Obama’s Politics Put our Navy in Harm’s Way

| March 4, 2013

The Obama administration has held up the deployment of the nuclear carrier, U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf as a result of the sequester. Rather than cut fat from elsewhere in the federal budget, Obama chooses to play brinksmanship on the backs of our service men and women as this article from a month ago explains. Further, by keeping the Truman berthed at its homeport of Norfolk when it should be deployed, Obama is playing another very dangerous game. There’s a disturbing email circulating in the veteran community discussing this dangerous breach of strategic security that has occurred under this clueless commander-in-chief. The problem is a concentration of five aircraft carriers at Norfolk Navy base for a period that now extends to several months. These super-carriers are the heart of America’s ability to project immense naval air power forward to virtually anywhere on the globe.

The presence of a carrier strike group throws a wide, cautioning shadow over such disruptive regimes as Iran and North Korea. Their offshore presence has long been America’s big stick in geopolitics. The problem is such strike groups are not in endless supply. We have but eleven and of that number some are always in the naval shipyards for refitting and nuclear refueling. So when five of the eleven are docked side-by-side in Norfolk that gets the antennae quivering among those who know what a hugely foolish strategic blunder this is. To have forty percent of your nuclear carrier displacement concentrated in one docking area where escape to the sea in the event of an impending threat is extremely limited, seems incredibly stupid to those vets aware of the situation. The emails are replete with references to the possibility of a second Pearl Harbor.

Truly, those emails are not far off the mark. A single pleasure vessel, paid for by some Islamist millionaire, a sail boat or motor yacht, with a bootlegged Pakistani nuclear weapon aboard, or even a large enough, non-nuclear, high explosive dirty bomb, could easily maneuver within range to take these powerful but defenseless sea-fortresses off the board. A nuke could do that permanently-a dirty bomb for the many years decontamination would require. Losing five of eleven of these behemoths would cut our Navy to its knees and leave America scrambling to decide where, upon the globe, to project our now very limited power, a position the Chinese, the Russians and even the Islamists would relish.

It would seem that while we possess colossal power, we also harbor colossal stupidity in our command structure. There are unprovable, as yet, rumors flying that this situation only came to be over the outraged protests of the upper Navy brass overruled by an always politics-first White House. We’re left to wonder if this is another one of those signals to the Islamist tyrants of the Middle East, and oppressors worldwide, that the U.S. will not be a looming threat to their ambitions. Looked at realistically, this is nothing more than a sheathing of our weapons, pulling them home to port, holstering our most potent projection of force, a signal to the world that at the first hint of budget constraint, Obama’s Navy is standing down, and you despots are free to pursue your despotism. Measured against everything else coming from this administration, it is difficult to believe that this is anything more than a calculated move to portray Republicans as culprits and America as a weakened force in the world, both typical Obama targets.

Benedict Arnold was but a treacherous general who betrayed this country in a much more limited world and war; that the current commander-in-chief might engage in the undermining of the nation’s strategic strength to petulantly belittle his domestic political enemies, or worse, to level this great nation to parity with the lesser nations of this world, is a travesty that makes Benedict look like a patriot compared to Barack Obama. If the commander-in-chief overrode the wisdom of the admirals in this situation and has put this country’s strategic naval forces in peril, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a political posturer for whom the fortunes of the Democrat party come before those of the nation. He is, in truth doing precisely to our Navy what he has done to our economy: Sinking it.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UpNorth

Well said, PT.

Ex-PH2

That noise you hear is my stomach sinking into the ground at the sight of those ships docked together.

JESUS!!!! My worst nightmare coming true. What the hell is going on?

Thanks for posting that, Poetrooper.

A Proud Infidel

B. Hussein 0bama, like all liberals, is only concerned about acquiring and keeping power, and he practices nothing but the Chicago-style politics that got him there. He’s 110% pure poser, he pushes cuts on everyone else just before he goes on another multimillion dollar vacation on our money, just look at what B. Hussein 0bama & Family’s Hawaiian Christmas junket cost, and what it cost us for B. Hussein’s additional trip back to DC during that for a political photo op! S%^t, it’s not even noon yet, and I’m already wanting a beer!

Twist

You don’t need to be a tactical generous to know that parking 5 carriers together is a bad idea.

JBS

Once again this administration is not balancing the budget on the backs of the military of which the entire DoD is…//sarc

Ex-PH2

I think I’m gonna be sick.

pete

this seems like a false flag in the making.

Former 3364

@4

Well, you can thank the Norfolk Mafia for preventing a second East Coast home port for a target, I mean, carriers.

Kenneth

As TAH’s token tea swilling royalist I feel obliged to say that Brigadier General Arnold was a good egg. If only his fellow Americans had shared in his good sense. :p

MCPO NYC USN (Ret.)

Fleet Admiral Earnest J. King, USN said about ships, “ships that can not steam are no longer weapons systems, they are monuments of failure and have neither impressed nor sunk the enemy”.

He also said about fighting, “no fighter ever won his fight by covering up, merely fending off the other fellow’s blows”.

About hitting he said, “the winner hits and keeps on hitting even though he has to be able to take some stiff blows in order to keep on hitting.”

Bottom line is this: If the fleet is no steaming, it is not fighting, and certaining not hitting our enemy.

Our Navy’s job it to project seapower and bring the fight to our enemies. This can not be while idle ships are moored to the pier.

See my previous post on this related issue:

http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=34041

# 14 MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) Says:
February 7th, 2013 at 2:00 pm

martinjmpr

I know I’ve said this before but it seems apropos in response to this article:

Didn’t we, the American people, vote for precisely this when we reelected Obama? It’s not like he’s ever made a secret of his pacifist leanings, his disdain of the military or his unwillingness to project military power. We, the American people, knew all of this and we reelected him anyway.

When there’s a bad man at the door, we want Daddy to get his shotgun and protect us. But when there’s no bad man at the door, we’d rather have mommy’s cuddles and kisses and cupcakes. Nobody wants to think about the bad man or about daddy’s shotgun in the closet.

As for not deploying carriers to the middle east, I don’t see the big deal. I’m not convinced that the mere presence of an American carrier means that much when the commander in chief is shown to be someone who is reluctant to use military force. It would be like a policeman on the block – you you knew he was a pussy who wouldn’t fight, would you care that he’s got a gun on his hip?

When you talk about threats of force, the operative word that precedes it has to be the word “credible.” Nobody with an ounce of common sense thinks Obama is going to start a war with Iran, so what is the value of a carrier in the Straits of Hormuz? It just becomes another target there, too.

Charles

Okay first a reality check on that now infamous internet/photo.

Off the five carriers parked there one is the Big E and she was decommissioned just before Christmas. They are just strilping all the useful stuff off first to go into warehouses for the rest of the fleet to use. So that leaves only four carriers in port and those with a long enough memory remember the last time we had four plus in port was in DECEMBER of 1999 to observe the potential end of the world via Y2K bugs. I know I was on the Big E at the time and we had nearly all the Atlantic Fleet carriers except the one deployed in port. Traffic, parking and just about everything sucked from Nov99 till Feb00 because of all five battle groups where in town. It was so bad that they had to shuffle working hours for a few to ease traffic flow into and out of NS Norfolk.
To answer the bigger question of why Norfolk you need to examine the Economy, GDP, DoD spending from Nixon ending Vietn to Carter and the Iranian Hostage thing we actually contracted on the East Coast to Norfolk (and Jax) because the other operations bases were too complex to get into or out off. We use to have carriers at Brooklyn, Quonset Point RI and the TriState around Philly Naval Yard. BRACs under Ford and Carter lead to constriction to Norfolk and Jax with Philly and Newport News being the only two maintenance yards on the East Coast besides Norfolk Naval at Portsmouth VA. Which is why under Reagan SecNav Lehman was looking to spread the wealth on the East Coast but those uptight leftist liberals didn’t want nukes in their back yards and the Gulf coast was too exposed to hurricanes 7 out of the 12 months a year, also transit time from Texas or Mississippi to Europe was not worth it.

Hondo

Kenneth: if you Brits though so highly of Arnold, you had a very odd way of showing it. He doesn’t seem to have been treated too terribly well after he “turned his coat”, or to have been held in esteem by many in the UK. And he certainly wasn’t rewarded terribly well by His Majesty’s Government during or after the war.

Did you perchance misspeak and say “good egg” when you really meant to say “useful idiot” – or maybe “useful bastard”? (smile)

MCPO NYC USN (Ret.)

@ Kenneth … tell that to Andre who was banging Arnold’s wife all along … till’ Andre had his neck lengthened!

Arnold was never trusted by the English … he was a horrible tactician later in the war (Virginia) and died a traitor to America … but referred to as an “American Pratriot” in England … those pesky Brits!

Kenneth

Hondo: I was just making a joke about national bias but reading about his post Revolutionary War career he does seem to have loyally served Britain and been treated shamefully by us in return.

He seems to have been persecuted by the Whig party, who knew a thing or two about betraying their country and who had a great deal of sympathy for the American Patriots. I can take some small comfort in the fact that Whigs have never been very popular in my neck of the woods.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_risings)

faboutlaws

If the enemy got the four active carriers in Norfolk doesn’t Obama realize that we would go about $2 trillion more in debt replacing them and the Navy Yard and providing benefits to the survivors?

dghi

You were wondering about that “flexibility” he had relayed on to Putin?

trackback

[…] we talk loudly and keep our big sticks in Norfolk. Right now we have 4 nukular aircraft carriers in Norfolk. (Plus the Enterprise that’s being […]

Ex-PH2

@16, you’re thinking he actually has a clue about that?