Commission on the Future of the Navy Update
It’s been just over a year since we last delved into the National Commission on the Future of the Navy. Recent developments merit an update, as I’d like to discuss a theory with you.
Last week, Bryan McGrath mentioned that a deadline extension has been granted. This long-delayed and somewhat neglected initiative has seen some movement, including new appointees and an extension of its mandate until July 2025, an extra year beyond its current expiration. As a Commission member, I’m eager to begin our work, though I’m puzzled about how this extension can proceed without signed legislation. I’ll leave that to the experts and continue to adjust my schedule in anticipation that the system will resolve this.
Who are the appointees? Some familiar names include:
- Mackenzie Eaglen, appointed by the Senate Minority Leader (R)
- Mitch Waldman, appointed by the Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member (R)
- Bryan McGrath, appointed by the House Armed Services Chair (R)
- Scott O’Neil, appointed by the Speaker of the House (R)
- Trip Barber, appointed by the House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member (D)
- Tommy Ross, appointed by the Senate Majority Leader (D)
- Filemon Vela, House Minority Leader (D)
- Harlan Ullman, appointed by the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair (D)
The Commission is balanced with four appointees from each party, which is crucial for ensuring that the future of our Navy is approached as a non-partisan issue, given its significance for our nation, which is predominantly maritime.
However, the process has faced delays due to the (D) party’s late nominations. The naval expertise of Eaglen and McGrath is well-known, and Waldman’s credentials are impressive. O’Neil is a formidable figure in debates, and Barber, despite being another challenging interlocutor, is well-regarded. Ross is a seasoned political player with substantial knowledge of the business. Vela, a former Congressman, brings some utility, although he wouldn’t have been my first choice. Ullman, at 81, is a veteran of the DC national security scene, although I’m not overly familiar with his work, which might be my oversight.
I believe Ullman represents a lost opportunity to introduce fresh perspectives from those under 50 with recent naval expertise. My concern with Ullman becomes rooted in his association with the “Shock & Awe” strategy, which I view as a significant failure. Despite this, he remains influential in the right circles.
The late (D) nominations appear to have become a calculated move. Thus, potentially to prevent the Commission’s findings from becoming used politically against the current administration in the 2024 election year. This delay undermines the bipartisan nature of the Commission, as indicated by the last-minute selections that seem out of step with the rest.
The extension to 2025 avoids legal issues but delays the Commission’s findings beyond the election. This political maneuvering could hinder our military’s progress, especially as we face strategic challenges from nations like China, whose military efficiency currently outpaces ours.
Ideally, the Commission should focus on creating the best plan for our Navy’s future. While not all appointees are ideal, we must work with what we have to achieve a non-partisan outcome that ensures America’s naval supremacy through the 21st century. I hope Ullman, despite my reservations, will contribute positively. His extensive knowledge of DC and national security could be valuable if leveraged correctly. Let’s aim for a future where maintaining American naval dominance is a shared priority, free from partisan politics.
| Written by CDR SALAMANDER |
