The Navy has an institutional bias for avoiding any conflict that can’t be resolved from off shore.
The Army still has some 60,000 soldiers in Germany, 62 years after the end of WWII. This is in line with the Army occupation of southern states for many years after the end of the so-called Confederacy, the Army occupation and security missions in the old west, and the Army occupation and pacification of the Phillipines from 1898 to 1936.
So, by the Navy view, Eisenhower was not successful, being unable to withdraw from Germany (or Korea!).
One never knows who is right at the time. Of course if you suggest that the Navy should withdraw from Guantanamo...There will be blood in the waters.
You make the totally crazy comparison:
“Of course if you suggest that the Navy should withdraw from Guantanamo...There will be blood in the waters.”
Perhaps you don’t know that Guantanamo is land LEASED from Cuba.
Per Wikipedia:
“under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War. The lease was established in a 1903 agreement between the two governments, and its terms were modified in a 1934 treaty.”
Well,...it's not too easy to operate those big iron boats on dry land you know. But we try to compromise by using our carrier air groups. When the bad guys look up and see "NAVY" on those birds, they pretty much know they're not being slighted and are deserving of our attention.