I got this from NRAINSTRUCTOR (thanks buddy! welcome aboard!)
via
The Atlantic...(follow the link and read the whole thing)
Of
the 11 commissioned U.S. warships ships en route to Japan, almost
half are big Cold War-era amphibious assault vessels purpose-built to
land Marines on hostile shores. But while these unglamorous transport
ships dispatch helicopters and critical aid to a grateful ally, they're
being marginalized by a Navy that tends to fixate on the capabilities to
wage a high-tech, blue-water war, while underestimating the importance
of mundane disaster-response work in maintaining our global power and
influence.
The Navy's amphibious forces have carried out the
lion's share of America's disaster-response work, responding to 114
crises and contingencies over the past 20 years. Yet this enviable
record means little inside the beltway. With the recent cancellation of
the pricey $25-million dollar Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a
specialized floating tank meant to speed Marines from sea to shore,
defense leaders are signaling that troop transporters, helicopter
carriers, and other old-school "charge the beach" tools of amphibious
warfare are obsolete and not worth full funding. The EFV deserved
cancellation for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its
price tag, but skeptics of amphibious warfare are using the EFV's demise
to claim that the amphibious fleet as a whole has lost its reason for
being and should be cut.
But even as Washington cuts, more countries are investing in amphibious warfare platforms than ever before.
Not the story big Navy wants out.
Not a story about the glorious aircraft carriers.
Not a story about the exotic and powerful destroyers.
Not a story about a "Global Force for Good".
A story about the busiest ships in the fleet.
ABOUT DAMN TIME!
