The author of this blog doesn't get to brag too much, but US Arcticzar Robert Papp found my question about US icebreaker procurement to be pretty humorous during last week's Arctic Change conference. It's the little things in life, really.
That nonetheless does provide an interesting segue into whether the US federal government should take more ownership over its Arctic territory versus just sitting back and letting the state of Alaska (which, well, IS our Arctic territory) handle most things. Certainly, the approach taken thus far has been pretty reasonable: why should the state let Washington (D.C., not State, though they'd be equally erroneous I suppose) take a more active role only to potentially muck things up in a region they can't relate to all that well? The present system of letting Alaska handle the tough stuff while having the federal government provide some "heavy lift" support when needed makes perfect sense in just about every aspect.
That is, of course, assuming Washington holds up its end of the bargain. The DoD has certainly maintained a longstanding emphasis on upholding its security guarantee to the state of Alaska with such exercises as Red Flag Alaska. What has been more problematic, however, is when Washington isn't responding to more urgent needs in the Arctic: namely a new icebreaker program for the US Coast Guard.
The effects of Tuesday's midterm elections have not yet been realized in terms of how they will relate to the Arctic, although the likely elevation of climate-change denier Jim Inhofe to the chairmanship of the Senate Environmental Committee probably won't help things. Although the Alaskan congressional delegation has certainly made the case for addressing the icebreaker issue in short order, we also can't expect the Coast Guard (often at the bottom of the totem pole on military spending) to be the beneficiary of a major procurement program in the near future.
