Maritime Rant

In geopolitical terms, the average person usually cannot grasp the complexities of conflict and the factors which often lead to a larger conflict. As a result, the larger and titled conflicts – the American Revolutionary War/American War of Independence, the Civil War, the First World War, the Second World War, etc. – have their origins reduced to simplified causality: the need for independence, slavery, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand/the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and so on…

 I, like others, have said it time and time again: nothing is ever simple, and the simple events and justifications are way more complex than comfortable. This is what history is – the understanding of a huge web of cause and effect which never has the convenient bookends of a solid start point and which truly never ends.

A few days ago, I came across this observation:

Lately, far too many people with no understanding of warfare, logistics, public relations, politics during conflict, and quite possibly barely enough brainpower to not choke on their own spit have been gleefully opining about the use of drones, bombers, artillery, even thermobaric weapons on resistance fighters in a hypothetical (but entirely possible) civil conflict.

HistoryInc, (@T00ManyCommies), “Battle of Waxhaws, also known as Buford’s Massacre,” X, Dec 23, 2023 https://x.com/T00ManyCommies/status/1738561221249405155?s=20

This paired nicely with a discussion I was having with Dave on the challenges faced with the proposed US-lead maritime security coalition “Operation Prosperity Guardian” – an effort to stem the maritime attacks on maritime shipping transiting the Red Sea into and from the northern Indian Ocean. To keep the flow of this post going, the larger article can be found at here as it may be extremely relevant for future reference. In the meantime… what does this mean to me… to us… to future readers?

Almost four years ago, I pondered the nagging “This means something” when I drafted “Meanwhile, in the South China Sea.” Then, as now, my curiosity about what is often mentioned in the news but never seems to be explored beyond the immediate relevance finds me going down way too many rabbit holes. As such, I came across this imagery not too long ago:

North Gaven Reef 10° 9’31.53″N 114° 3’19.12″E

Appropriately, my first thought tonight when I looked up what was the best guesstimate of one point equidistant from the three locations I mentioned in that post was once again from “Big Trouble in Little China” – the most resigned exclamation of the entire movie:

“Oh, my God, no. Please. What is that? Don’t tell me.”

I have no idea what it is and more of a guess as to what it isn’t based upon obvious observations: it isn’t an airfield, it isn’t a port, and it more than likely isn’t a substantial telecommunications node.

And that is the problem: if it is not, then what is it, and why does the location imply significance?

[Resigned shrug]

I could not accurately speculate, and, given how I often regard such speculations by those who might know with a bit of discomfort from years of OPSEC being preached (pre-social media days), even if I did know, this is the absolute last place such discussions would take place. For a better understanding of my stance, I discussed this back on 23Mar18 and 7Feb22…

Shipbuilding/repair, naval warfare, and sea lines of communication (SLOC).

Let me bring you back to the quote at the beginning of this post to begin the “Barney-style” breakdown:

…[F]ar too many people with no understanding of warfare, logistics, public relations, politics during conflict…

Warfare IS the combination of logistics, public relations, and politics.

Logistics – the issue I (and many others) have with this word is that it is often grossly overlooked by those who push for the most asinine solutions which require the most violence, expends the most capital (in both resources and lives), and can quite possibly extend a conflict into inhumane timelines as waffling over the appropriate levels of force are politically expedient… all while the logistics trains strain and begin to buckle.

Simply put, you need logistics to gain more logistical capacity, but without exceeding the existing logistical lines.

Public Relations – in any conflict, as long as the cause is just and accepted by the populace of the nation waging war, the conflict continues on with a goal in mind – whether or defeat the enemy or gain territory/resources. However, as we have painfully seen several times in my own lifetime, when the public’s opinion of a conflict begins to waver into the “unpopular/unsubstantiated” end of the PR spectrum, the cascading events are often predictable: promises to end participation in the conflict at the cost of the initial rationale/goals for commencement… which leads to desperation to gain legitimacy… which begets poor tactical decisions… which erode any strategic foundations…

Again, to simplify, you need PR to support the logistics in pretty much every aspect – from the production and/or sourcing of arms, munitions, fuel, food, and water, to the transportation of said materials.

Take a look at a globe – look at the distances between the North Gaven Reef, the coast of the Chinese mainland, the Gulf of Aden… and then look at the distance between these points and the nearest facility capable of repairing a damaged guided missile destroyer (hint: recent examples in 2017 and 2018 are interesting but lead to unwritten extrapolations…)

Relevance.

History, contemporary geopolitical discussions, and speculations on what this all might mean in the future will be ongoing as well as a source of fascination and frustration for those who want to understand as well as those who understand but cannot effect meaningful change.

The first step in any case is to look at a globe – digital or physical – to understand the implications not directly made: why distance matters, what will be disrupted, and – most importantly – how those vulnerabilities may and will be leveraged by declared and indirect opponents.

The second step…? Understand who is telling you what: who is using cautionary rhetoric, who is making appeasement sounds (and understand how well appeasement has worked when SLOCs are in question), who is delivering ultimatums, and who is quietly waiting in the wings to see which way the wind blows.

Beyond that, I cannot reduce this to the “Vicious Optimists’ 10-step Plan for Understanding Complex Relationships.” Pay attention, look at your immediate needs and potential areas of contribution, and buckle up – this will get interesting.