Posted on 05/28/2017 10:57:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Secretary of Defense James Mattis appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" this morning and spoke with James Dickerson about a number of national security issues, including ISIS, North Korea, the Manchester bombing, NATO, and the Paris climate agreement.
Mattis, a retired General and former Commandant of the United States Central Command, had a storied Marine career and was hailed as "The most revered Marine of his generation" upon his retirement in 2013. To say that he's probably seen some things is an understatement.
He's previously said, “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
What does he lose sleep over? Dickerson asked him what keeps him awake at night:
Sec. Mattis on what keeps him awake at night pic.twitter.com/KtNgTfYeB2— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) May 28, 2017
His answer? "Nothing. I keep people awake at night."
Exactly the attitude ISIS, North Korea, and anyone else who seeks to harm the United States needs to see from our military.
Given that a well-known Mattism (the name reporters have given his phrases) is "Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet," this answer shouldn't be surprising at all.
If every American were like this guy, no global craphead would even think of pissing with us. Life would be so much nicer, but not for them!
Mad man strategy. Are we starting to get it here? A little? Maybe?
While it’s undeniable that most admirals failed to recognize that battleships had been overtaken by aircraft carriers as the capital ship of modern navies between the world wars, I respectfully disagree that this fact buttresses your view of today’s carrier force. Aside from the Arizona and the Oklahoma lost at Pearl Harbor, where they were caught essentially defenseless, the US Navy lost zero battleships during WWII.
The navies of Germany, Italy, and Japan were unable, aside from the submarine threat, to mount a sufficient offensive capability to challenge the heavily armored battlewagons. By using fleet tactics that others have alluded to in regards to modern carrier task force operations, destroyers and other smaller ships, along with air cover from carriers, kept the large ships relatively safe.
It’s a fact of warfare that assets are lost in combat. The US Navy lost twelve carriers, but in so doing dispatched twenty Japanese carriers. It was the overall superiority of numbers, training, logistics, weapons and operations that won the battle. It’s ever thus. I see no nation that will easily challenge American naval power in the foreseeable future. Keeping the technological edge, and the will to win if war breaks out, are the keys going forward.
Any rational American would hope that both of you are correct and that the surface ships of the US Navy can defend themselves and survive the attacks of a modern technologically sophisticated opponent. In the event of an all out war against such an opponent and the use of those ships in the offensive roles for which they were designed, literally tens of thousands of sailors, aviators and Marines depend on those defenses and strategies. Also have little doubt that various battle scenarios have been run at the Naval War College and the Pentagon gaming this concept. Obviously the results will never be made public. Simple point is that technological development moves fast and is lethal. Remember recent history. Saddam’s battle hardened veteran army was decimated in less than a week. Most of the Iraqis who died never saw the soldier or plane that killed them. Once they were located, they were destroyed with technology from twenty five years ago.
As an aside often wondered what that war gaming concluded about the fate of the big capital blue water ships of the US Navy in the shallow, narrow Persian Gulf if shooting had started. Could those ships survive the attacks of the modern Chinese made stealthy shore to ship missiles the Iranians purchased and deployed, traditional less sophisticated missiles and asymmetric attacks from small craft and suicide boats? Suspect the gaming estimated that over 95% of attacking ordnance would be stopped by defensive weaponry but ships would be hit, damaged and some sunk. Did the Obama administration conclude our position within the Gulf was untenable and was that one of the reasons we disengaged and routinely no longer keep large forces in the actual Gulf?
Saddam's military was a ragtag, third world force that could not defeat Iran over 8 years. They lacked organization, cohesion, and the will to fight. Very overrated. I went into Kuwait a few days after the end of the Gulf War and toured the "mile of death" from the air and on the ground amid the burning oil wells. This "battle hardened veteran army" were just a bunch of looters and cowards. At the first sound of battle they ran. A number of them surrendered to reporters. Remember Baghdad Bob?
As an aside often wondered what that war gaming concluded about the fate of the big capital blue water ships of the US Navy in the shallow, narrow Persian Gulf if shooting had started. Could those ships survive the attacks of the modern Chinese made stealthy shore to ship missiles the Iranians purchased and deployed, traditional less sophisticated missiles and asymmetric attacks from small craft and suicide boats?
We don't deploy our carrier groups close to shore or within range of these missiles. We have anti-missile defenses along with electronic countermeasures. Our enemy is being watched and tracked via satellites.
Carriers are not "coffins" nor are our tanks, planes, and helicopters. We are aware of our potential enemies' capabilities and take appropriate measures to reduce our vulnerability to them. Any Iranian attack on our carriers will trigger a massive, overwhelming response that will devastate their country. Despite all of their bluster, the mullahs are not suicidal. They want to retain their wealth and power.
Trump should personally introduce him to every member of the WH “press” corpse.
Just like it did when an American City, and the Pentagon were attacked?
“Saddam’s battle hardened veteran army was decimated in less than a week.”
No, it was not decimated, it was DESTROYED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.