The Incredible Shrinking American Navy
The Somali pirates currently wreaking havoc off the coast of Africa should be “dealt with,” pure and simple.
Which begs the question – why isn’t that happening?
After jacking a fully-loaded supertanker worth $100 million earlier this week (easily their biggest haul ever), yesterday they picked off another ship, the Hong Kong-based Delight … which will no doubt result in even more money to fund their terrorist activities.
We wrote about the pirates a few weeks ago, but the situation is clearly spiraling further out of control. These terrorists have launched 90 attacks this year, and are currently holding sixteen ships and more than 250 seamen hostage.
America continues to “monitor the situation,” a policy that isn’t likely to stop the hijackings nearly as well as our recommendation, which not surprisingly involved “blowing some people out of the water and firing a couple (of) cruise missiles into their inland headquarters.”
So why isn’t America’s Navy kicking ass and taking names in the Gulf of Aden?
Well, it turns out we’re just not as strong as we once were on the high seas, meaning that the perception of America’s might and invincibility around the world could be just that – a perception.
When he was elected president in 1980, Ronald Reagan had a dream of building a 600-ship Navy.
He came pretty close, with 580 American warships on our nation’s sea power roster when he left office in 1989.
Today, however, America’s Navy is down to 285 ships – a number that is likely to dwindle even further under an Obama presidency.
“Walk softly and carry a big stick,” was Teddy Roosevelt’s famous expression for America’s role in the world, a saying that has come to symbolize the rugged determination of our country in its effort to expand global freedom.
Or was it “speak softly?” We can’t remember …
Either way, a more accurate saying today would be “Talk pretty and carry a white flag.”
There’s no doubt that we should be blowing these terrorist pirates out of the water, dropping our “big stick” down on their increasingly bold and lucrative hijacking operation … but it just doesn’t look like we’ve got the tools needed to get the job done.
That’s sad … and the more we cut, the more emboldened these terrorist groups will inevitably become.
UPDATE – You people should never doubt us …
Comments
By Chris on November 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Interesting, but I’m not sure why you say Obama will cause it to dwindle.
“To maintain the size of the fleet at an affordable cost, Obama will modernize the many capable ships that we
now have and tilt the investment balance towards more capable, smaller combatants, while maintaining the
Navy’s ability to command the seas. He will support sea basing ships capable of support humanitarian missions
as well as combat mission. He will increase investment in riverine craft and small coastal patrol craft, and
ensure the maximum interoperability between the Navy and the Coast Guard. Obama endorses the concept of
the Littoral Combat Ship, with its modular design to meet changing needs. However, the process to build the
ship was flawed, and indicative of a broader failure in the Navy’s acquisition process. As part of it overall
defense reforms, Obama administration will prioritize fixing the naval acquisitions system. He will also work
to maintain the shipbuilding design and industrial bases, and support increased R&D for naval forces.”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Defense_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
Call me crazy, but I prefer to give the guy a chance before we go all Rush Limbaugh and spend hours every day complaining about his shoes or some other minutia.
By teddy on November 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Hey smartass, its SPEAK SOFTLY and carry a big stick not WALK SOFTLY Get it right, you’re dumber than I thought
By fitsnews on November 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
walk … speak … whatever.
By ** on November 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ready, set, go: Speak softly, walk softly, chew your gum softly.
By Toyota Kawaski on November 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
mabey the Pirate from free credit report.com could talk to his fellow mates of the high seas
By confused on November 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
chris, have you ever read a position statement before? the statement you quoted says cutting. “tilting investment” is code for cutting money from big ships that can do something about bad things on the open seas and moving that money toward “riverine and small coastal patrol craft” that don’t go outside our territorial waters. can’t really get a boston whaler to africa, and you sure as hell can’t land an f18 on a river boat.
that statement says “we’re downsizing the navy.” there is just no other way to read it. it’s not a partisan assessment. it’s reading what’s written.
By sid on November 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Obama’s sales pitch to the voters is one thing, while what he actually does will likely be quite different. Campaign promises quite often get thrown out the window, once the goal of being elected is accomplished. If he expands and improves our navy, that would be great. I doubt that will happen, though.
Apparently, the U.S. Navy should be following the lead of that venerable naval superpower, India, which has started actually sinking these pirate ships. Good for them. One down, and many, many more to go.
It may sound a little extreme (not really), but what probably should be done is really simple. Hire some mercenaries to ride shotgun on the ships. Three or four former military types with relatively light arms could probably repel most pirate attacks.
By Gen. George Patton on November 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“He will support sea basing ships capable of support humanitarian missions
as well as combat mission”
That is the problem. The US Military was not & is not intended to be some sort of international Meals on Wheels. The purpose of the US Military is to kill people & break things. Period.
By Craig on November 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Chris you are crazy. We need more ships, period. The sheer size of the globe that is covered by water and the distance of the maritime choke points of the world dictates this. This is not something that can be done smaller and cheaper with better technology as you say. Clinton tried that, and we are where we are today with an inadequate Navy because of it. Technological improvement and increasing capability should always be a given. BUT it should always be done in the context of a 500 ship Navy.
By rick on November 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Gentlemen, at what point do we discontinue our belief that we must be the worlds policemen? The supertanker belongs to Saudi…the same saudi that begat the 9/11 terrorists….let them solve their own problems. When US shipping is taken, then use US forces to protect US citizens. It won’t be long before the world decides that having the US as a world policeman is preferable to having the Saudi’s or many 3rd worlders doing it.
We are now on the cusp of a miraculous change in not only our image, but our ability to talk to these miscreants in a way that will cause them to mend their ways. After all, the Democrats have succeeded in the past 3 altercations to shut down our global policemen after much expenditure of lives and wealth. Has not the great God Obuma, said let us go without preconditions to speak with and bring into our flock the wayward. We no longer need to spend our wealth on warships, we no longer need a standing military…all hail to the great God Obuma. Screw the rest of the world, when they’ve had their collective asses handed to them, let them eat cake. Save the wealth and lives for things that matter, and Saudi don’t matter.
By Bloviating Zeppelin on November 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
BINGO! PRECISELY! Well said!
BZ
Trackbacks