| SEA SERVICES PEOPLE, PLACES AND ISSUES |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
On 8 January, Vice Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information, Plans, and
Strategy, spoke at the Cornell Club of New York. The following is excerpted from Admiral Morgan’s remarks.
Things are fundamentally changing in the world. We, the United States and the world, are entering into a new era. There is an
economic era that is emerging. I think there are new rules that are emerging in the global order; there are new players on the
scene; there are new alliances being formed; there are new corridors and passages that are becoming very important. Just in
the past couple of months, for the first time in my naval career and I have been in the Navy 35 plus years now, the Northwest
Passage opened up. That cuts off about 5,000 miles between the Atlantic and the Pacific. So, I think there are a whole host of
things that are going on right now that are almost like strategic inflections. I think Webster would call an 'inflection' when the
curvature changes from going in convex to concave and vice versa.
One of my jobs as chief strategist for the Navy is to say: "Those types of things are happening, what does it mean for the
U.S. Navy?" One of the things we have done recently is to develop document A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century
Seapower. It is only 14 or 15 pages. What we did about a year and a half ago is we said: "If the prospect of those strategic
inflections are even close to being true, what is our contribution to the welfare of this country?"
We embarked on an effort which involved the gamble that we could get the heads of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the
Coast Guard to say: "Here is our maritime strategy for that changing world." This strategy document is a historic first. This is
the first time the heads of those three services all signed one document that says this is how we see the future.
We very much realized the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan now. We understood that the central focus of that now
is largely a ground-led effort but I can tell you that, in the United States Navy, we have more people ashore in the Persian Gulf
region than we have at sea. It is remarkable the contribution that Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel are making
in that region.
Despite the land-centered notion of that conflict, we decided that we had to go talk to the American public about why
maritime interests are still important. We embarked upon this program which we called a Conversation with the Country, where
we actually went around to different cities across the country and, not try to convince people, but try to have dialogues about
why our maritime interests are very important to us.
We have some facts on our side. Seventy percent of the Earth is water. The world's population is moving toward the
water so that 80 percent of the world's population now resides within two hundred miles of the coastline. They are moving
more and more to urban areas near coastlines. The final statistic is that 90 percent of the global GDP flows across the oceans
of the world. Ninety percent of the global engine that keeps this world going is coming across the sea.
I think one of the things that we are sensing is economic interdependency probably matters most to the world. In previous
centuries where ideology played a huge roles and imperialism played a big role, now what seems to be intertwined in this global
order is our economic interests. We have never seen this level of interdependency before. We have never seen the rise of such
economic powers as China and India. What we are saying we should be doing about that is: What is going to preserve that.
One of the things we discovered in a year of the Conversation with the Country is that the American public does not
understand what we do, they take us for granted. But I can tell you that if you go to the Exxon station down on Main Street
and Vine for your gas, that fuel came across the ocean. If you go to Walmart to pick up your whatever, it came probably from
China. We can tell you that if you disrupt that global supply chain by as much as a week, it takes you about a month to
recover. So, when you go to get the toilet paper at Walmart, it ain't there. The global supply chain has become so fragile.
That is why it is so important not to disrupt this.
So, we think that although attention may be on what is going on ashore in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you look beyond
tomorrow, then our global maritime interests are going to be as important tomorrow as they were at the founding of our
country. If you took the time to read the Constitution, you'd see more reference in the Constitution to maritime commerce than
any other topic. We knew how important the maritime interests were to our country. I believe that they are going to be equally
important in the future.
One of the things that this document calls for is the elevation of prevention. I have spent too much time in combat. I
understand the strength of our hard power. But one of the things that we have elevated in this document is the notion that we
need to prevent any disruption of the global system. We think it is in everyone's best interest that the global system that is
running right now, as much as those rules have changed, as much as there are new players, as much as there are new alliances,
as much as we have to depend upon others to a far greater extent than in the past, it is in everyone's best interests not to go for
your gun. It is in China's best interest not to be destructive, it is in Russia's best interest, in the United States' best interest, it is
in everyone's best interest.
How do we do that? How do we promote the prevention of global conflicts? One of the things that we argue is that while we
have the greatest respect for what the land forces do, naval forces are well-suited to limit and localize that conflict so it doesn't
spread to a global conflict.
We have called for new organizing principles for naval forces - - something we call the 1,000 Ship Navy. It is not
thousand ships flying an American flag. It is a greater degree of mutual cooperation. We are calling for the rejection of
unilateralism. The very title of this document is "A Cooperative Strategy for the 21st Century." We have rejected a primatist
approach to the future.
I can tell you largely from around the world, we are viewed as a primatist country. The argument is that over the course
of the last seven years, the foreign policy of this country has been largely a primatist policy - - my way or the highway, you are
with me or again me. It is good versus evil. This document is a cooperative strategy. That is different.
When you carefully read the espoused strategy of the United States, it is very balanced. I have read the National Security
Strategy, I have read the National Defense Strategy and have helped contribute to some of those documents. It is a very
balanced one. Still, the perception is that the United States has been embarked on this my way or the highway approach. This
document may not be controversial but it did have the courage to say that maybe the rules of the game are changing, maybe we
have to behave a little differently, maybe everybody should cooperate a little bit. That is what is different about this.
Alliances, we think they are shifting considerably. One of the key alliances that we are seeing now in naval terms is
the alliance with India. India had now become very proactive with the United States about procuring many of our weapons
systems, which was not the case 15 or 20 years ago.
Saudi Arabia [is] very concerned about Iranian expansion in the region and they are turning more and more to the United
States for greater alliance, particularly in naval matters.
We unveiled this document at an event called the International Seapower Symposium. We host this vent every other
year. Two years ago, we had about 55 or 60 countries attending. This past year, when we unveiled it, we had 100. We are
reaching out to small countries, large countries and saying lets talk about this stuff. Let's meet together in the largest gathering of
naval leaders in the history of the world. We are saying listen Peru, you have a small navy, but you can make a contribution,
you all can make a contribution.
This document was written for two audiences - - One the American public and the American Congress. We have said
here is our template for how we think we should go forward. Whether that is convincing to the American public and whether it
is convincing to America's political leadership, time will tell.
We need your help as a citizen. We need to be able to help to educate [the public] as to what is going on in the Navy
camp. We have to figure out what Americans want out of their Navy. But we also have a responsibility to tell Americans what
we need. Our challenge right now, yours and mine, is (1) we have to understand what Americans want from their maritime
forces and (2) we have to educate Americans on what they need.
The question for us today is: “Where do you want your Navy? Do you want it garrisoned in Norfolk Virginia and San
Diego, California or do you want it out and about in the world?" We are going to suggest that you want it out and about in the
world.
When you look at what China is doing, China today is very much improved in naval capabilities. China has the largest
submarine force in the world and it is growing. While the Chinese are very rapidly acquiring and building very capable
submarines, they also have under construction right now their own aircraft carrier. They are embarked upon [building] a very
diversified portfolio of naval capabilities.
We think there is a reason why China is emphasizing building a larger navy and settling for a smaller army. The Chinese
are embarked upon what we call in military terms an anti-access strategy. They want to become the dominant power in that
region and they want to prevent any access that we might try to get into the region. We know they have studied this doctrine
very carefully. I am not one that believes that the Chinese will rise to a position where conflict is inevitable between the United
States and China. We both know that it is not in the interest of either one to do that.
The Japanese are building their navy up. Just last month, a Japanese destroyer actually shot down a ballistic missile. We
are seeing the Japanese Maritime Self-defense force expand their capabilities. They are clearly worried about the rise of China
as the regional dominant power.
We see the Russians revitalizing their navy and reducing their army.
We see the same thing with India.
Why are people doing that? It is the opposite of what we are doing here in the United States. We are actually about to
build a bigger army and a bigger Marine Corps and a smaller Navy. Is that the right strategic bet to place? It does not sound
like it to me.
The European continent has enjoyed half a century of stability and prosperity. You don't even need a passport to go
between the different countries. It is remarkable what the Europeans have achieved. But along with that sense of security and
prosperity is a certain mentality so you are seeing defense spending across Europe dwindling down to about one percent of
GDP. That is exactly what is happening in Britain and at that level you can't afford ships, particularly at the level of technology
required these days.
[In the United States], we have been the beneficiary of great good luck or good fortune or good leadership or good
thinking or good genes, but some people will argue that we do have a responsibility. I think it would be unfortunate if we were
to follow the British lead. If maritime interests play such a huge role in our future as we think - - and every indicator is that they
will - - you can't recover if you have made a bad bet if you have let the US Navy drift into that.
We do not want to be the policeman of the world. But, I think we need to be part of the global neighborhood watch.
We need to be out and about. I don't think we need to be a fireman that stays in the firehouse until a fire breaks out. That is
not what navies are good for. The navies are good for trying to prevent things in the first place like we helped do during the
Cold War and if something does break out we can localize it so that it does not have a global impact.
[The actions of the Navy's aircraft carriers in recent years serve as a dramatic illustration of the value of the Navy.
Admiral Morgan recalled when he was in command of the USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) Battle Group returning from
deployment in the Persian Gulf on 11 September 2001. Initial reports were that the first airliner to crash into the World Trade
Center was the result of a "cyber attack" on the Federal Aviation Administration].
What struck me was what a clear day it was. For some reason, I did not focus on the burning tower. I focused on what
a bright, clear, pristine, new day it was. I thought to myself: "This isn't any damn cyber attack." And I watched the second
airplane go in. Then, I did something - - I don't know why I did it - - I turned to my chief of staff and I said: "The world has
just changed." I then turned to the phone on my desk and I called the captain of the aircraft carrier and I said: "I want you to
turn down route and I want you to best speed for the coast of Pakistan." I hung up the phone and I turned to my computer and
I guess the day before I had transferred off all my special forces, my Navy SEALs - - probably one of the most lethal weapons
we have in the Navy arsenal. So, I wrote this e-mail to my head SEAL. Forgive my language but I said "Donny, get your ass
back here and bring your guns," because I thought we were probably going to go into a fight. Then, on the evening of the
seventh of October, we actually led the first strikes in Afghanistan that started Operation Enduring Freedom. Every time I have
seen where the World Trade Center was, I know what hopefully we helped contribute to make sure that that damage does not
spread.
If on that night of October 7, 2001, ENTERPRISE had been 100 miles south of New Orleans, we could have run strikes
into Chicago. My pilots were in the cockpits for 11 and 12 hours continuously. The ability to project that kind of power in a
remote region - - and there is no coastline in Afghanistan - - is a remarkable capability that nobody else has.
Aircraft carriers also have a great deal of flexibility. It is remarkable how fast you can reconfigure aircraft carriers. Two
examples. We had another aircraft carrier, KITTY HAWK (CV 63), joining [ENTERPRISE in Operation Enduring
Freedom]. We said: "Leave your airplanes back, we are just going to put special forces on there." We were ready to do that
in less than three weeks.
In December 2004, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72) was getting ready to go to the Persian Gulf and was in port
in Hong Kong. The tsunami hit in Indonesia, we got all the airplanes off and moved ABRAHAM LINCOLN there to provide
humanitarian relief. There is a great deal of flexibility on large platforms.
[Beyond the big ships, the Navy is quietly doing things around the world to serve mankind and improve the image of the
United States]. We take our hospital ships, we sent them to Indonesia, we sent one down to South America, we sent one to
the Gulf of Guinea. We have doctors from Project Smile, Project Hope, these are NGO doctors, there are doctors from other
countries.
When we embarked upon this project, we made the argument that the proactive cost of defense is a lot more affordable
than the reactive cost of war. People said that the timing is absolutely wrong - - "Don't you know there is a Presidential
election coming up." We said: "We think the timing is perfect." We welcome the national debate.
We studied very carefully how messages sell. If I say Volvo, you think safety. You know how long it took Volvo to get
the equation so that when you say Volvo it equates with safety? It took them a decade. We don't think we are going to turn
this light on in John Q. Public's mind tomorrow. We think it is going to take a decade to get the public to look at this.
We are doing something different this year. We are demographically looking at the audience that we invite [to the
Conversation with the County forums] and we are making sure that it is far more diversified. W are going into major
universities. We have reached out to all those major energy companies, all the great shipping companies. We are now inviting
heads of women's businesses, women teachers, we are trying to diversify. We are really trying to reach out to women. What
we are trying to explore is how you build a greater sense of awareness.
Strategy, spoke at the Cornell Club of New York. The following is excerpted from Admiral Morgan’s remarks.
Things are fundamentally changing in the world. We, the United States and the world, are entering into a new era. There is an
economic era that is emerging. I think there are new rules that are emerging in the global order; there are new players on the
scene; there are new alliances being formed; there are new corridors and passages that are becoming very important. Just in
the past couple of months, for the first time in my naval career and I have been in the Navy 35 plus years now, the Northwest
Passage opened up. That cuts off about 5,000 miles between the Atlantic and the Pacific. So, I think there are a whole host of
things that are going on right now that are almost like strategic inflections. I think Webster would call an 'inflection' when the
curvature changes from going in convex to concave and vice versa.
One of my jobs as chief strategist for the Navy is to say: "Those types of things are happening, what does it mean for the
U.S. Navy?" One of the things we have done recently is to develop document A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century
Seapower. It is only 14 or 15 pages. What we did about a year and a half ago is we said: "If the prospect of those strategic
inflections are even close to being true, what is our contribution to the welfare of this country?"
We embarked on an effort which involved the gamble that we could get the heads of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the
Coast Guard to say: "Here is our maritime strategy for that changing world." This strategy document is a historic first. This is
the first time the heads of those three services all signed one document that says this is how we see the future.
We very much realized the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan now. We understood that the central focus of that now
is largely a ground-led effort but I can tell you that, in the United States Navy, we have more people ashore in the Persian Gulf
region than we have at sea. It is remarkable the contribution that Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel are making
in that region.
Despite the land-centered notion of that conflict, we decided that we had to go talk to the American public about why
maritime interests are still important. We embarked upon this program which we called a Conversation with the Country, where
we actually went around to different cities across the country and, not try to convince people, but try to have dialogues about
why our maritime interests are very important to us.
We have some facts on our side. Seventy percent of the Earth is water. The world's population is moving toward the
water so that 80 percent of the world's population now resides within two hundred miles of the coastline. They are moving
more and more to urban areas near coastlines. The final statistic is that 90 percent of the global GDP flows across the oceans
of the world. Ninety percent of the global engine that keeps this world going is coming across the sea.
I think one of the things that we are sensing is economic interdependency probably matters most to the world. In previous
centuries where ideology played a huge roles and imperialism played a big role, now what seems to be intertwined in this global
order is our economic interests. We have never seen this level of interdependency before. We have never seen the rise of such
economic powers as China and India. What we are saying we should be doing about that is: What is going to preserve that.
One of the things we discovered in a year of the Conversation with the Country is that the American public does not
understand what we do, they take us for granted. But I can tell you that if you go to the Exxon station down on Main Street
and Vine for your gas, that fuel came across the ocean. If you go to Walmart to pick up your whatever, it came probably from
China. We can tell you that if you disrupt that global supply chain by as much as a week, it takes you about a month to
recover. So, when you go to get the toilet paper at Walmart, it ain't there. The global supply chain has become so fragile.
That is why it is so important not to disrupt this.
So, we think that although attention may be on what is going on ashore in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you look beyond
tomorrow, then our global maritime interests are going to be as important tomorrow as they were at the founding of our
country. If you took the time to read the Constitution, you'd see more reference in the Constitution to maritime commerce than
any other topic. We knew how important the maritime interests were to our country. I believe that they are going to be equally
important in the future.
One of the things that this document calls for is the elevation of prevention. I have spent too much time in combat. I
understand the strength of our hard power. But one of the things that we have elevated in this document is the notion that we
need to prevent any disruption of the global system. We think it is in everyone's best interest that the global system that is
running right now, as much as those rules have changed, as much as there are new players, as much as there are new alliances,
as much as we have to depend upon others to a far greater extent than in the past, it is in everyone's best interests not to go for
your gun. It is in China's best interest not to be destructive, it is in Russia's best interest, in the United States' best interest, it is
in everyone's best interest.
How do we do that? How do we promote the prevention of global conflicts? One of the things that we argue is that while we
have the greatest respect for what the land forces do, naval forces are well-suited to limit and localize that conflict so it doesn't
spread to a global conflict.
We have called for new organizing principles for naval forces - - something we call the 1,000 Ship Navy. It is not
thousand ships flying an American flag. It is a greater degree of mutual cooperation. We are calling for the rejection of
unilateralism. The very title of this document is "A Cooperative Strategy for the 21st Century." We have rejected a primatist
approach to the future.
I can tell you largely from around the world, we are viewed as a primatist country. The argument is that over the course
of the last seven years, the foreign policy of this country has been largely a primatist policy - - my way or the highway, you are
with me or again me. It is good versus evil. This document is a cooperative strategy. That is different.
When you carefully read the espoused strategy of the United States, it is very balanced. I have read the National Security
Strategy, I have read the National Defense Strategy and have helped contribute to some of those documents. It is a very
balanced one. Still, the perception is that the United States has been embarked on this my way or the highway approach. This
document may not be controversial but it did have the courage to say that maybe the rules of the game are changing, maybe we
have to behave a little differently, maybe everybody should cooperate a little bit. That is what is different about this.
Alliances, we think they are shifting considerably. One of the key alliances that we are seeing now in naval terms is
the alliance with India. India had now become very proactive with the United States about procuring many of our weapons
systems, which was not the case 15 or 20 years ago.
Saudi Arabia [is] very concerned about Iranian expansion in the region and they are turning more and more to the United
States for greater alliance, particularly in naval matters.
We unveiled this document at an event called the International Seapower Symposium. We host this vent every other
year. Two years ago, we had about 55 or 60 countries attending. This past year, when we unveiled it, we had 100. We are
reaching out to small countries, large countries and saying lets talk about this stuff. Let's meet together in the largest gathering of
naval leaders in the history of the world. We are saying listen Peru, you have a small navy, but you can make a contribution,
you all can make a contribution.
This document was written for two audiences - - One the American public and the American Congress. We have said
here is our template for how we think we should go forward. Whether that is convincing to the American public and whether it
is convincing to America's political leadership, time will tell.
We need your help as a citizen. We need to be able to help to educate [the public] as to what is going on in the Navy
camp. We have to figure out what Americans want out of their Navy. But we also have a responsibility to tell Americans what
we need. Our challenge right now, yours and mine, is (1) we have to understand what Americans want from their maritime
forces and (2) we have to educate Americans on what they need.
The question for us today is: “Where do you want your Navy? Do you want it garrisoned in Norfolk Virginia and San
Diego, California or do you want it out and about in the world?" We are going to suggest that you want it out and about in the
world.
When you look at what China is doing, China today is very much improved in naval capabilities. China has the largest
submarine force in the world and it is growing. While the Chinese are very rapidly acquiring and building very capable
submarines, they also have under construction right now their own aircraft carrier. They are embarked upon [building] a very
diversified portfolio of naval capabilities.
We think there is a reason why China is emphasizing building a larger navy and settling for a smaller army. The Chinese
are embarked upon what we call in military terms an anti-access strategy. They want to become the dominant power in that
region and they want to prevent any access that we might try to get into the region. We know they have studied this doctrine
very carefully. I am not one that believes that the Chinese will rise to a position where conflict is inevitable between the United
States and China. We both know that it is not in the interest of either one to do that.
The Japanese are building their navy up. Just last month, a Japanese destroyer actually shot down a ballistic missile. We
are seeing the Japanese Maritime Self-defense force expand their capabilities. They are clearly worried about the rise of China
as the regional dominant power.
We see the Russians revitalizing their navy and reducing their army.
We see the same thing with India.
Why are people doing that? It is the opposite of what we are doing here in the United States. We are actually about to
build a bigger army and a bigger Marine Corps and a smaller Navy. Is that the right strategic bet to place? It does not sound
like it to me.
The European continent has enjoyed half a century of stability and prosperity. You don't even need a passport to go
between the different countries. It is remarkable what the Europeans have achieved. But along with that sense of security and
prosperity is a certain mentality so you are seeing defense spending across Europe dwindling down to about one percent of
GDP. That is exactly what is happening in Britain and at that level you can't afford ships, particularly at the level of technology
required these days.
[In the United States], we have been the beneficiary of great good luck or good fortune or good leadership or good
thinking or good genes, but some people will argue that we do have a responsibility. I think it would be unfortunate if we were
to follow the British lead. If maritime interests play such a huge role in our future as we think - - and every indicator is that they
will - - you can't recover if you have made a bad bet if you have let the US Navy drift into that.
We do not want to be the policeman of the world. But, I think we need to be part of the global neighborhood watch.
We need to be out and about. I don't think we need to be a fireman that stays in the firehouse until a fire breaks out. That is
not what navies are good for. The navies are good for trying to prevent things in the first place like we helped do during the
Cold War and if something does break out we can localize it so that it does not have a global impact.
[The actions of the Navy's aircraft carriers in recent years serve as a dramatic illustration of the value of the Navy.
Admiral Morgan recalled when he was in command of the USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) Battle Group returning from
deployment in the Persian Gulf on 11 September 2001. Initial reports were that the first airliner to crash into the World Trade
Center was the result of a "cyber attack" on the Federal Aviation Administration].
What struck me was what a clear day it was. For some reason, I did not focus on the burning tower. I focused on what
a bright, clear, pristine, new day it was. I thought to myself: "This isn't any damn cyber attack." And I watched the second
airplane go in. Then, I did something - - I don't know why I did it - - I turned to my chief of staff and I said: "The world has
just changed." I then turned to the phone on my desk and I called the captain of the aircraft carrier and I said: "I want you to
turn down route and I want you to best speed for the coast of Pakistan." I hung up the phone and I turned to my computer and
I guess the day before I had transferred off all my special forces, my Navy SEALs - - probably one of the most lethal weapons
we have in the Navy arsenal. So, I wrote this e-mail to my head SEAL. Forgive my language but I said "Donny, get your ass
back here and bring your guns," because I thought we were probably going to go into a fight. Then, on the evening of the
seventh of October, we actually led the first strikes in Afghanistan that started Operation Enduring Freedom. Every time I have
seen where the World Trade Center was, I know what hopefully we helped contribute to make sure that that damage does not
spread.
If on that night of October 7, 2001, ENTERPRISE had been 100 miles south of New Orleans, we could have run strikes
into Chicago. My pilots were in the cockpits for 11 and 12 hours continuously. The ability to project that kind of power in a
remote region - - and there is no coastline in Afghanistan - - is a remarkable capability that nobody else has.
Aircraft carriers also have a great deal of flexibility. It is remarkable how fast you can reconfigure aircraft carriers. Two
examples. We had another aircraft carrier, KITTY HAWK (CV 63), joining [ENTERPRISE in Operation Enduring
Freedom]. We said: "Leave your airplanes back, we are just going to put special forces on there." We were ready to do that
in less than three weeks.
In December 2004, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72) was getting ready to go to the Persian Gulf and was in port
in Hong Kong. The tsunami hit in Indonesia, we got all the airplanes off and moved ABRAHAM LINCOLN there to provide
humanitarian relief. There is a great deal of flexibility on large platforms.
[Beyond the big ships, the Navy is quietly doing things around the world to serve mankind and improve the image of the
United States]. We take our hospital ships, we sent them to Indonesia, we sent one down to South America, we sent one to
the Gulf of Guinea. We have doctors from Project Smile, Project Hope, these are NGO doctors, there are doctors from other
countries.
When we embarked upon this project, we made the argument that the proactive cost of defense is a lot more affordable
than the reactive cost of war. People said that the timing is absolutely wrong - - "Don't you know there is a Presidential
election coming up." We said: "We think the timing is perfect." We welcome the national debate.
We studied very carefully how messages sell. If I say Volvo, you think safety. You know how long it took Volvo to get
the equation so that when you say Volvo it equates with safety? It took them a decade. We don't think we are going to turn
this light on in John Q. Public's mind tomorrow. We think it is going to take a decade to get the public to look at this.
We are doing something different this year. We are demographically looking at the audience that we invite [to the
Conversation with the County forums] and we are making sure that it is far more diversified. W are going into major
universities. We have reached out to all those major energy companies, all the great shipping companies. We are now inviting
heads of women's businesses, women teachers, we are trying to diversify. We are really trying to reach out to women. What
we are trying to explore is how you build a greater sense of awareness.
A MARITIME STRATEGY
FOR A CHANGED WORLD
VICE ADMIRAL JOHN MORGAN, THE NAVY’S
CHIEF STRATEGIST, SPEAKS ABOUT THE
REASONS WHY THE UNIFORMED SEA
SERVICES HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW
MARITIME STRATEGY.
Edited by Richard H. Wagner
(Originally published by the Navy League of the United States,
New York Council in The Log, Winter 2007).
FOR A CHANGED WORLD
VICE ADMIRAL JOHN MORGAN, THE NAVY’S
CHIEF STRATEGIST, SPEAKS ABOUT THE
REASONS WHY THE UNIFORMED SEA
SERVICES HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW
MARITIME STRATEGY.
Edited by Richard H. Wagner
(Originally published by the Navy League of the United States,
New York Council in The Log, Winter 2007).
| Its all about ships and more |
