"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."
Romney also said the U.S. Air Force is "older and smaller" than at any time since it first flew in 1947.
President Obama responded with a level of snarkiness and sarcasm that is rarely seen from this President.
"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," Obama continued, "where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."
In other words, the President completely roasted Mitt in this regard.
Artist's rendition
But here is why Governor Romney's assertion, and his desire to increase the military budget by giving the military $2 trillion that it does not need. As President Obama succinctly pointed out, our military needs have changed over the past several decades. Our warfare tactics have changed considerably. When I was in the Army, I was a "Combat Signaler." What this meant is that I helped to run communication wire from one point to another, so that units can talk to each other. Shortly after I left, this job was merged with another one, because technologies changed. We live in a world where we can communicate effortlessly across the globe withOUT wires, so there is no longer a need to string wires across the wilderness (or desert).
The point is that Mitt equates throwing extra money at the military and building extra ships equates to military readiness. Mitt also champions himself as a savvy businessman. Has anyone ever seen a businessman run an operation by continuing to throw money at the problem? Say what you will about Romney's business dealings (and there IS lots to be said about venture capitalism and how it can treat the most vulnerable in the workforce), but no venture capitalist has ever -- at least to my knowledge -- decided that what a company needs to do to become more profitable is to give it more equipment than it needs or demands. Looking at the auto industry, Romney's business instincts led him to pronounce that Detroit should go bankrupt. He did not analyze the auto industry and decide "What Detroit needs to stay alive is for the government to build more plants and give GM even more money than it's asking for."
Yet, here is Mitt, saying that the best way for the U.S. to maintain its military might is for the President to give the Pentagon more money, above and beyond what it's asking for. He's also doing this without regards as to how it will be paid for. As President Obama stated, our military might is not determined by how many ships we have. It's determined by how we use the resources, the technology, and the personnel that we have. Streamlining and being efficient with equipment seems like a good way to manage a business. Isn't it odd that Mitt isn't applying these same principles to this country's defense budget?
Now, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that you can't run a government in the same way that you run a business, because a business' goal is to be profitable. And in lots of cases, those profits may come at the expense of people. I just find it unusual that Mitt (while almost totally agreeing with Obama on every point) would run the rest of the government like a business... except for the military, which he wants to give plenty of hand-outs.
It doesn't make for an effective Commander-in-Chief.
