Is the Navy Smaller Today Than in 1917? Does It Matter?

On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney criticized President Obama's foreign policy by citing that the Navy is the smallest it has been since 1916.

If you watched Monday's debate, you saw Mr. Romney raise the point again. The president, with no lack of snark, suggested that such comparisons are inaccurate. The Navy may be smaller, but by replacing battleships with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines it remains the strongest navy on the planet.

Who's right? They both are, although Mr. Obama's claim is more relevant (snark notwithstanding).

A pair of infographics at Popular Science illustrate the problem. The US Navy in 2012 is indeed smaller, with fifty fewer active ships than 1917. On the other hand, we have eleven active carrier strike groups--equal to 50% of the total world deployment. Just one of those carrier strike groups could sink the entire US Navy in 1917, and probably any other navy it went up against: British, German, Japanese or otherwise.

Amphibious assault craft: USS Bataan
Photo courtesy: Wikipedia

In other words, it's not the number of ships in your navy, it's what you can do with them.

However, that the president is right about the power of the modern navy doesn't mean that his challenger is wrong about the overall message. Mr. Romney's point is that the Navy should be bigger than it is now in order to meet the unseen threats beyond our current time horizon.

Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have overseen a transition from a navy that contained the Soviet Union to one more geared towards shoreline conflict and amphibious assault (in support of humanitarian missions and the War on Terror). Romney, on the other hand, argues that this is short-sighted, and that we rebuilding the Navy to deter a future great power war.

What do you think?

Major Terror Attacks 1991-2011

Here's a bit of a preview of Monday's class. Posted below are three charts I designed based on data from the High Casualty Terrorist Bombings (HCTB) data set compiled and hosted by the Center for Systemic Peace.

The HCTB data set is a record of bombing attacks on civilian and political (non-combat) targets that result in fifteen deaths or more. The record runs from March 1991 through March 2012.

Using their data, I demonstrate the increasing rate of terror attacks and deaths from said attacks. The first chart below aggregates the data by year: annual deaths in red (left axis), annual attacks in blue (right axis). Note the spike in 2001 and the peak in 2007.

Click images to enlarge. More charts after the jump.

Distribution of Power and the UN Security Council

Charts from Wednesday's Class. Click to enlarge. Data are from the Correlates of War Project's Composite Index of National Capabilities data set (version 3.02).

Argo

You may already be aware of the recently released film, Argo, that takes place during the Islamic Revolution and the Iran Hostage Crisis. It debuted to widespread critical acclaim and is playing locally.

In Argo, Ben Affleck plays a CIA operative who launches an undercover operation to extract American consular officials who evaded the student demonstrators that occupied the US Embassy in Tehran.

The story is largely true, although the usual caveats of poetic license apply. Considering our recent class discussion of the Islamic Revolution, as well as the recent attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the episode is pertinent to both course matter and current events.

Whether or not you intend to see the picture, you might be interested in this article from Wired Magazine that provides a well-written account of the CIA role the operation.

The primary flaw in the article seems to be the same as in the movie: it minimizes the role of Canadian officials who were so instrumental in the safe return of the Americans. That is intentional, however. Whereas journalists blew the cover off the Canadian operation almost immediately--somewhat obviating the novelty of the caper--the CIA documents remained classified for years.

This is the story about which we didn't already know.

If you've seen the movie or would otherwise like to discuss the caper, feel free to share in the comments.

Research Paper Groups

Group 1: The Sino-Soviet-American Triangle
James Fletcher
David Klemperer
Mariafiore Miniussi
Andrew Wallis

Group 2: American Interventionism
Sophia Anderson
Chloe Bootstaylor
Mary Catherine Cadden
Lucy Gregor

Group 3: Demographics and Popular Upheavel
Alexandria Cornwall
Sarah Baumann
Will Gietema

Group 4: The Post-Communist World
Amber Baade
Maria Barnett
Chloe Bryan

Group 5: Nuclear Proliferation
Aaron Banks
Morgan Smathers
Macon Wilson

Group 6: Genocide
Clayton Christian
Kristal Skrmetta
Lizzie Williams

Group 7: Partitioned States
Collin Beach
Andy Chen
Jacky Ullemeyer

Group 8: Political Islam and Related Issues
Rhiannon Mancinelli
Cameron McGarrah
Margit Mikkelsen

Review Questions and Vocabulary for 9/28 - 10/8

The Middle East (9/28 - 10/5)

Vocabulary

• Indivisible Issues

Questions

• What kept the US and USSR from fighting over the Middle East?
• What roles did the US and USSR play in Israel, Egypt and Iran during the Cold War?
• Is US involvement in the Middle East an example of offshore balancing or a hegemonic strategy leading to imperial overstretch?
• (Not discussed in class) What leads some ethnicities or nationalities to fight one another, when others can live together in relative peace?

Vietnam (10/8)

Vocabulary

• Winning Hearts and Minds
• Asymmetrical Warfare
• Guerilla Warfare
• People’s War
• Limited Warfare

Questions

• When did the US first get involved in Vietnam?
• How did the US get involved in Vietnam and why?
• Why was “winning hearts and minds” so important?
• Whom did the US initially put in charge of South Vietnam, and what kind of regime did he impose?
• What’s the difference between the Vietminh and the Vietcong?
• What factors can keep a more powerful actor from defeating a far less powerful one?
• What does it mean to fight a “limited war?” What exactly are you limiting?
• Why were the North Vietnamese so much more resolute than the Americans?
• Why, if LBJ had such doubts about US involvement in Vietnam, did he escalate instead of pulling out?
• What sorts of miscalculations did the US commit in regards to Vietnam?
• What was the aftermath of the US experience in Vietnam?

Will the Arab Spring Come to Jordan?

Jordan's King Abdullah II

Under pressure from domestic Islamists, Jordan's King Abdullah II is offering concessions to devolve power to the parliament and the people. The Muslim Brotherhood says it's not enough.

The party list system favors larger coalitions with an ideological agenda such as the Islamists, while the district-based system tends to return tribal pro-government candidates who muster local support from their particular clan and relatives.

But the Brotherhood and others say...that the elections will result in an ineffective parliament filled with palace loyalists.

This is yet another example of the type of bottom-up pressures that Middle Eastern leaders have faced since the deposition of Shah Pahlavi and, more recently and appropriate to the Arab context, since the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

The question is, will the reforms lead to any substantive change, and will that change look more like Egypt's revolution or Tunisia's?