George Friedman, founder and chairman of geopolitical analysis engine Stratfor, recently wrote an article entitled “The Limitations and Necessity of Naval Power.” In it, he explains a bit of the obvious that current operations are soaking up resources towards land based operations. So what is the current and future role of a nation’s navy?
He uses an example of a naval blockade against
2. Blockades always involve the interdiction of vessels operated by third countries -- countries that might not appreciate being interdicted. The potential repercussions of interdicting merchant vessels belonging to powers that did not accept the blockade was a price the
He goes on to explain the arguments for reducing a naval force structure saying that the tactical response of navies remains a reality mainly in the littorals. But eventually he goes on to say that navies are strategic and therefore are needed to keep the sea lanes open.
Is this a flaw in naval strategic thinking? Is it good enough to suggest continued naval force structure enhancements because of threats down the road? What Friedman fails to do is answer the funding question. Geopoliticians very rarely talk money, but conceptualizing world order steadfastly remains a fantasy without addressing the budget question.
“Whatever happens in
One of the dangers of wars like those in