We have roughly half the oilers we had at the height of the fleet under Reagan/Bush. We also have about half the ships so the logistical capacity has not diminished proportionate to the ships requiring it.
Hence a contributing factor to the USS Cole disaster.
And that is pure nonsense. The oilers in the area were where they were supposed to be, with the fleet. You cannot detail an oiler to follow around each ship as its own personal gas station. Then you will certainly not have the logistical capacity for world wide operations you spoke of.
Captains think constantly of fuel states. So to task force commanders. The goal at the time was to have assets arrive in theater with their fuel tanks full or nearly full. Hence the decision to refuel ships at Yemen. Topping off there meant that they could be dispatched immediately to wherever the task force commander wanted them, and kept the oilers on station to service the task force. As it turns out it left the ships open to attack, so they've stopped it. Now I've no doubt that ships arriving on station have to seek out the nearest oiler and fuel before they can do anything else. And we probably have to have more oilers on station as a result.
Actually, no one was talking about an "personal" gas station...and your argument collapses in a rather ugly display of self-contradiction. The Middle-East was a regional security issue of long-standing already. But the capability was knifed under the continued Defense Holiday by Clinton. The "gas stations" at sea should have been available. But they weren't.