Last night’s debate hit its low point when Obama defended his gutting of the military by behaving like a snide adolescent not quite too old for a spanking:
“[Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well… 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 under water, nuclear submarines.” Obama added that it’s not about “counting ships,” it’s about “our capabilities.”
His tone was snarky and condescending, in stark contrast to Romney’s presidential demeanor.
But the real point is, are people who would vote for Obama really clueless enough to imagine that because we no longer rely heavily on horses and bayonets, ships other than aircraft carriers are obsolete?
Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mark Ferguson confirms the obvious — Romney is correct about the Navy needing ships:
“Our role is really about the flexibility of forces, that they can move to various regions… Should sequestration be enacted, the Navy would not be able to support the current national defense strategy and it would cause a reduction in the size of the fleet to the point that we would have to relook at the strategy. […The Navy] would be reduced both in size and in its presence around the globe.”
Not a problem, from Obama’s point of view.