Detail of Note: H.R. 5136 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011

Haven't really been able to follow the DC news on the House bill, so I am probably repeating something others have highlighted. I did think this was noteworthy though.

From the Obama administrations reaction to H.R. 5136 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.

Decommissioning of Naval Vessels: The Administration strongly opposes the requirement to retain two ships - the USS NASSAU (LHA 4) and the USS PELELIU (LHA 5) - in service and to the specific limitation of decommissioning no more than 2 ships for every 3 ships commissioned. The Department is committed to replacing older, less capable ships that have become increasingly expensive to maintain and operate with ships better suited for current and future needs that will provide forces the capability to meet a wider range of Combatant Commanders’ requirements. Additionally, the Administration objects to Section 1022’s burdensome new notification requirements for decommissioning any battle force vessel of the active Fleet.

The Obama administration wants to retire Navy ships faster to save money, while the House bill looks at this specific issue to try and find ways to keep the Navy from shrinking too much. I'm going to watch from the cheap seats - but this is what I do know.

There is no way on planet Earth that some of the CGs or DDGs are ever going to make 40 years. No chance. Not only will they be retiring at a rate of 4-5 per year starting in about a decade, but several are going to have to retire early because they simply are not in good enough material condition to make it the full expected 40 year life.

A lot of people, including Secretary Gates, are focused on recapitalization of the Army following Iraq and Afghanistan. Great... so we can rebuild the Army to fight another land war in Asia?

Sorry, but if we are serious about a 21st century military, we need a better strategy that includes a smarter approach to affording both manpower and material while maintaining our edge in technology. We cannot afford a strong Navy and to recapitalize the now larger Army for the next land war in Asia.

Pick which one you want, because both isn't a legitimate option. Congress has the long view on this issue - the Navy is shrinking and new ships aren't coming very quickly. The administration, under Secretary Gates, has not given a long view in public testimony or speech. Gates is intentionally vague and rarely provides a clear vision in his speeches. I don't blame Congress for ignoring the recommendations of any administration that cannot provide a vision of force structure to match defense strategy - whether it was Bush or Obama.

This footnote in the House bill may be nothing, but it could also be a good starting place for a healthy debate regarding the future of the DoD.