US navy cuts presence in Gulf region to a single aircraft carrier

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2157090,00.html

Manama - The United States have reduced their aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf region to a single carrier, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command/US 5th Fleet said on Wednesday.

"This morning the USS Enterprise and four surface combatants have transited through the Suez Canal, entering the 5th Fleet area," Cosgriff told Deutsche Presse-Agentur after a change-of-command ceremony for the Combined Task Force 150 in Manama.

"The USS Enterprise is the only aircraft carrier under my command in the 5th Fleet area, the two other aircraft carriers have left the 5th Fleet area recently," he said.

Cosgriff described the current US and coalition naval presence in the region as "average," attributing the fluctuation in force numbers to the normal rotation of forces.

On July 10, the Bahrain-based US 5th Fleet Command said that the USS Enterprise was transiting to the region to join the USS John C Stennis (CVN 74) and USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) that have been operating in the region since early this year.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/11

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Nimitz is in the Indian ocean, Stennis in Hong Kong

the tours and stationing of carriers are planned well in advance. That they had port calls planned elsewhere was well known

...the leaders of that country would just shudder with fear?

That was the days before Bush showed the entire world what primitive IEDs built for a few dollars in someones garage could do to our super expensive high tech military machine on an actual battlefield.

Bring 'em on my ass.

Don

.... the world is that a war isn't over until one side quits. If you don't quit, then the only way the US can win is to overtly and actively exterminate you - which is unlikely to gain a lot of sympathy in today's world (thank god).

Just jumping up and down and screaming for us to leave would not have accomplished anything.

Many were under the impression that the Iraqis would not be able to continually inflict casualties on our military long term. With the extensive use of IEDs that has been shown to be incorrect.

Don

on the way to Baghdad will insure they have material to work with for quite some time into the future.

Bush/Cheney's impending attack on Iran for "no impeachment."

You just don't give away your chief power in a negotiation, on Day One, and get nothing in return. Did she say to them--upon being handed the House gavel by the American people: "You don't attack Iran, and we won't impeach--and get rid of Rumsfeld"? Then she was off to Syria, Israel and other points east, in the midst of the British sailors' hostage crisis. Taking the word? No attack on Iran?

You gotta wonder. There WAS a buildup. Saber rattling AND with the Navy. And I don't think that the folks who were noting this buildup were wrong. It looked for all the world like, a) imminent attack on Iran, or b) another possibility--readiness for a big evacuation from Iraq. SOMETHING was going on.

Also, Bush/Cheney are acting exactly like they have a "get out of jail free card"--pushing the envelope, claiming all manner of insane, unprecedented "executive privilege," thumbing their nose at Congress. 25% approval rating for Bush. Cheney must be below 10% at this point (--he had an 18% approval rating about a year ago). And yet--with ZERO mandate--they commute Libby's sentence (in a case that implicates THEM! --naked obstruction of justice by the WH), defy Congressional subpoenas, declare the VP's office not part of the Executive Branch (to avoid disclosure laws), write more fascist "laws" themselves, inventing more Executive powers through "Executive Orders," and commit perjury it seems hourly, AS IF THEY EXPECT NO CONSEQUENCES.

IF this is what Pelosi did, it may be understandable and forgivable, cuz we're talking about WW III. I think China and Russia, and possibly India, were poised to act against us--economically, and possibly militarily, if Bush/Cheney attacked Iran. And even if they didn't act, a Mideast-wide war would have spread--to Pakistan (nukes), Israel (nukes), Turkey, Syria, Egypt, possibly all the Islamic monarchies, with millions of refugees, if not military action, reaching into southern Europe and north Africa, and to the east, of course, into Asia. Worldwide jihad!

My democratic soul cries out against such a "deal" with Bush/Cheney (WHAT "table," Nancy--and why weren't the American people sitting at it?). And it tells us a lot about the state of our democracy that Bush/Cheney--the most illegitimate regime ever to gain power in this country--could blackmail our leaders this way, if that's what happened. I figure something DID happen along these lines. And our leaders' motives were probably good ones. It's just that it leaves us with a broken Constitution and Bill of Rights that are going to be extremely difficult to repair, and a perilous road ahead of us, as Bush/Cheney's horrible misrule hits home, and conditions similar to Germany 1930 develop. I would feel a lot better about things if Congress were acting strongly to REPAIR the "rule of law" (to rescind "trade secret" vote counting, to disavow torture, to repeal the Patriot Act, etc.), but they are not. All these precedents remain--to utterly suppress dissent at any time, at the will of the "emperor."

During the Cornwall incident Bush offered Blair to push Iranian Air space with carriers jets, Blair blew up at Bush, told him no, and while you are at it, get out of the region, I dont want any mistakes. Blair was backed up by Iran, Israel, KSA. Blair kept it very regional.

Not for nothing, but to leave that much out of a script shows real weakness in the underlying theory. Not to say you're wrong, if a deal did go down, that is not how it happened.