

Antonio Caramazana: We are developing a A330 MRTT advanced which is designed to deliver a common aircraft, with common upgrade paths and solutions.

This will allow nations to get better value for money for their modernization investments.

Common configurations will be better for operations, and upgrades.

It will as well enhance common solutions to training, to parts supplies and to maintenance.

This is a way ahead for what you are calling Tanker 2.0.

This provides for culture change for both the militaries and industry to shape such a global solution.

The more users that buy into a common solution, costs can be contained with regard to upgrades, training and maintenance.

It will also allow tankers from one nation to fly to an area of interest and potentially leverage the support structure of a nation operating the tanker in that region of interest.

And the life cycle costs for such a global fleet will be lowered as well.

Our user groups are discussing paths to upgrades, more effective maintenance approaches, and other ways ahead to shape global solutions.

This is the advantage of already having several years of operations behind us as well as an aircraft with significant room for expansion of onboard systems as well.

Question: But Tanker 2.0 provides for another way ahead, namely to expand the contribution of the tanker to other combat assets in the battlespace.

How would you describe this way ahead?

Antonio Caramazana: From the inception of the A330MRTT, we have put into the market a very flexible asset with multiple capabilities.

You can combine passenger lift, cargo lift and tanking within the same platform, and countries like Australia or operating their C-17s with their tankers in very flexible ways in terms of cargo and passenger lift operating over both platforms while the tanking function allows both to go to the area of interest.

At the same time, with the evolution of militaries look to shape enhanced connectivity in the battlespace, a key way ahead is to rethink how the tanker can support other combat sets in terms of ISR and C2 functions.

This is work in progress, but given the flexibility of the tanker in terms of internal space, there are many possibilities for users.

This is about having a smart tanker able to link assets in the battlespace, air, ground or sea.

It can provide an ISR and C2 node function for the joint force in the battlespace. It is an information age aircraft as well as playing more classical role of a tanker.

Both slideshows highlight the Aussie KC-30A.

The first shows the aircraft during the recent Pitch Black Exercise in Australia.

The second shows the aircraft in Europe this summer for the air shows.

Credit for the photos goes to the Australian Ministry of Defence.

To Whom Do Western “China Experts” Owe Their Allegiance?

Posted on December 6, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

2016-12-06 By Danny Lam

President Elect Trump’s 10 minute phone call with President Tsai of Taiwan was a watershed event that marked the great divide between the Kissinger-Nixon era of foreign policy toward China and the Trump era.

At the beginning of the Kissinger-Nixon era, the US was faced with a heavily armed Soviet Union allied with a nuclear armed PRC with what appeared to be unlimited manpower.

Detaching the PRC from the Soviet orbit fundamentally altered Soviet calculations and accelerated their decline was a prize.

Today, the problem is reversed.

The US and allies are faced with a heavily armed, well financed Communist Chinese regime and a weak, non-communist Russia with little to fall back on except nuclear weapons.

Normalization of relations with the PRC was accomplished through the issuance of three communiques in 1972, 1979, and 1982 that defined the relationship. In those documents, the PRC and US explicitly acknowledged their differences. “There are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies.” (para 8, 1972) and made clear that the differences are only papered over temporarily for the sake of peace.

Temporarily is the operative word.

President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan's first woman President. — President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s first woman President.

Detaching PRC from China required more than just diplomacy.

Michael Pillsbury, beginning 1975, initiated relationships with the PRC’s military and intelligence establishment that ultimately resulted in the transfer and sale of torpedoes, helicopters, and fighter upgrades that impressed the PLA of the superiority of the US. During the Sino-Vietnam war, the Carter Administration authorized the transfer of artillery locating radar to the PLA bogged down by determined Vietnamese resistance.

This strengthened Deng Xiaoping’s hand and enabled him to carry out the “opening” reforms that also saw his rivals in the PLA eliminated that enabled the Deng reforms.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union that steadily progressed from 1987, it appeared that it is a matter of time before the tide reached Beijing given the rampant inflation and mismanagement of the economy.

All these efforts came to an abrupt halt as a result of Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The PLA playing a highly visible role in suppressing the uprising resulted in the downgrading of these nascent ties and an arms embargo imposed on PRC by the US and allies that lasted to this day.

As a result of this, it turned the Beijing regime’s military inwards and increasingly hostile to the US.

What was missed by Western analysts and “China Experts” that focused intensely on Beijing is that Tiananmen was not a uniform problem throughout China. Most of the relatively prosperous southern coastal Chinese provinces did not play more than a token part in the opposition to Beijing.

The economic and social forces that resulted in university students in Beijing being mobilized in opposition to the regime were either not present or weak in these areas. Likewise, there was little sign of the kind of unrest in the periphery of the Eastern Bloc that presaged the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The southern coastal provinces were doing quite well in the post-Deng “opening” and content to pay off Beijing to leave them alone.

The way it was always done.

It is fair to say that the US and Allies enacted a post-Tiananmen policy that was flawed from the start by uncritically and gullibly assuming that what they saw in Beijing represented all of China.

The consequence of being misled by events and dynamics in Beijing was dramatic. The formal ties to the PRC regime were strained by Tiananmen, but the commercial ties to the southern provinces continued to prosper uninterrupted. WTO accession negotiations continued and PRC won accession in November, 2001.

Within two decades, southern China became the economic dynamo that made it possible for the Beijing regime to command the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, preside over a dynamic economy second only to the US, and more importantly, fund one of the largest, fastest, and sweeping arms buildup in history.

Western “China Experts”, however, continue to hang onto the Beijing centric view of China in interpretation of the motives, intention, interests and behavior of different parts of China.

This divergence is clearly visible during the past week with the THAAD and Trump-Tsai call issue.

The Beijing based regime and the PLA/N’s Northern and Central Theater commands behavior toward the South Korean and Japanese THAAD behavior is suggestive that this cluster has a Nuclear First Strike Policy and Posture aimed at US and Allied military bases in the Northeast Asian region.

This is evident in their willingness to undertake highly provocative and threatening moves like simultaneously testing 10 DF-21 ballistic missiles prior to the Trump-Tsai call.

On the other hand, PRC’s Taiwan policy has traditionally been driven by the Shanghai clique, who was initially muted and then slow to respond to the Trump-Tsai call.

When the Beijing Regime did respond over the weekend, it was almost perfunctory with obligatory denunciations in People’s Daily and Global Times, but nothing concrete.

This is consistent with the Shanghai clique being far more invested in access to the world market and exposed to trade and economic sanctions being proposed by President Elect Trump.

The disconnect is shown by no mention or concern by the PRC Foreign Ministry with the highly provocative and threatening move last week and an explicit threat to US forces published in Xinhua that stated: “The missiles “can destroy U.S. Asia-Pacific bases at any time” while officially protesting the Trump-Tsai call.

Nor discussion of the campaign against South Korean economic interests.

Aggregating PRC regime behavior into “China” cannot explain these differences in observed behavior within the space of one week on two issues that are so closely and tightly tied to national security and longstanding norms: The US adherence to the “One China” policy being breached, and the PRC explicitly demonstrating a credible nuclear first strike capability at US installations.

“China Experts” had to deal with cognitive dissonance that perhaps, it is not a coherent policy coming out of Beijing after all.

The Priesthood of Western “China Experts” who are quick to denounce President Elect Trump’s call to President Tsai and, accused him of “not very well prepared”, ignorant, incompetence, rash, apparently failed to recognize that the move was long planned, intentionally provocative, and indicative of a substantial change in China policy — largely frozen since Kissinger-Nixon.

The fact that not a single western “China Expert” that publicly critiqued President Elect Trump’s call with President Tsai even mentioned the PRC’s ballistic missile test as provocation and threats to US the same week raises serious questions as to whom they owe their allegiance to? Beijing or America?

The alternative explanation that western “China Experts” were ignorant about the provocation shown on Chinese television and issued in a Xinhua statement, is even more damming.

The Trump Administration began the task of understanding China as a vast civilization of many ethnicities, nationalities, cultures, languages, economic, social and political divisions whose differences are no less dramatic than Europe, or Eurasia or Africa or the Indian subcontinent.

The “provocation” this week exposed Beijing, the master franchisor of the PRC brand, and their collaborators for what they really are.

This is a great beginning to forging a new set of foreign policies toward the Chinese civilization.

By tangibly and visibly supporting longtime allies like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan as Beijing ramps up their campaign against them can provide a solid way forward.

Cyber Security and Defense: It’s the Hardware Stupid!

Posted on December 6, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

2016-12-06 By Michael W. Wynne

Summary

When the large scale computers became the rage of the space race, Univac, then Sperry Univac, and Burroughs reigned large on the scene.

Within these companies there almost always was contention as they wrung out ‘bugs’ in the system.

Hardware designers blamed the software engineers; and just as vociferously, the software engineers ‘knew’ in their hearts they were done in by the hardware.

This was the stand-off and the concept of general purpose fast became separated from design specific allowing software design to flourish and blossom into its present state.

Today, even for many application specific integrated circuits, there remains a general purpose involvement to make it easier to alter.

With the growth of interconnectivity, that has morphed into the internet. This has allowed distant upgrades; to processes and manuals, and a convenience that our world has gotten comfortable with.

It is time to re-examine this issue.

Because this very convenience has allowed the implantation of malicious activity, and now threatens the inner support system for society, the question needs to be raised.

This is because, below the applications that are elegant, below the operating systems that allow for the rapid reset of the memory and executables; below even the bit code that continues to underpin the ‘V’ of computational machines, sits the hardware — a derivative of the Turing Computing Machine; a proven flawed basis of support.

Proven time and again to be vulnerable to external resets, it is time to raise the inevitable question, to which the answer is: ‘IT IS THE HARDWARE, STUPID!’

Fixing flawed hardware with software, should have been discarded decades ago.

Why we are still at it, is difficult to discuss in polite company.

Current Situation

Pearl Harbor Day; and yet here we go again, with lot’s of warning, but no innovation to protect America.

We truly need to go back to basics, and ask can this issue be fixed.

Is there a solution that even in its primal state can protect networks from distant hacking?

The answer is yes; restore the rules of systems engineering to understand the output for every input signal.

Construct complex analog circuitry that both mimic and replace currently installed Turing based internet appliances.

The second question would be: is there a pressing need to revert to this solution, (e.g; Analog) to protect society?

With the hue and cry about infrastructure vulnerability, and declarations about evil doers, bank losses, identity theft, invasion and ransacking of credit card databases, and now ransomware; there is but one answer there as well; and that is yes.

While our Nation spends billions in fruitless pursuit of a software fix for a hardware flaw, it has successfully launched the ‘I think you have a problem industry.’

I see this as paying Protection Money to the wrong gang, and we now know that with Ransomware, the Hacking Gang is seeking its payment over and above the Monitoring Gang.

It is time to place responsibility with an accountable agency to commence the difficult task of prioritizing what should be protected, and get on with providing academically proven solutions.

Resolving the great debate that raged in the 1950’s is not a viable way forward, but applying known fixes could be the answer.

In the words of the purported philosopher-Forrest Gump ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’.

After nearly a decade of spending money, now estimated at eighteen billion dollars, researching software to fix a flaw in hardware, isn’t it time to recognize, ‘It is the Hardware, Stupid!’

That eighteen billion would be better spent converting the bit map and the operating systems to work with apps based on hardware that is uncompromising with regard to hacking.

This stops the flow of funds to both the Corporate Patching Community and the Hacking Community, and allows that spend to go to growth opportunities.

Now it is a drag on our economy, and on others around the world.

If our Nation sets a goal to retain as much of the convenience that the present compromised internet contains, our innovators will do just that.

Do we wait for our society to endure an oft forecaseted digital Pearl Harbor?

That is not how the Nation should be protected.

Looking Forward or Avoiding a Digital Pearl Harbor

What then do we need to do?

We need to search through Academic and Governmental research to determine available approaches to correcting the Hardware flaw they have known about since 1934, right after Turing Computing Machines were invented.

With a modest amount of research one can identify providers that never changed from Analog Appliances in the face of the herd mentality that ‘Moore’s Law’ and other advances have produced.

In fact ‘Moore’s Law’ also benefited the Analog Internet Appliances, with its ability to pack more and more capability into a smaller and smaller device, costing far less than predecessors.

Right now, with all of the ‘followers’, we need a thought leader in Government (DHS or DoD) or in Academia (NIST?) to certify the protective capability that the complex frozen analog appliance offers.

To be able to testify, if you will, that using frozen (e.g.; non reprogrammable) complex analog circuitry mimicking and replacing currently installed internet appliances satisfies the pent up desire for a corrective action against hacking; for designed in Cyber Security and Defense.

This would provide the way forward for our industry when the liability gets large, and the insurance companies raise their rates and demand action.

Protecting our society, whether water pumps, Gas Lines, or the electrical grid could fall to being regulated by the Department of Homeland Security to actually get protected.

Infrastructure Owners can be realistically tasked to put in place protected SCADA Systems, with motivation and support from the Department of Homeland Security, which can design and approve frozen analog complex circuitry, which would then replace the currently installed Internet appliance.

Security teams from the agency who routinely monitor security procedures for these assets, can as well advise of security concerns from the internet facing appliances.

Once this breakthrough is underway Internet Service Providers, router designers, and server designers can then look to provide needed support to agencies and public corporations to protect them as vital economic assets.

This could be the new American innovation, where hardware innovation brings our society and the world’s back from a predicted Armageddon Brink.

What better gift to celebrate Pearl Harbor day than to say, we learned to see the signs.

We learned to overcome the biases and got on with it.

We learned to change the outcome of the predicted future, and overcome our collective inaction.

Let’s say it together-‘IT IS THE HARDWARE, STUPID!’ and get on with the fix we are looking for.

The Marines Onboard the USS America: The Remaking of the Amphibious Strike Force

Posted on December 5, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/05/2016

2016-12-04 By Todd Miller

“We’d always say ‘if its really a bad air to air (A2A) threat, get some additional jets up there, get some more capability.’

I have no pause or hesitation that this jet will dominate in an A2A environment, would dominate in a strike environment, dominate in a CAS environment, and would also do a very nice job in an electronic warfare realm as well.”

F-35Bs from USMC VX-23, VMFA-211 & VMX-1 line the deck of the USS America (LHA-6) during integrated USN/USMC "proof of concept" exercise November 19, 2016. — F-35Bs from USMC VX-23, VMFA-211 & VMX-1 line the deck of the USS America (LHA-6) during integrated USN/USMC “proof of concept” exercise November 19, 2016.

Marines. At their mention I suspect most think, “storming the beaches.” Amphibious vehicles first in, troops storm ashore. That capability still exists, but today there is a far greater capability, one that will provide a vexing challenge for any adversary.

Already transformed by the mobility of the Osprey, the F-35B offers a critical upgrade to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and amphibious assault. The first wave is no longer limited to the beach or uncontested space, it can effectively reach locations 450 miles from the shipborne base – even in contested airspace.

What once came ashore like a wave, now comes as lightning strikes in a violent storm.

Marines on the beach, Marines from behind, and Marines within the adversary’s territory. Marines striking swiftly with maximum effect to deal with high value targets, including terror cells – all with the stand alone capability to do so.

This is the “Aerial Amphibious Assault” Force, and these are the Marines of the 21^st century battlespace.

It is a capability the US Marine Corps (USMC) has patiently and steadfastly build towards, and the pieces are coming together;

Integration with the US Navy LHA Class Amphibious Assault Carrier – The USS America & USS Tripoli (under construction). The LHA class offers enhanced dedicated support for Marine aviation assets.
MV-22B Osprey. The Osprey offers extended range and speed for troop insertion, as well as air to air refueling support.
Existing Attack Helicopters (UH-1Y Venom & AH-1Z Viper).
F-35B Lightning II. The F-35B replaces the AV-8B, F/A-18 Hornet & EA-6B Prowler. The aircraft offers exceptional performance Air to Air (A2A), Air to Ground (A2G), Close Air Support (CAS), Electronic Warfare (EW), Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) all with the capability to operate stealthily within contested areas.
CH-53K “King Stallion” When introduced (2019) the CH-53K will provide nearly 3x the heavy lift capability of the CH-53E.

The USS America (LHA-6) a maritime base, provides unrivaled flexibility.

Park it where you want in international waters. Forward deploy it to a region for any contingency, and a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is at the ready. The LHA platform is ideal for military operations involving troop insertion, (anti-terrorism activities) where the objective is to infiltrate, accomplish the mission and leave no boots behind on the ground.

The LHA offers the flexibility to adjust mix from heavy jet (F-35B) to heavy tiltrotor (MV-22B) or rotor wing. Utilizing the MV-22B and the F-35B, the USMC can effectively insert troops 450 miles from the ship in under 2 hours.

The platform offers the flexibility to work together with additional amphibious assault carriers (LHD) when amphibious vehicles are desired, as well as with the support of the USN Supercarrier.

Not a replacement for either, the LHA provides flexibility for the military to tailor a force most suitable for the mission at hand.

Second Line of Defense and a handful of gathered journalists recently had the opportunity to visit with Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation, and Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer of VMX-1 (Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron).

The visit took place after DT-III, during a “Proof of Concept” demonstration on the USS America, November 18-20, 2016.

General Davis, can you describe the tactical implications of the USS America with F-35B, MV-22B & other Marine aviation assets?

The MV-22 is an incredible platform, it can go a long way at a high rate of speed, it can receive air refueling, and it can be configured to provide air refueling.

It can move Marines, and (configured) it can pass fuel to other MV-22’s or F-35s. That is a tremendous capability for the Marines and the Naval services.

These ships are designed for amphibious operations, MAGTF operations with the standard mix of Marine units that will go out (Marine Expeditionary Units – MEU), but occasionally we need to configure this to be jet heavy or helicopter heavy. In this case, this is a jet heavy deck. We could take up to 20 F-35Bs onboard, we put 12 on this time.

This is a 5^th Gen strike capability that the nation does not currently have from a sea base. It is a tremendous capability. We had Vice Admiral Rowden (Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden, Commander Naval Surface Forces) onboard today.

One of the things we did as part of this test was the AEGIS integration with the F-35B. That’s a big deal. That’s a big deal for our Nation, our Navy and our Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps is a force that fights across the range of the military operations, and this could be something that a combatant commander, or a fleet commander decides that we need to be able to do for a time.

Like we did during Operation Iraqi Freedom, where I think we had 4 decks loaded up with Harriers. We sailed over with helicopters on board and then flew Harriers in and flew off those ships because that was the best way for us to operate.

Practically speaking, what is the operational range from ship of the F-35B/MV-22B tandem?

Unrefueled you could do 450 miles, refueled, you could do more. MV-22s are an incredible platform for assault, delivering Marines or for getting Special Operations forces where they need to go. The F-35B is a very nice complement to get that MV-22 into a contested area.

If I was a bad guy I would hate the MV-22. If you hate the MV-22 you want to try and go after it, and the F-35 will create the conditions for the success of the MV-22.

It will sanitize a target area, go after target defenses, provide close air support for the assault force in the objective area and then help bring them back home, utilizing A2A, A2G, situational awareness and electronic warfare.

USMC Lt. General Jon "Dog" Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, aboard the USS America during the F-35B "Proof of Concept" demonstration, November 19, 2016. — USMC Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, aboard the USS America during the F-35B “Proof of Concept” demonstration, November 19, 2016.

We think we have a real winner in the combination of platforms out there, but it is not just about F-35Bs & MV-22s. We have attack helicopters, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, CH-53Es and soon we’ll have the CH-53Ks.

The most important part of all is the young marines that are supported by a ride in those aircraft and get supported by these weapons systems.

The F-35 weaves a lot of things together that we have not had in a long time. EW for our MEUs which we’ve never had before in this kind of capability; a very, very high end air defense and counter air capability; and an all-weather ground attack CAS system that allows us to provide CAS in virtually any environment out there.

We are very pleased with what we are seeing. And this is a beautiful new ship. It’s my first time on the America, and I am very impressed with the ship, and I am really impressed with the sailors, and their attitude. The Marines are beaming, and the sailors are also very happy.

We’re talking about deployments in 2018, would you feel confident if you had to deploy to a CENTCOM AOR Firebase?

I’d do it tomorrow. Tomorrow.

The squadron commander (CO) of VMFA-211 is chomping at the bit, he would deploy them, so would the CO of VMFA-121. They are ready. These airplanes are highly capable and ready to go.

We have a commitment to move to Japan with VMFA-121. As Marines we live up to our promises.

We have promised to take 5^th Gen capability to Japan, so we’re doing that. And we are going to do that in January.

We will deploy on timeline with these other capabilities unless something requires us to go sooner or faster. They are ready. They are ready. The Marine Corps is busy right now, so I’m not trying to put anything else on anybody’s plate, nor is anyone else.

But the nation has a 5^th Gen capability that can operate from a sea base, and could do it tomorrow if need be.

As you debate how to tackle a contested area, and operate in a multi-domain environment, and highly dispersed units, it sounds as if the F-35 are they key to that, how?

Absolutely.

We are operating on a sea base right now. This is a great platform to operate from. It makes the sea base more powerful, more potent.

However, we can also move to FOBs, continue to operate, then back to the ship. We have Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots out here watching this today, and that was their operational concept when I was an exchange officer with the RAF. Going from a main base to what we call distributed operations all over.

We have done that when in an A2/AD threat condition. That is a tremendous capability for the Marine Corps today.

We bought this airplane so that we could better support the troops on the ground. That means flying from whatever operating base is most advantageous from an operations perspective and threat perspective. It might be the sea base, it might be a base ashore.

The Marine Corp has units called the Marine Wing Support Squadrons (MWSS), they are the Marine Corps carriers ashore. We have the Carrier at sea, and then we have these units that create operating bases ashore.

We can move those around as need be to give us the extended reach and play if we don’t have a set base or a road to operate these airplanes. Wherever you have enough road to land a C-130J and offload jet fuel, you can put F-35Bs to go operate for a period of time.

We just did the hot rearm, hot refuel with the F-35Bs. We have been doing that with Harriers 12 years now, and we do it with F/A-18s. We did it at WTI for the F-35Bs. 2 F-35s came in and landed, we never shut them down, we refueled, reloaded them with ordinance and took off in less than 20 mins. That’s a significant capability.

We are not going to hot rearm on the ship during this exercise, but we are hot refueling. We are always looking for ways to make things go a little bit faster.

We did that in Afghanistan with our Harriers, for the Marjah operation. The Harriers took off out of Kandahar, got overhead Marjah, did their CAS.

We built a small FOB called FOB Dwyer with one of the MWSSs very close to Marjah. Once aircraft dropped their ordinance, they landed at FOB Dwyer, rearmed and refueled without shutting down and took off again in about 15 mins. We made 12 Harriers look like 36 Harriers.

Now we are doing it with the F-35s.

I understand the Marines are looking to accelerate full motion video capability. When & Why (I believe it is scheduled for Block 4.3)?

I do believe we found a way to bring it on faster than Block 4.3. It’s one of the things we use (actually we were one of the pioneers for streaming video out of our lightning pods) for our guys on the ground. Our forward air controllers (FACs) love using that.

I think they’ll also like the other capabilities of this airplane too like the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) map through the clouds. The full motion video does not provide that at all right now, it’s really streaming video (not full motion video). Bottom line, if the customer wants it, we try and provide it. I believe it may be implemented for Block 4.1 or 4.2.

Can we discuss the AEGIS integration & practical effects?

I wish I had my Navy counterpart here, Admiral Rowden was very excited about it. It was a Navy idea. Col. Rowell (Col. George “Sack” Rowell, VMX-1 Commanding Officer) will you address AEGIS integration?

Rowell; The first experience took place 2 months ago with the “AEGIS” at White Sands (Desert Ship). An F-35 targeted a cruise missile surrogate and provided the targeting data to the AEGIS platform. What AEGIS really brings is a weapons payload.

USMC Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer VMX-1 provides F-35B program status during "Proof of Concept" demonstration on USS America (LHA-6), November 18, 2016. — USMC Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer VMX-1 provides F-35B program status during “Proof of Concept” demonstration on USS America (LHA-6), November 18, 2016.

The General just talked about hot loading the aircraft with weapons. AEGIS cruisers bring a weapons payload, that just could not fit on an airplane.

We are talking about dozens and dozens of missiles. SM-6s that can be targeted by airborne platforms at a much greater distance than they could independently target.

Does this fit in with distributed lethality?

Absolutely. The F-35 digitally sent the targeting data through to the AEGIS using multi-function advanced datalink (MADL) and the AEGIS shot – and that was a live shoot, a live SM-6 came out of White Sands and destroyed the target.

Are there any other aircraft that can do that?

No, nothing else (using MADL) can do that. The Navy has AEGIS cruisers all over. We establish data links with local cruisers. DT-III did everything shy of shooting the missile, established the data link, passed the data, and validated the data.

Davis; The F-35 & AEGIS are a great Naval integration story, there is a lot of potential, a lot of excitement. Not a Harrier, or Hornet, this is a totally a new and different capability. The MV-22 was a disruptive technology and it changed our assumptions about how we are going to operate an assault platform from a sea base. It also changed drastically what we do ashore.

This jet will do that for us as well, and I am proud of the Marine Corps for being up front and leading this thing. And if you had enough real estate to put as many aircraft as possible on a ship like this, there are conditions and situations where you would want to do that.

I think its primary mode will be as an amphibious ship loaded with our typical MEU capability. But there are times we would want to load up like this (jet heavy).

This ship would normally carry 1500 Marines, with a surge capacity of 1800. Two battalion of Marines, Americas most potent weapon, the Marine Rifleman.

Can you discuss the big Picture deployment to Japan? How does tomorrows demo fit in with it?

We are investigating the right mix of assets on the ship to support the MEU. Is it 6 or 8 F-35Bs? We want a solid deployment, move out to Japan and establish normal operations as a 5^th Gen platform in the Pacific Region. We’ve been planning for this for a long time.

I want to send F-35s to Japan and have them operate as successfully as we do in Yuma, AZ & Beaufort, SC and extend this 5^th Gen capability for our forces in the Asia Pacific. I think its tailor made for that region.

It has an incredible capability, it’s got great sensors, great weapons, great radars, great agility, great flexibility, and its tailor made for a dynamic region like the Asia Pacific.

Our Harriers have a set amount of capability, and we’ve been deploying our MEUs with Harriers but the Harrier is not as combat capable as an F-35. I mean for the full range of military operations. We’d always say “if its really a bad air to air (A2A) threat, get some additional jets up there, get some more capability.”

We do a good job escorting our assault support platforms, with our attack helicopters. But our jets do helicopter escort as well and I think the F-35B is going to be one of those escort platforms that we are going to rely on for MV-22s, certainly for going into contested areas.

Can you provide an overview of the mission tomorrow, and the message it sends?

We are doing MV-22 escort with a six ship F-35B strike. Bottom line going into a contested environment, set the MV-22s down, deliver a notional group of Marines.

Airplanes are dedicated to the escort mission and strikes, some A2A and A2G. So we are practicing what we will perform for the MEU of the future.

With those final comments the interview came to an end, yet the picture was clear;

The integration of the F-35B with the MAGTF changes everything.

The Second Line of Defense wishes to thank Lt. General Jon “Dog” Davis, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation; USMC VMX-1 Commanding Officer, Col. George “Sack” Rowell and Sylvia Pierson, Brandi Schiff, JSF/JPO PA; Capt. Sarah Burns and 1^st Lt. Maida Zheng, USMC PAOs.

Shaping a Trump Policy Template

Posted on December 3, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

12/03/2016

2016-12-03 By Harald Malmgren

The election of Donald Trump as the next US President surprised most pollsters, political leaders in both major political parties, and the mainstream media. Broadly based political unrest seems to have materialized in the form of a populist revolt against Congress, the President, federal bureaucracy, lobbyists, and leadership of both Republican and Democrat parties.

Donald Trump believes he has achieved the Presidency without being bound by political promises and obligations to large financial supporters.

In other words, Trump will not feel limited by Republican Party orthodoxies, and will likely feel free to intervene in specific business interests and disputes when he sees that as effective.

World financial markets responded to Trump’s unexpected election by embarking on a surprisingly strong US stock market rally.

The market upturn was surprising in 3 respects: Just before the elections, some of the biggest fund managers publicly declared their expectations that stock markets were about to fall.

Instead, a strong, sustained upward breakout materialized.

Second, even though Trump had not presented a specific economic policy agenda, investors assumed that his aim would be to accelerate economic growth and that whatever measures he chose would likely be inflationary.

President Elect Trump delivering his victory speech at the New York Hilton, November 9, 2016.

Third, investors seemed to assume Congress under its emergent Republican majority in both House and Senate would join in unified implementation of whatever Trump proposes.

However, it is unlikely that wide differences among Republicans in Congress will vanish, and that strong Republican aversion to further growth in Federal debt will be easily overcome.

The post-election rally also overlooked the political reality that devising and approving new legislation on taxation, a healthcare substitute for Obamacare, trade, immigration, and regulatory deregulation necessarily would take many months.

It is inevitable that after the White House introduces draft legislation in any of these policy areas a deluge of interest groups would fall upon Washington in efforts to “revise”, neutralize, or nullify proposed legislative changes that would directly affect them.

Republicans in both the House and Senate are still strongly divided. In recent years party “teamwork” fell away and was replaced by aggressive rivalries of power and agendas for action. Previous Speaker of the House John Boehner was rendered powerless by repeated insurrections within his Republican majority. Ultimately this resulted in his resignation and retirement from Congress.

Current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is distrusted by some of the House Republicans, especially among the House Freedom Caucus. That caucus group only numbers around 40, but enough to halt procedural steps and force the leadership to seek votes among the opposition Democrats.

Ryan has been able to overcome serious party insurrections so far, and the emergence of a new Republican President will likely provide a few months of “honeymoon” cooperation.

Thus, for the next few months Republicans will likely work together in devising legislation.

However, Republican rivalries with each other and with the President will likely resume later in 2017 and definitely will be more disruptive in 2018 as the next round of Congressional elections gains momentum.

Many Republican politicians seem to be assuming that Trump will only seek one term as President, so jockeying for the Presidential nomination for the 2020 Presidential elections has already begun.

Near the end of November, Trump’s Treasury Secretary designate, Steven Mnuchin, began to discuss details about the taxation reforms that would be proposed by the new Administration. Among the proposals under consideration would be significant cuts in corporate rates of taxation, and cuts in personal income taxes for “the middle class.” The middle class was not defined.

Taxation of the wealthiest households would be altered by reducing various “deductions” such as home mortgage interest, in such a way that tax rate cuts would be offset by elimination of tax deductions, leaving the net effect of changes in taxation neutral.

This technical complexity immediately gave rise to an awakening of lobbying activities on behalf of various groups that might be adversely affected, such as mortgage providers and homebuilders.

Historically, major changes in taxation have always required major revisions to the US Tax Code, which entail thousands of pages of legislative changes. Typically, major tax legislation passed in one Session of Congress has in past years been followed by a second round of new legislation in the following Session of Congress, in the form of a “technical corrections bill.”

As virtually every interest group in the US is potentially affected by tax revisions, lobbying on behalf of all interest groups ranging from charities to corporations and financial institutions is directly involved. This requires each member of Congress to listen to a wide variety of interest groups and balance the different constituent interests one against another.

The process of drafting and approving major tax reform has often in past years taken 18 months. In other words, taxation changes might not be applicable to the US economy until 2018 or possibly 2019.

There would be little impact on the economy during the first half of 2017.

Legislation to cancel Obama’s healthcare insurance reforms might be passed early in the new Congress, but the effective date would likely be set at some future time when a new healthcare insurance program was ready to be proposed for Congressional action.

Trump might take some administrative or enforcement actions on immigration, but a change in immigration law would likely take months, not days.

Trump has already declared that he would not pursue TPP, and that he expected to begin placing greater emphasis on negotiating or renegotiating bilateral trade agreements. The President has authority to make such changes in US trade policy.

However, the President does not have authority to alter present US trade laws.

Article 1 of the Constitution specifically provides that Congress shall regulate foreign commerce. In other words, the President may engage negotiations with other countries. He cannot negotiate Treaties or other agreements that might require alterations in current trade laws without approval of enabling legislation by both House and Senate.

To alter US trade restrictions, the President must propose to Congress changes in US trade law, and only the Congress can then consider and approve or revise present trade law to adapt to Presidential proposals.

The President does not have unilateral authority to alter either access for or restrictions on US imports. There are exceptions for Presidential action in the event that he determines that antidumping action or countervailing duties are required to offset “unfair trade.”

In past years, Presidents have sometimes negotiated “voluntary” export restrictions implemented by other governments in order to relieve competitive stresses on US agricultural or industrial producers, but such voluntary agreements would not fall within the framework of US trade law.

Although Donald Trump has openly criticized past US trade agreements and promised to renegotiate some or all of them, he would need Congressional approval of changes in US laws that have already been made to accommodate past trade agreements.

In the case of the NAFTA agreements with Canada and Mexico, Trump has said he wanted them to be revised. The governments of both Canada and Mexico have already declared willingness to consider renegotiation, but of course they would also likely wish to make revisions of interest to their own economies.

Renegotiations would likely be a multi- year process, entailing revisions by Congress in current trade laws.

Trump has made clear his interest in scaling back Federal regulation of businesses, particularly small businesses and regulation of financial markets. Changes in labor market, environmental, and food safety regulations are likely under his Presidency.

Many regulations could be eliminated by Presidential action, but some would require changes in law, which Congress would have to enact.

President Obama also used Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda signed by him personally to provide authority for regulation and law enforcement changes. It is said that he used these Presidential authorities in thousands of cases.

President Trump could eliminate all or much of this accumulation of unilateral Obama Presidential orders or memoranda by simply cancelling them. This could result in dramatic rollback of environmental regulations, for example.

In other words, Trump clearly will set in motion a new approach and shape his own template for policies and governing.

But the interactivity between Trump and the Congress will shape new outcomes as the President shapes his approach and Congress adjusts to the new reality; and in turn, Congress and its divisions will shape the new realities in the wake of the election of President Trump.

It is in foreign policy where the President will have more freedom to put his stamp on policy from the outset, and he is already in the process of doing so, even before taking office.

If you wish to comment on this article, please see the following:

A Trump Presidency: Shaping a Way Ahead