Less Then 300 Ships?

It's official: the US Navy has the fewest number of ships since prior to World War I. What was that Santayana quote? Those who fail to learn from history?

Like it or not, America has been, is, and will continue to be a maritime nation. We cannot function effectively without waterborne access to foreign supplies, particularly of oil. The sea lanes are our lifeblood, without them we lose much of our strength.

As such, we have a real need to maintain the freedom of travel on the high seas. Sure we've got the Coast Guard to help in that regard, but the blue water Navy is still the ultimate guarantor of our unfettered access to the oceans.

The Navy is also critical in quickly, effectively, and forcefully projecting American power in remote parts of the world. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when an overseas crisis rears its ugly head, the President doesn't ask where the artillery is, he asks where the carriers are. Many times, they are still the best, quickest, and most forceful way to make our interests understood by those who don't seem to appreciate the nuances of diplomacy. No one is scared by the sight of C-17s flying towards bases hundreds of miles away, but when you can see that looming mass that is an aircraft carrier on the horizon, you know then that your goose is cooked.

But what really scares me are quotes like this:

While many conservatives worry about the growing Chinese threat, several analysts said China's navy is decades away from challenging the U.S. fleet.

"No one is going to challenge us at sea for the next 20 years," said analyst and naval historian Norman Polmar.

20 years? I don't think so. How long did it take for Nazi Germany to create a credible blue water threat? How long did it take for the Soviet Navy to create a real threat? What makes us think that the Chinese can't have a credible blue water navy in the next five or ten years if they decide to focus on that goal? Maybe they can't launch a Nimitz, a Ticonderoga, or an Arleigh Burke, maybe they can't build a Los Angeles class or a Seawolf, but they damn sure can build a threat in short order. We fight with technology. They can choose to go the old Soviet route and fight with numbers. Don't believe for a second that they can't build a real and credible threat in less than 20 years.

Do we need a 600 ship Navy? No. The threats are different than they were during the Soviet years. But we do need more than 296. With all the support ships, that makes it real tough for to sail an adequate number of warships to both protect the sea lanes and our interests overseas.

We have cut too deep across all branches of the military, not just the Navy. This needs to be reversed before we slip to a point where we have foolishly exposed ourselves to potential threats. If we have to take care of Kim Jong Il while we're still in Iraq, what happens if there is a threat from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or our old nemesis Castro in Cuba? Will we have the resources to defend our interests or possibly even ourselves? Anymore, I don't know and that is very disconcerting.

One of the most basic duties of our government is to provide for the national defense. Are we giving them a pass on that responsibility?