Excuse Me Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

Marine recruits go through the bayonet assault training course at Parris Island, S.C., on May 13, 2011.

(Photo Credit DoD)

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 23, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Military.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Meiji_man

    …the Army still uses horses, America’s commitments are bigger then 1916, and the world a more dangerous place.

  • Sky__Captain

    And submarines are not referred to as “ships”.
    The proper term for subs is “boats”.

    Also, the proper term for the thin-skinned, snarky narcissist 0bama is “loser”.

    • Vagabond661

      Correct on the “boats”. And we submariners refer to “ships” as “targets”. :)

      • jim_m

        20 million viewers a week watch NCIS and any one of them could have gotten that fact right.

    • UOG

      Capt’n, you’re asking an lot from a man who came into office unable to correctly pronounce the word “corpsman.”

      • jim_m

        obama pronounced the word exactly as he meant it.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    The bayonet is more of a state of mind – “the spirit of the bayonet” – than an often- used combat weapon. Kind of like parachute training in that it instills confidence and aggressiveness in a lot more troops than will ever use a bayonet or jump in a combat drop.

    I agree with Romney that we should have a bigger navy – which is why we should save money spent on useless wars and use it to build ships. Building ships also has the benefit of providing more jobs in the USA instead of giving it to corrupt Arab and Paki contractors overseas.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think Romney will do that, despite his channeling of the spirit of George McGovern (peace, peaceful!!) tonight – more like on to Syria and Iran at the command of his master, Netanyahu.

    • Rdmurphy42

      You just can’t help indulging in your virulent Israel hatred, can you Chico?

    • Vagabond661

      When you say building ships, do you mean cruise ships or ones that win wars?

    • jim_m

      I’m impressed Chico. You waited until the end of your third paragraph to blame the Joos.

    • GarandFan

      “The spirit of the bayonet” is no longer taught in Army basic training.

    • Jack Zimms

      Bayonets are still more effective in hand-to-hand combat
      than a rifle alone. It or an alternative knife is still used quite often in the
      field. It is much more than a state of mind.

      The only reason parachute training has turn into such a joke is because we allowed political correctness to take it over. It use to be not only be used for teaching the basics of combat jumps but also as an initial weeding out of the weak device. It gave a sample to the troops in what it takes to be in a airborne combat unit. Even those who would not serve in an airborne combat
      unit would have a better appreciation of those units. However since most of the woman couldn’t meet the standards, the standards had to be lower and lower and lower until it became a joke. State of mind is “part” of it but by far not the only part.

      If Palin had made that statement, the old media and the left would be screaming bloody murder and claim what an idiot she is for getting that fact wrong.

      • retired.military

        Bayonets are much more. They can be used for such things as clearing your way through a minefield, preparing food, digging trenches, etc. They are a multipurpose tool which will probably never go out of vogue for the basic combat soldiers.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        You still have to be willing to jump out that door, which is a screening tool in itself.

  • TomInCali

    He didn’t say they don’t use them anymore. He said, “we also have fewer horses and bayonets”. Are you saying that is incorrect?

    Also, Obama let Romney off easy with that remark. The fact is that “during the years 2005 to 2008, the number of active ships was 282, 281, 278 and 282, respectively — each of which were below the levels of 2009, 2010 and 2011. In other words, each of the final four years under George W. Bush saw lower levels of active ships than any of the three years under Obama. The number of surface warships also bottomed out in 2005 under Bush, later rising by about 10 percent under Obama.”

    • jim_m

      It takes 1-3 years to build a ship and more to make it ready for service. If the number of ships in active service is up under obama it is because that action was taken under Bush.

      • herddog505

        USS Kitty Hawk was decommissioned early in ’09. USS Enterprise is scheduled to be decommissioned in December. USS George H. W. Bush joined the fleet in ’09. The next carrier, Gerald R. Ford, isn’t scheduled for delivery until 2015, with the new JFK five years later. So, under Barry’s watch, we lose two flattops and gain one. Not inspiring.

        The Navy’s plans to decommission several Ticonderoga-class cruisers seems to be in flux, but what is quite clear is that no more are building and no replacement is planned. The hulls themselves are aging; USS Bunker Hill is nearly thirty years old.

        We’ve still got a decent force of Los Angeles-class subs, though many are getting quite old*, with a pitifully slow rate of building new Virginia-class subs. Given the surge in ultra-quiet, AIP-equipped “conventional” subs (such as the French Scorpène) being built around the world, I worry very much that we’re losing our edge in ASW warfare.

        We are not building any more SSBN’s.**

        The Navy’s strike fighter, the F/A-18, first flew in 1978, though of course the design has been much improved since then.

        The Navy is spending (wasting, IMO) money on “littoral combat ships” that are some sort of bastard hybrid between an amphibious landing ship, a helicopter carrier, and a Coast Guard cutter.

        The bottom line is that the Navy is in a sad way, and I don’t see Barry doing sh*t to change that. This is especially infuriating in light of democrat complaints about how Bush’s “illegal, undeclared” wars were crippling our national defense, as if democrats were just champing at the bit to spend the money on carriers, fighters, and MBT’s.

        ===

        (*) USS Bremerton (SSN-698) was commissioned in 1981. The newest, USS Cheyenne (SSN-773) was commissioned in 1996.

        (**) USS Ohio (since converted to a cruise-missile sub, SSGN-726) was commissioned in 1981. The last, USS Louisiana (SSBN-743), was commissioned in 1997.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Personally, with the increased levels of pirate activity and brutality in the world, the littoral ships may have value. If we deploy them properly and if our skippers are given rules of engagement that allow them to be effective. Make it clear that the USN will protect US commerce and citizens even if the locals are unable or unwilling to do the job.
          The Zumwalt class vessels, if they are completed and put into service are potentially the next big thing for the Navy, but hideously expensive as well.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Depends on the ship, some take much longer.

        Then there’s the rule of three. It takes three ships to keep one on station 24/7/365. 11 Cariers means 3 CVBG that we can keep on station off a hot spot, and we’ve got national interests in more than three widely separated geographical areas.

      • TomInCali

        You missed the point. In 1916, there were 245 ships. Which makes Romney’s claim a “pants on fire” lie (If you bothered to follow my link).

        • jim_m

          Carrier’s do not travel alone as idiot obama and you (apparently) believe. They travel in Carrier Battle Groups and have a large number of support vessels.

          Also in 1916 we were not the preeminent world naval power. That title belonged to Great Britain.

          • TomInCali

            If Romney had said anything about carriers, or they existed in 1916, your first comment would be relevant.

            If Romney had been comparing us to Great Britain instead of stating a falsehood, your second comment would be relevant.

    • UOG

      Tom, you need to do a bit of reading on troop levels. Start here: http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-wrong-about-bayonets.html

      There are most definitely more bayonets today than in 1916.

      • retired.military

        UOG
        He is too deep in the kool aid to stop drinking now. Cant wait until Obummer loses the election.

      • TomInCali

        And there are most definitely more ships today than in 1916.

    • retired.military

      Yes that is incorrect. We actually have more bayonets than we did in 1916.

      Also those ships (which generally have a life of 20 or so years) were decommissioned under Clinton. The Pentagon operates under a 5 year budget plan and so ships being replaced in 2005 were actually programmed in the budget about the year 2000. Ships in the fleet in 2009-2011 were programmed in the budget about the year 2003-2006.

      Try to learn something about which you speak.

      • TomInCali

        I was asking a question. Thank you for answering it, but you could have done it without the snide remark tacked on.

        It doesn’t matter when the ships were commissioned, programmed, whatever. Bush or Obama, there are more ships now than in 1916. So you should take your own advice.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          You reap what you sow Tom.

  • Hank_M

    I’ll give Romney a lot of credit for not taking the bait last night.
    Obama was a condescending dink trying every zinger he could come up with to rattle Romney. Romney somehow kept his calm even though I was hoping he’s go after Barry more than he did.

    Obama is a very very small man.

  • Rance Frayger

    It’s good to know that if the U.S. is ever attacked by the Michelin man our boys will be ready.

    Now, any of you want to explain how Iran gets to the sea via Syria?

    • Digg34

      Iran doesn’t go to sea silly man, its a country.
      I imagine it would be one route to smuggle stuff in and out through Syria.

    • jim_m

      Iran gets to the sea via the Persian Gulf. You might be interested to know that Iran was once called Persia (hence the name of the gulf). They can also get there via the Gulf of Oman. I suggest purchasing a globe, or perhaps googling for a map of Iran.

      • Brucehenry

        IIRC, Romney blurted out something about Syria giving Iran “access to the sea.” Which is what, I presume, Rance is referring to.

        • retired.military

          f you look at the map. Iran and Syria are not neighbors. However, Syria is a major throughput for Iranian oil and natural gas exports to the mediterean sea and points east (other wise the ships would have to go around Africa). , I am assuming this is what Romney is referring to. Also since Syria signed new deals in 2011 I am assuming that they are one of the 20 countries which Obama worked to approve being exempt from the sanctions on Iran.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            I do not think there is a pipeline from Iran to Syria. The Iraqis can’t even get much of their oil out to the Med, maybe to Ceyhan.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Syria allied with Iran would give Iran friendly harbors in the Mediterranean for shipping and their diesel subs and mine layers. Land travel between the two would require crossing though Turkey or Iraq of course. Neither nation, to my knowledge, is eager to see a stronger Iran or a stronger Syria under the current regimes.

          • Brucehenry

            My point was that Jim’s and Digg’s snark about buying a map or googling Iran was misplaced when directed at Rance. It would have been more accurately directed at Romney.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I don’t think Romney finished his point during the debate. I believe he let a number of things slide rather than look combative or peevish. For the first 15 minutes or so I found the over-nice Romney to be annoying, but by the end it was clear that it was goading the President into increasingly worse behaivors.

    • retired.military

      I presume your michelen man comment relates to bayonets. As I stated above a bayonet is a multipupose tool and not just used for close quarters combat.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    Yes, but did he read that tire its “rights” before he “brought him to justice”?

  • retired.military

    At work today I was talking to an African American female. She said that she was voting for Obama until the debate last night changed her mind. In between the teachers and bayonets she realized that he had no clue how to improve the economy or cut spending other than cutting the military.

  • NMMNG

    Did he say they don’t use “ANY” bayonets? do ya’ll feel that breeze rushing over your heads?