Where Are The Carriers?

I remember Ronald Reagan and his 600-ship Navy.

Chiding critics of his military buildup and renewing his pledge to have a 600-ship Navy by the end of the decade, President Reagan told U.S. Naval Academy graduates Wednesday that "it is too costly for America not to be prepared" for hostilities and that "the way to prevent war is to be prepared for it."

"It is about time," Reagan said, "that those who place their faith in wishful thinking and good intentions get the word."

Obviously, obama has not gotten the word.

Not only has he shrunk the Navy to less than 300 ships, but now he's 're-defining' what constitutes a warship.

Americans may be war-weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. But the world is still a hostile place, and the U.S.Navy is stretched too thin. And in a new sleight of hand, the Obama administration has changed what it considers a warship when reporting the size of the Navy's "battle force." From now on it will include the two hospital ships, Mercy and Comfort, 10 small coastal patrol vessels and a high-speed transport. Add those, subtract a few minesweepers, and voilà—the Navy fleet has grown to 293 from 283 ships.

Most of the new additions are lightly armed coastal-patrol craft and not true oceangoing ships. Originally designed to carry Navy SEALs and other special-operations forces, these 179-foot ships turned out to be inadequate for that role. Instead, armed with machine guns, they can be used to support "low intensity conflicts." They were launched in the early 1990s and recalled in 2010 to deal with fatigue damage to their hulls. Their military role is questionable and they're well past their expiration date, yet they sail on for public-relations purposes.

The bad news doesn't stop there.

...With the U.S. Navy arguably at its smallest since 1917, we don't have many ships that are actually at sea. Only 35% of the Navy's entire fleet is deployed, fewer than 100 ships.

But what about the carriers? They're certainly capable of handling any immediate threat, right?

In a briefing before the flight to the carrier, I asked how many carriers the Navy had deployed world-wide that day, and how many it could deploy within 30 days. A Naval officer said three were deployed that day, and one more could get under way within a month—a far cry from the 11-carrier fleet mandated by Congress.

IMO the blame for this doesn't rest solely with obama. If congress has mandated eleven carriers, then it should by God man up and demand that there be eleven of the damn things available. It's not as if there's a shortage of places where they're needed.

Presidents facing international crises have long asked, "Where are the carriers?" Calling hospital ships warships may satisfy Washington bean counters but it won't deter creative adversaries. Counting support and coastal vessels as capital ships that can project real power has serious consequences. America's ability to join coalitions, lead them, or take independent action is compromised. No commander in chief should be deprived of these meaningful options—even if the president has little intention of using them.

Keep in mind the long lead time for refitting, refurbishing, and redeploying warships. It's bad enough that obama and congress have allowed our Navy to sink to its current state. But what's worse is that the next president -- and please God grant us one with the brains to realize the need for a strong military, and the balls to use it if necessary -- will be deprived of a very powerful foreign policy tool.

That will be to our detriment, and the detriment of the world...