Two sets of facts that provide a helpful juxtaposition in understanding the national security priorities of the Obama Administration:
First, retired Rear Admiral Terence E. McKnight, writing about President Obama's proposed cuts to the military budget in a report from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (links to a PDF):
The Navy will not have the forces to protect the high seas as in years past. With a strategy to move forces to the Asia-Pacific region and the requirements for Burke-class AEGIS destroyers on station for missile defense, some major mission areas will have to be reduced. The Navy will no longer be able to project power in such regions as the Caribbean, Mediterranean, or possibly the Middle East.
The current Chief of Naval Operations has asked his planners to dust off the old “sea swap” program to see if keeping ships on station and rotating the crews rather than returning to home port to keep platforms on station [will work]. In the past, this program had very little success with surface ships.
No matter what doctrine is implemented in the future, there will simply not be enough ships to cover the current commitments.
Then this, from Fox News:
Some Republicans have said the Navy should spend its limited resources on building new ships instead of developing fuel alternatives.
The Navy, Department of Energy and Agriculture Department are spending $510 million to jump start commercial development of the advanced alternative fuels industry.
The U.S. Military: useful insofar as it can be an arm of domestic policy. I'm sure the mullahs fear the day when the algae-driven "Great Green Fleet" (I am not making this up) comes to town.
If there's not a Republican presidential candidate who can make a campaign issue out of a president whose naval strategy is "more algae, fewer ships," we may deserve to lose this one.