Let's see, send a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. Hmmm...

The US Navy has, at this time, eleven operational aircraft carriers. One is the forty-six-year-old Kitty Hawk, our last conventionally powered carrier in commission, which is forward deployed to Japan and therefore not available for Persian Gulf duties. (Another, newer conventionally powered carrier, the Kennedy, was decommissioned, short of its full service life, back in March of this year.)

That leaves a pool of ten operational carriers, all nuclear powered. (One is another forty-six-year-old, the first nuke, Enterprise.) Two are already in the Persian Gulf, and both will need relief before too long. That effectively removes four operational carriers from the pool.

So we have a pool of six operational carriers to draw from for this third unit to the Persian Gulf. Of course, one has to be designated for eventual relief of said third carrier, so...

Five. Of these, at least three at any one time are effectively out of service due to refueling (for nukes, a long process that must be conducted in port and cannot be hurried), critical maintenance, refits and/or overhauls.

Leaving a pool of two. Maybe. And once one of these is committed as an additional unit to the Persian Gulf, we will have, to sortie for any other purpose...?

One. If we're lucky.

A third carrier, in effect, commits virtually he whole of the deployable units of our nuclear carrier force to the Persian Gulf.

Fact is, the US Navy has no carrier strength in depth. Every ship is committed to some stage of simply maintaining a deployable force of, at most, five units. Stationing two in the Persian Gulf for an extended period is shortsighted as it is; sending and sustaining a third there is not feasible except in neocon fantasy.

An aside: I don't think Iran is particularly worried about our carriers...at least, not the nukes. What they are likely giving considerable attention to are the operations of our amphibs, the seven Wasps and four Tarawas. These look rather like WWII-era carriers, and do have considerable air operations cabability, but are specifically designed to transport, land and support Marine ground forces.

The fact the Democrats allow the Neocons to set the agenda for the complete destruction of the United States, is a well known fact at this late date, what has never been explained, at least to my satisfaction, is WHY??? When will someone please come out and state the reasons why Democrats would agree OVERWHELMINGLY, to MORE Secret Domestic Spying, MORE overt acts designed to lead us into another War for Profit, (this time in Iran), and MORE puzzling departures from their stated promises to investigate BushCo, and end the "War", as the American voters expected them to do when they gave them an overwhelming victory last November??? I early on smelled a double-cross when Nancy Pelosi stated Impeachment was off the table. I could be wrong, but I don't think it is up to the Speaker to decide which of our Laws should be enforced, and which should be ignored.

Until this Criminal Cartel, which has held our Nation hostage for 7 years now, is dragged before a Court of Law and required to answer for it's many and heinous crimes, nothing is going to change, and endless War will become a fact of life in our new Neocon World.

Glen Greenward stated “For obvious reasons, it is not a positive development to have the U.S. military serve as the primary check on the crazed warmongers who have control of our government. In a country that lives under civilian rule, that really is not and should not be the role of the military.” WRONG!

Military officers solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, etc..

The executive department of our government has become and is a domestic enemy because of its frequent violations of our Constitution amongst other things.

Our military forces, officers and enlisted personnel, are morally and legally bound to disobey an order to commit a war crime, a crime against humanity, acts prohibited by the Constitution. They are not bound by oath or otherwise to do other than support and defend the Constitution and the People. Theirs is to reason why, not to blindly do or die in order to satisfy the greed and lust for power of those who use them for such purposes.

The legislative branch of our government has not shown itself capable of supporting and defending the Constitution as they swore to do when they took office. If not our military forces, who will protect the People and prevent the United States from becoming subject to authoritarian rule by enemies of the People?

"Moralistic imperative"

Tom Sawyer wrote:

""I have a funny feeling that the motor behind the Iraq invasion and the anti-Iranian rhetoric is a group of serious people who are convinced that securing Mid-east oil is absolutely necessary for the survival of the US.

In this context, they believe that all means are justified and that they are following the only honorable choice. Those whose own empires are directly tied to petroleum will not be swayed, but those who believe they are working for the good of the country might be persuaded by prospects for real substitutes to keep the economy going.""

1. Walt & Mearsheimer argue that oil was not the reason for Iraq. The oil men were opposed to the invasion; oil transactions have gotten more difficult.

2. But that doesn't mean SOMEBODY didn't have oil on the brain: Doug Feith & his Jerusalem-based law partner made a deal with Chalabi to renovate the pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa.

3. But a Tom Friedman article in about July tells the real reason why Israel wants to destroy Iran: Friedman writes that technologically educated young people are 'Israel's oil.' Problem is, Iran has at least 100-to-1 more young people than does Israel. Demographics keeps the Knesset awake at night; they count Israeli-based and diaspora Jews the way a day trader counts pennies. Demographics is why Israel is chopping Palestine into disaggregated bantustans: Arabs are demographically superior; only by dividing them, prohibiting them from unifying in critical mass, is Israel able to achieve or maintain a demographic majority.

Interesting sidelight: There's a very well written children's book on the History of the Hebrews. It notes that Joshua conquered Canaan by dividing the Canaanites against themselves and exploiting their lack of unity. How do the French say it: 'the more things change, the more they stay the same.'