Free Markets, Free People

3rd Debate: Snarky Obama reveals his military ignorance (update)

Obama the arrogant had quite a time last night … being arrogant, that is.

And, as usual, anyone who knew reality had to laugh at his posturing, since it revealed a horrendous level of ignorance.

What am I talking about?  His quip about “horses and bayonets” and his nonsense about the size of the Navy.

We’ve all heard, I’m sure, the line that “amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics”.

Question: Are those “more capable ships” more capable of supply and support than ships of old?  No.  There’s a “tooth to tail” ratio that is required for any fleet to function and function well.  We have 11 carrier strike groups out there.   They have a certain number of ships in each battle group that are designed to do what?  Protect the carrier.  But those ships have to be resupplied.  Having stood on the deck of the USS Kearsarge and watched at sea refueling take place, I can confidently tell you it requires another ship.

Additionally, there’s now concern, given the lethality and accuracy of weaponry out there, that the ships assigned to protect the carriers may not be adequate to the job.  In other words, we many need more (presently they have 2 Ticonderoga class Ageis guided missile cruisers, two to three Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers and to LA class attack submarines plus a carrier air wing).  We’re talking about the possibility of overwhelming missile attacks as they’re presently configured.  Reality.

Then, consider we have a “gator navy” as well, which is also in need of further protection.  Put the new littoral combat ships into the mix and you are again in need of the ability to refuel and resupply.  Pretending the current fleet configuration and number is adequate to the new expanded mission pointed toward the Pacific is about as “horses and bayonets” as one can get.  Pure defensive nonsense and ignorant posturing.

And by the way, we still use bayonets.  The reason we don’t have as many as we once had is because this President had cut the Army and Marine Corps during his tenure.

But to the point, all that bloviating by Obama about how he carefully set out the fleet size with the SecNav etc. is just that, bloviating.  He made unilateral and deep cuts in defense spending all by his lonesome.  $500 billion over 10 years.  That’s his.  No one else’s.  They have nothing to do with sequestration which promises another $500 billion in cuts.

And don’t believe his promise that “sequestration won’t happen”.  While it may not, it won’t have  a thing to do with him.  He’s provided nothing in terms of leadership on the question and no one believes he will.  He’s just “hoping” it won’t happen and prove him right.  But don’t expect him to actually do anything to try to prevent it.

Oh, who won?

Given the spin, pretty much a draw at worst.  Both sides are claiming victory.  A prickly, defensive and condescending Obama, given his abysmal record, didn’t help himself at all.  He just proved how small he really is.

UPDATE: Like minds.

~McQ

29 Responses to 3rd Debate: Snarky Obama reveals his military ignorance (update)

  • Who won?
    Who is acting like a winner?  And who is acting like a spoiled child?
    Who told multiple, easily fisked lies?
    Who tried to spin a world that simply does not exist?
    Who will have to eat the Benghazi debacle, starting with the stupidity of SmartPower(tm), regardless of how any ONE scandal (and there are SOOOOOooooooo many) is spun?
    Who…just today…has come out with his “plan” that includes…I kid you not…something about “expanding our manufacturing boom”…?!?!?!

    • All that’s left is waiting for that first OH poll that shows Mitt ahead because its finally come off a D+8 sample. Panic will ensue.

      • Weeping and wailing and opening of wrists…
        Should we remove sharp objects from Dr. Moosesqeeze?

  • Having stood on the deck of the USS Kearsarge and watched at sea refueling take place,

    Did it hit anything while you were there? :)

  • All of this also ignore that a lot of ships are getting pretty old…  Several of our Carriers probably are on the far tail end of their projected service life…

  • Oddly enough, that is the only part of the debate I heard. My wife was watching it, and I walked into the room just in time to hear Obama exhibit (again) his ignorance. I then walked out of the room, muttering to myself. I doubt that I missed much.
     
    He also seems to have ignored the fact that our prospective opponents have also progressed beyond the horse and bayonet. And, to quote a (thankfully) dead white male, “Quantity has a quality all its own”.

  • Hey you guys, Obama played Battleship with Rahm once, he knows these things we call Carriers aren’t sunk until they take 5 hits, so we have plenty of ships.  Plus he moved the PT boat around during the game to make it harder to hit.  He’s smart, so he knows the Navy can do the same thing during the real game.

  • It’s funny.  My first take on Obama’s statements were that these were the muses of a strategic dunce.
    It sounded like he was going to fight the next war with nukes, not ships.  It sounded worse than anything Goldwater said in 1964.

    • His foreign policy and his comments about the Navy are indicative of a fundamental inability to grasp the concept of projecting power.   Technology is super, but it’s not a substitute for the ability to “be there”.

  • The left is melting down into denial mode.

  • Horse + bayonet = UNICORN!!!!
    See?  It works MAGICALLY.

  • Maybe Big Ears can call a corpse-man to give him some aid here for the self inflicted bayonet wound.

  • US Carriers today and their commissioning dates:

     

    CVN-65: Enterprise, 1961

    CVN-68: Nimitz, 1975

    CVN-69: Dwight D.
    Eisenhower,
    1977

    CVN-70: Carl Vinson, 1981

    CVN-71: Theodore
    Roosevelt,
    1986

    CVN-72: Abraham Lincoln,
    1989

    CVN-73: George
    Washington,
    1992

    CVN-74: John C. Stennis,
    1995

    CVN-75: Harry S. Truman,
    1998

    CVN-76: Ronald Reagan, 2003

    CVN-77: George H.W.
    Bush,
    2009

     

    McQ, your comment on the age of the fleet is well taken. The
    Enterprise is scheduled for de-commissioning in December and 3 other carriers
    are over 30 years old.

     

    If you were to look at the age of our other first line
    assets, you would see similar results.  I
    know of a recently retired Air Force 3-star whose youngest son is flying the
    same F-15 aircraft (by tail number) today that he flew as a young Captain way “back
    in the day”.

    • USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is scheduled to be deactivated on 1 December 2012
       

      • Just read we spent $600 million to keep her alive for the past 2 years to stave off replacement at about 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of replacement.

  • If you want to cut the military budget than the only sane way to do it is to reconsider the role you want the military to play.  Cutting operational ability is stupid.  You’ll have to cut down on what you want them to do if you don’t want to end up with a lot of dead soldiers.
    Look what happened in Iraq when Rumsfeld thought that could be done on the cheap.  There was insurrection that festered for years because it was too politically dangerous to the politicians to put in play the resources that were needed.  Instead the surge happened years latter than it should have.

    • Yes, its funny how when Obama says what Rumsfeld says, its brilliant.
      If we really had to cut some carrier groups, I’d advocate selling them to the Japanese.

  • Those “Stink-Eye” lessons that Mooochelle gave him didn’t avail against Romney either…

    Second, I think the moment that won the debate, and perhaps the election, for Romney came near the end, when Romney was speaking and Obama fixed him with the Punahou Death Stare . . . and Romney just kept right on going, making his points directly to Obama, entirely unflustered by the president’s juvenile tactics. That spoke volumes about the character of the two men and no one who was watching could have missed it.—-Michael Walsh

  • Actually, those horses and bayonets might be all too useful if someone pops an EMP. Forward! to the 18th century.  Who said the ‘human wave’ attack was dead?

    • Sir Henry Shrapnel and Sir Hiram Maxim come instantly to mind.   :)
       
       
       
       

      • Mabbe next time Barrackah is in Nuevo Ork City…doing really important stuff…he can spare a moment to go cast a gander on this…
         
        http://c3.nrostatic.com/dest/2012/10/23/pic_corner_102212_NB_H_d7218ecd6b9ec2637a7ad1a5dcbabbc3.jpg

        • Is the rider looking for one of those ‘ships’ that go under water called submarines?
           
          He’s busy with golf man and campaigning , he can’t be focusing all his important time on the military, shoot, he didn’t even attend months of daily Presidential briefings  – it took him how long to show up to Fort Hood after the Islamic terrorist attack, I mean domestic violence , work place violence?
           
          He’s a LEADER man, don’t you understand!  He’s out there every day LEADING from BEHIND!

  • I doubt Capt. Candyass knows which end the frickin’ bullet comes out.

  • The advent of modern warfare in the 20th century decreased the bayonet’s usefulness, and as early as the American Civil War (1861–65) the bayonet was ultimately responsible for less than one percent of battlefield casualties
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet

    • Which doesn’t change the facts that we have more now than in WWI, they’re still in use, and the last recorded bayonet charge took place during … wait for it … OEF (the Brits).