Did President Obama call our Navy antiquated and irrelevant last night?
Here’s the “horses and bayonets” bit everybody’s been talking about today:
ROMNEY: “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”
OBAMA: “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. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships.”
Lots of people have pointed out that our military does, in fact, still use horses when the need arises, and that we actually have more bayonets now than we did in 1916. That’s entirely beside the point, if you ask me.
No matter what the truth about horses and bayonets in our modern military is, we aren’t winning wars with them. Nor will we. If the U.S. military suddenly disposed of all horses and bayonets in its possession, our warfighting capabilities would be diminished by…what? Anything?
I doubt it.
And this is what President Obama compares our Navy to? Things that are barely necessary, if at all?
Kinda makes me wish the military wasn’t already voting GOP by a 2-1 margin. Be fun to watch the needle swing after this.