----------------------------------------------------------------
           The Navy Public Affairs Library (NAVPALIB)
   A service of the Navy Office of Information, Washington DC
     Send feedback/questions to navpalib@opnav-emh.navy.mil
----------------------------------------------------------------

Admiral J. M. Boorda                                              
Chief of Naval Operations
International Sea Power Symposium
Newport R. I.
6 November 1995

"Partnership...From the Sea"

Good morning again and welcome to the Thirteenth International
Seapower Symposium.   Two years ago many of you met here in
Newport with Admiral Kelso and Admiral Strasser.   You had a
superb conference.   The innovative ideas you brought with you
and the enthusiasm with which you discussed them serves as an
inspiration for this symposium.  We all share the pressing
problem of diminishing resources, but we also share a capital
strength that can blunt the carvings of a budget knife -- a
strength amassed from shared ideas.  Our capital investment in
ideas has been money in the bank over the years, and it truly is
beginning to yield a healthy return as new partners join us and
share their ideas for promoting a stable and secure place in
their regions of the world.  We are shareholders in this
investment for the world's future.  A future where peace will
always be the dividend we seek.

You come this morning as free members of a mighty partnership
that has at its heart the interest of working together.  By being
here you are reaffirming the fact that the unbeatable spirit of
cooperation among like-minded navies is spreading.  Acting
together, I'm sure that this cooperative body will once again
yield a rich exchange on maritime cooperation and coalition
operations.  As with previous symposiums, our goal for this
conference is to continue this spirit of innovation, cooperation,
and teamwork and press on to tackle today's and tomorrow's common
challenges. 

Our ability to come together, and engage in a beneficial give-and-take on major issues, comes not only from our common maritime
concerns and interests.  It comes because we speak a common
language which cuts across borders, politics, and
interpreters....   And that is the language spoken by those who
go to sea, and stand ready to sail in harm's way.   Alfred Thayer
Mahan called the world's seas "the great common."  The seas, the
security of the seas, are our common responsibility.  

When you get right down to it,  leaders of navies are more alike
than different because we all worry about the same things...
taking care of our people,  ensuring our fleets are ready, and
looking for ways to save money to build for tomorrow and finance
our dreams for peace.  I come to this opinion as a result of my
travels,  visiting and sharing with you our hopes and fears. Many
navies have unique circumstances, but I am impressed with your
innovative approaches that are leading the way.  There is a lot
that I can learn from you.   

The ties which bind mariners have always been strong.  It is the
spirit of mariners which allows seafarers who are joining us for
the first time, to feel comfortable in our midst, whether
engaging in serious discussions or swapping sea stories.

For many others joining us today, I know that you studied here at
the Naval War College earlier in your careers... and it is a
tremendous source of pride for the United States Navy to see you
return as leaders of the navies of the world.

All of this year, I... as have many of the world's naval leaders
here today... have been participating in events commemorating the
50th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War.   I've
walked the beaches of Normandy and Midway Island and looked upon
the rows of graves at Anzio.  Each place I went... whether it was
the Atlantic or the Pacific... we honored the heroes; we mourned
the dead; we celebrated the legacy of courage and honor written
by their deeds.   And we recognized the fragile peace that they
gave us.

World War II was horrendous -- more than 50 million dead; cities
in rubble; societies and economies in ruin.  Historians will
debate the whys and wherefores of this conflict for  many years
to come.   But I'm afraid that the end of World War II did not
bring ever lasting peace.   Yesterday's future, a future that
promised peace,  is here today, and today we are without total
peace.   It seems that we are slow to learn the lessons of being
prepared for war.   Part of being prepared is to fight growing
complacency in a world where, unfortunately, the forces working
against peace are still with us.  

I'm sure that the prospects for peace in 1946 looked as good as
they do now.   But did anyone in 1919 forecast 1939?   Looking
ahead 20 years from today is just as difficult.   We must never
forget that the history of the world is a violent history.  
Today as I speak, someone, somewhere is engaged in a war of some
dimension.  

Peace does not happen by accident.  Keeping the peace calls for
a significant effort.  The future is unpredictable.  You and I
do not know what will happen.  We do not know when we will face
our next major security challenge.  We do not know who will
challenge us.  We do not know how that challenger will imperil
our safety.  But we do know that eternal peace has not arrived,
that security challenges will come.  We also know that when they
happen, we... our navies ... will be called upon again. And we
will be expected to be ready.  We also know that by being ready
today we can make a difference in peacetime and reduce the risk
of the next challenge.

With the Cold War over, and the threat of worldwide nuclear
conflict gone, the United States and Russia are no longer
enemies -- instead, we have joined in dismantling our nuclear
arsenals.  Unfortunately, even as the risk of  a world wide
conflict has decreased, the danger  of regional hostilities 
around the world has increased.  Admittedly,  regional
conflicts, unlike global war, are less threatening to the
survival of the world.

But regional wars can threaten the safety and security of our
friends and allies.  And we each have a stake in our friends and
allies -- they are our  vital interest.  Those alliances and
friendships must be nurtured and cared for.  The cooperative
relationships of the U.S. Navy and the navies of friends and
allies today are the foundation of our common future security. 
In short, partnership is just as vital in peacetime as it is in
wartime. 

How can the United States Navy help nourish a healthy
partnership in peace and war?  This is where I want to talk
about my Navy's new strategic vision, " ...From the Sea" and
"Forward...From the Sea".  And I especially want to talk about
being forward.  

At the height of the Cold War, our  "Maritime Strategy" served
us well.  Focusing on how naval forces would operate in a global
war, its emphasis was on sea control and sustained operations on
the high seas.   But the war with Iraq bore little resemblance
to an open-ocean superpower conflict.  We needed a new strategy
that focused on the littoral areas as the most likely location
of future naval combat and the result was "...From the Sea."  

"...From the Sea" is not about the U.S. Navy going it alone.  
It depends upon partnerships and this is at the heart of
"Forward...From the Sea."   Let me stress that all successful
maritime strategies of the past have hinged on coalition
partnerships.  But what does forward mean?  As I said before,
healthy, war-deterring partnerships must be nourished;  doing so
demands that the U.S. Navy be there -- be forward.   It means
that for the United States Navy to contribute to our common
vital interest it has to be forward -- not only in war but more
importantly in peace as well.  Forward presence is not a luxury. 
It is dictated by the logic of America's vital interest. 
Forward presence is not a Navy policy... it is a national policy
supported within Department of Defense and the White House.

Let's talk about another common problem.  All of us have been
asked to do more with less.  And it's a fair question:  will the
U.S. Navy be able to continue to meet its enduring role of
forward presence?  Will we have the carriers, amphibs, cruisers,
destroyers, and submarines to sustain forward presence?  Yes, we
will.  I can assure you that it will be my number one priority
that the U.S. Navy will be able to live up to its commitments to
our friends and allies.   Remember this is our vital interest.

We plan on using several tools to  prevent regional conflict. 
First, we are using many of the tools we inherited from the Cold
War, like aircraft carriers, submarines and destroyers.  Second,
we are  building some new tools like the new F-18-e/f aircraft
that we call the Super Hornet, and we are thinking about
building new tools that include  a follow-on to the Nimitz class
carrier and a ship that would carry up to 500 missiles that some
have called the arsenal ship.

Third, as I already said, one way of preventing regional
conflict is to revitalize our existing alliances and build new
partnerships.   This is important because many of your strengths
may be our weakness.   There is no one ideal navy, no single
model, that can suit the needs and expectations of everyone here
today.  The kinds of seagoing capabilities that are suitable and
affordable for one nation may be entirely inappropriate for
another.
 
For example, the U.S. Navy does not have enough money to buy
both nuclear and diesel submarines.   Since we have to transit
long distances to support many of our partners it makes sense to
continue to build nuclear submarines.   But this does not take
away from the diesel submarine and its unique ability to operate
in the littorals.   Since many of you have diesel submarine
fleets, we complement each other by working together combining
each others strengths and weaknesses.

Another strength of yours that is a weakness for me is that you
are already familiar within your particular littoral area. 
Better than anyone, you know the threats and you know the
territory.  That is why as partners we must continue to work and
to exercise together.

I see some real positive signs that this is going on.  In
Europe, NATO has reached out through the Partnership for Peace
program.   This year during BaltOps exercises eleven countries
trained together that during the Cold War trained against each
other.  Indeed, former enemies have become partners at sea. In
the Pacific region, the United States has embarked upon new
forms of regional engagement.  An example are the CARAT
exercises in the Pacific.  But this is just beginning.   Last
year the U.S. Navy conducted a total of 198 combined exercises.  
I'm committed to expanding this number and including as many new
partners as we can.

A fourth way to prevent regional conflict is by building
security ties throughout the world.   We look toward increasing
participation in combined  military training exercises, and
expanding the opportunity for international officers to attend
our graduate education programs at the Naval Postgraduate
School.   We believe that these and other initiatives can help
prevent the outbreak of conflict.   Yet,  I'm a realist and I
recognize that we may need more.

We cannot be complacent.  We must not ignore the bloody lessons
of two great wars.   So as we migrate from a bipolar world to a
multipolar one, using force -- pulling triggers -- is not the
goal.  Our goal is to convince the enemies of peace to become
friends of peace.  But deterrence assumes a rational adversary. 
We can't always assume that.  Therefore, if deterrence fails, we
then must be prepared to use force.   And best suited for this
role are coalition forces that have sailed, exercised, and
trained together.  

And finally, the U.S. Navy seeks to deter regional conflict by
demonstrating its ability to respond quickly and decisively to a
threatening crisis.  A case in point is vigilant  warrior last
year. ....when saddam hussein...who never seems to get the word
and proved it again this last fall when he moved forces south of
the 32nd parallel...something that he isn't supposed to do. 
Well, the united states moved our carrier, u.s.s. george
washington, along with several tomahawk-capable surface ships to
his neighborhood and we told him...saddam...you go to kuwait
again and we'll go to baghdad.  And we meant it and he knew it. 
Who would have gone to baghdad?...tomahawk missiles from
cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, and aviators from our
carrier.  Saddam got the word and he moved his forces back
north... good call, saddam.

And just a few months ago the flexibility of naval power was
demonstrated again during theodore roosevelt's battlegroup's
routine six-month deployment.  When members of Saddam's family
defected to Jordan, we were unsure of his intentions... and we
wanted to send another message to Saddam.  Fortunately, we were
able to hedge our bets by moving USS Theodore Roosevelt to the
eastern Mediterranean and repositioning USS New Orleans
amphibious ready group in the red sea.  These forces were there,
forward deployed, and ready on arrival.  Saddam got the message
loud and clear... and no blood was shed.  Even though this was a
slightly noticed victory, I think we all prefer this way of doing
business over another Desert Storm.

Soon after this crisis died down, Theodore Roosevelt was needed
in the Adriatic Sea to conduct airstrikes over Bosnia for NATO. 
Her relief was the America battlegroup, which came with Tomahawk-capable surface ships and subs. On her first day on station, USS
Normandy... as part of the America battlegroup... launched her
missile attack.   The result was exactly right.  We had an impact
on the way the Serbs were thinking.   So you can see from our
recent activities that our forward deployed forces are extremely
flexible, and can carry out many missions.

These examples, plus others like Haiti, Somalia, and North
Korea, within the last year show how naval forces fit into this
new-post Cold War world.  The key to stopping, or better yet,
preventing conflict, is being there early with forward deployed
naval forces.   Reactive presence is too late when deterring
regional conflicts.  Permanent presence with troops on the
ground is often too costly and creates burdens on our allies. 
If bases on foreign soil are not possible, we must then provide
systematic presence by regularly operating naval forces in the
region. When we are not there, our national commitments appear
uncertain.  Naval presence is a credible and economical way to
underscore our interests and commitments, to nourish our
partnerships, and secure the great common.

That is what "Forward...From the Sea" is all about.  It says
that we depend on you ....and you depend on us.  It's about
partnership from the sea.  That's why we're here this week.  So
we can share ideas on how to work together better.  The U.S.
Navy has some valuable inputs to this effort.  Admiral Smith and
Vice Admiral Redd will share some of the operational lessons we
have learned  about multinational maritime cooperation.  And
Rear Admiral Bowman has a proposal to address the need
identified at our last International Seapower Symposium for
Common Naval Doctrine.  But just as important,  each of you also
has valuable contributions to make.  That's why the leadership
of the U.S. Navy is so well represented here -- so you can teach
us from your experiences even as we share ours.  I look forward
to the improved partnership "...From the Sea" that will grow
from this symposium.

                             -usn-