At the foreign policy debate, President Obama thought he was putting something over on Mitt Romney when he acted as if the Republican was an imbecile for suggesting that the rapid decline in U.S. Naval strength was anything but a good idea:
You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.
That was quite a zinger. In one fell swoop, he portrayed the Republican as ignorant about defense issues and established himself as the competent commander-in-chief. Except for the fact that he was dead wrong and did himself far more political damage than good.
Contrary to the president’s assertion, the creation of aircraft carriers and submarines did not mean that we needed fewer ships. Quite the contrary. Aircraft carriers need just as many if not more supporting vessels than the obsolete battleships that no are no longer under commission. So do subs. The decline in naval strength compromises America’s ability to project power abroad. That is particularly true in places like the Persian Gulf, where President Obama is trying to sound as tough with Iran as Romney.
Even more foolish is the president’s attempt to portray contemporary naval vessels with cavalry horses. That says more about his own lack of understanding of the military than Romney’s. It also may cost him some votes in a state that he still hopes to win: Virginia, home of the largest U.S. Naval base in the country and hotbed of support for a stronger military.
One more point about those horses and bayonets. For all of his contempt for them, it bears remembering that horses played a not insignificant role in the armed forces’ successful fight in Afghanistan, a point that Obama should have remembered. The Army and the Marines operating Afghanistan still use bayonets in close combat.
The more you think about this supposed zinger, the more it sounds as if Obama made a fool of himself, not Romney.
I AGREE WITH YOUR COLUMN ENTIRELY, and I too thought Obama did a world of damage to himself in one fell swoop. But then I tuned into Hannity and his Frank Luntz focus group – only just MINUTES AGO, for the first time, tonight. AMAZINGLY the stupid crowd voted OBAMA tops on FOREIGN POLICY – AFTER they already had a BAD fight over Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens and the other three men. n nBTW, what happened to any MENTION of the other 20 some odd embassies and consulates that were also hit????? n nI still feel good about the election, but would like to see some UN "OBSERVERS" all frog-marched to JAIL by Nov. 7th, 2012. Well, perhaps I should say, "am demanding", instead of "would like to see"…
BHO made a fool of himself many times. His campaign had to "walk back" BHO's statement that there would be no sequestration. Secondly,he accused Romney of not being truthful for saying he would have the Federal gov't provide help with the auto bankruptcy. He was also wrong about Romney's supposed statement Russia was our #1 threat. Romney corrected him. And his nasty putdown about the military was just downright rude and unpresidential, as always. BHO as usual is what I call a petulant "king-baby", unworthy of the office of President. It's unbelievable to me people want this for another 4 years.
No one should talk to anyone with such sarcastic condescension in the tone Obama used with "We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." n nI remember when the Army had to create an entire supply chain of donkeys and mules in order to have a supply chain for the mountains of Afghanistan. n nI watched on C-Span, but caught post-debate on both CNN and FOX, and caught Anderson Cooper in a J'Accuse tone stating the Marines still use bayonets SOP. (That was after Zakaria blustered about Romney's pledge to indict A'jad for genocide incitement, which I thought was a good point of difference, but Zakaria seems to not understand that incitement of genocide IS an indictable offense) n nYes, I'd say Obama lost a few USN votes, if there were any still undecided.
Somehow I doubt that scaling back the size of military will translate into the 11.4 trillion trillion teachers Obama tells us we must hire. And oh, women's rights in the Muslim world of which Obama is prime force in the world.
…No one should talk to anyone with such sarcastic condescension in the tone Obama used with “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines…
Obama’s is the level of discourse ordinary in a community in which lungpower trumps brainpower. The debate challenge presented by the Jacksons, Sharptons and Obamas of the world is that such folk are always talking to your knees. The intellectual and moral level is so low it is disconcerting. Ordinary people can’t sink low enough to respond.
And Obama also, of course, missed the important historical allusion – the isolationism of 1916 that left us unprepared for entry into Wold War One. I think that's what Romney was going for – the lack of preparedness when conflict looms. nObama doesn't know history, nor do his supporters, so the point may have been lost on them. Fools.
In 1916 we had BOTH submarines (1900: USS Holland, SS-1) AND aircraft carriers (1910: USS Birmingham). In fact the US deployed the man-powered submarine Turtle in 1775, as well as the steam-driven Alligator in 1862. In 1916 the British and Germans had approximately 125 submarines between them and a half-dozen carriers. n nBarack Obama's commitment to ignorance IS impressive.
And of course it was Germany's unconditional sub warfare that dragged us into a war a Democratic president had promised we wouldn't enter a mere 5 months earlier. What liberals are considering to be The Mighty Zinger is actually proof of how idiotic they are. nEvery time I think Obama and his supporters can't disappoint me any more, they do.
Excellent points. And the standard issue M-16/M-4 rifles all come with bayonet lugs to this day and since the number of soldiers serving in the US military is larger today than it was in 1916, it's likely that we also have more bayonets than we had in 1916.
It was vintage Obama. Ignorant and dismissive at the same time.
I felt that the language of the comment by the President that he had sent "twenty thousand 'folks'" to Afghanistan was representative of his disconnect from the world we actually live in. You can call our military forces "soldiers," "combat forces," or "members of our armed forces" as you please, but they are not "folks." At best the "folks" are the ones who send them on their missions. Our armed forces need to be under the direct command of someone who respects them, and that is not the current POTUS.
Agree that this was a big blunder by Obama. (The fact that the Left sees it as a moment of triumph is just more proof of how disconnected and tone deaf they are from ordinary Americans). n nThe point is that a global power like the U.S. that relies on international commerce simply must have a navy that can project its power around the globe. No ifs, ands or buts. That requires a robust number of ships. No matter the technology or "capability" that Obama talks about, if you don't have enough ships to be in the Persian Gulf, in the Eastern Med, in the South China Sea, in the Atlantic and the Pacific, all without overtaxing your ships and sailors with unending deployments, then you don't have enough ships. That's where we are today and it's getting worse as more ships come off line. n nAnd, by the way Mr. President: China seems to be building an awful lot of horses and bayonets these days.
Obama tried to make it look like Romney was out of touch with "new" technology the Submarine and the Aircraft Carrier. There is just one problem for the President: Submarines and Aircraft Carriers are not new. n nThe US purchased and commissioned its first submarine, the USS Holland, in 1900. nThe US first commissioned Aircraft Carrier was in 1927. n nHave there been updates to the technology? Sure, but the basics of it isn't new. However the mission of the US Navy hasn't changed since its birth in 1775: n n"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas." n nMr. President the worlds oceans haven't shrunk any but the Navy sure has.
The president’s point was valid. It is misleading to go by numbers in comparing the power of today’s Navy with yesterday’s. A dozen of our modern vessels could sink yesterday’s entire fleet before breakfast. So too with the air force. Nowadays, a handful of B-2s with smart bombs can demolish targets it took thousands of WWII Flying Fortresses to destroy by carpet bombing and flattening entire cities. The effectiveness of our weapons has increased that considerably, as well as their cost.
Romney’s correct riposte would have been:
Not just the nature of our military has changed, but also our military responsibilities. In 1916 while still only a regional power we did not have far flung international commitments. Our ships in 1916 were sufficient to protect our immediate interests. Those did not include keeping the world’s sea lanes open, keeping the Gulf’s oil fields safe, protecting a dangerously exposed Korea and Taiwan, a largely demilitarized Japan and Europe.
Sure, today our fleet is much more capable, but its ability to perform its vastly enlarged mission lags the ability of yesterday’s fleet to fulfill its much more limited responsibilities.
Murder of a US ambassador was 'not optimal' unquote. n nBy the by 7 US Ambassadors have been murdered in the line of duty: 4 of them by Muslim/Arab terrorists. Look it up.
Obama's statements about Benghazi are all about picking up the pieces afterward. His RTEAL failure was in not being prepared against an armed Al Qaeda assault, given the attack on the British ambassador months ago and lots of reports from troops on the ground asking ofr beefed up forces to defend State Department people and facilities. THAT is his negligence.____The reason Obama was focusing on the anti-Muslim video is that it was something he had no control over, but the REAL provocative video, at least for Jihadists, was Obama's announcement from the White House that he had personally shot Osama bin Laden. Anticipating blowback from the bin Laden assassination, and on 9/11 no less, does not require a rocket scientists, but Obama was clueless and unprepared. The attacks by Al Qaeda on US embassies preceded 9/11 by a couple of years, yet Obama had NO preparation against another one. He does not think ahead, does not aticipate the natural course of events.
Obama shill Eugene Robinson's column considers the 'bayonets and horses' reply a stroke of genius by the One to expose how out of touch Mitt Romney is with the world. Then again, that's Obama shill Eugene Robinson, who seldom wrote anything truthful during the GWB years, either.
I don't know – he managed to sound like a pedantic jerk while making it.