Read on Twitter
So I agree with @DerekJGrossman that pushing this idea forward in a Biden administration would affirm that the US is going to maintain an Indo-Pacific focus. That said, this idea feels like a huge shot in the dark. A thread: https://twitter.com/derekjgrossman/status/1328840835929042945
So, in no particular order - First: Our staffs and the staff level are already bloated. Adding another staff is a drain on manpower and resources.
Second: 1st Fleet has its own heritage as a home waters fleet, and the numbering doesn’t make sense with 1 in between 5 and 7. Minor point, but god it’s got my OCD firing. (Cc: @RobertERiley1)
Third: Creating a fleet between 5th and 7th creates 100% increase in a serious existing issue that we’ve spent thousands of hours trying to address. Namely, the seam between those two fleets.
1st Fleet would create yet another seam, increasing the amount of required coordination for operations and deployments across the Indo-Pacific. This references the process by which ships chop from 5th (Middle East) to 1st (IO) to 7th (Pacific).
It also calls into question where we think the dividing lines would be for 1st Fleet. Gulf of Aden to Malacca? Suez to Bay of Bengal? Where does Myanmar land?
Fourth: 1st Fleet is almost certainly going to have a China focus. So you’ll be splitting already-rare China expertise between 1st and 7th Fleet. Not ideal.
Fifth (and this one specifically is why I made it clear that I’m going full stream of consciousness, not ordering these):
WHAT SHIPS ARE GOING TO BE ASSIGNED TO 1ST FLEET?! 7th Fleet, which (in theory) carries responsibility for exercises across the Indo-Pacific, is already way past its capacity to meet demand. We are short across the entire fleet.
The 4 LCS we thought would be in Singapore 3 years ago appear one at a time, and are often more liability than capability. What missions do we have in the Indian Ocean that rate their own fleet?
Sixth: Where would it go? Guarantee this didn’t get briefed to Singapore (notable silence from the govt in the ST piece).
So now we’ve blindsided our most valuable partner in Southeast Asia with a request that could have been made in the military facilities agreement we renewed last year (I said this year in an earlier tweet, forgive me, 2020 has warped my concept of time).
It’s not going in Diego Garcia, for everyone suggesting that. That place can’t support a fleet staff, even if everyone is unaccompanied. And nobody would want to go. Australia? I’d do that, but I doubt anybody asked them.
Anyway, this speaks to a massive credibility issue for the US that smart folks like @sstrangio, @WonkVJ, @hmarston4, and @jamescrabtree have highlighted recently.
In the last two months of an administration defined by haphazard, uncoordinated policy, they drop a bomb like this that will inevitably cause partners to pull back publicly. This administration doesn’t have the juice to make it happen anyway.
I am a firm believer in Hanlon’s razor, but things like this make me wonder if it’s not a combination.
Stupidity and malice in the death throes of Trump’s administration are going to poison the well for a Biden team that already has ground to make up in the Indo-Pacific.
IMHO, if you want to make this a success, create an Indian Ocean TF. Do base it in Perth, with a bare bones staff. But it works for Pacific Fleet, just like 7th and 3rd. /fin
