I must be slipping. 
I am actually sitting here and agreeing with something that Max Boot wrote in Commentary Magazine. 
Quote:
Today the U.S. Navy must prepare for two major wars–one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, the other against China in the Western Pacific–while also combating piracy off the coast of Africa, dealing with unexpected wars such as the one in Libya last year, supporting ground operations in Afghanistan and other theaters, combating drug runners in the Caribbean, and showing the flag in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and other seas. The operational tempo dictated by these requirements is terrific, as I have seen for myself in the last few years in visits to the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the 7th Fleet in Japan.
The ships we have are, when not retrofitting in port, almost constantly at sea and they are struggling to keep up with threats ranging from Chinese “aircraft-killer” ballistic missiles and submarines to Iranian mines and cruise missiles–not to mention the ever-present threat of cyberattack and terrorism (of the kind which crippled the USS Cole). Yes, the capabilities of each naval ship are greater today–but so are its range of potential missions and so are the capabilities of our potential foes. China is expanding its maritime capabilities at a rapid clip; the U.S. Navy is struggling to keep up and the balance of power in the Western Pacific is shifting against us.
That is in large part why the bipartisan Hadley-Perry Commission concluded in 2010 that the Navy should have 346 ships. Yet today it has only 282 ships–and falling. As former Navy Secretary (and Romney adviser) John Lehman noted in April: “The latest budget the administration has advanced proposes buying just 41 ships over five years. It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”
That is a looming strategic disaster–and one that no amount of quips about horses and bayonets can wish away. If we don’t build more ships, our global maritime dominance–the basic underpinning of the world’s strategic and economic stability–is in real danger of slipping away.
The only thing that I have a quibble with, is that he actually forgot Russia. If Max thinks that Russia is not a threat to our National Security; he is nuts. As long as Putin has his hands in the Government in Russia, the United States should be very worried. Putin is a holdover from the communist era in Russia and he would just love to take Russia back to the old Communist era. So, they are a threat, as a matter of face they were just testing missiles yesterday.
Reagan always said, when it came to Russia; “Trust, But Verify” and Reagan always did try and independently verify anything that the Russians were saying or doing. All of the Presidents since then have not been so careful, as far as I know. As much as I know that it is going to make me sound like a conspiracy theory kook; I really do not believe that Russia is to be trusted at all. Communism never quite dies, it just takes on new shapes and names. Sort of like what we have here in America, as it is called —- imperfect Marxism.
However, over in Russia, I believe it to be a bit more sinister and complex; those who would want to bring back old soviet-style communism, have plenty of funding, as many in the Russian Business and underworld, would stand to make a good deal of money, if the old Communist Party came back to power. So, that is a threat and I believe our Military should always be on the ready, for when the Russians decided to show muscle.
I hate to be the one to say it; but, anyone who thinks that there are not threats to the security of this Country and others in the region, is at the very least highly uninformed. This is why I always had a quibble with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As Paul’s foreign policy was just simply not rooted in the realities of the time. Ron Paul seems to be stuck in a utopian era, before World War 2. Truth is, times have changed, and we must be responsible as a Nation to protect this great Republic of ours, from those who wish to cause it harm. This is not a “Neo-Con” foreign policy, that is a reality based, Pro-American foreign policy.
Sadly, Ron Paul refuses to accept that argument and that is why I always had trouble taking him seriously, except maybe on matters of fiscal policy. Even then, some of his ideas are just not rooted in reality. Nice ideas, but a bit out of step for the realities of today.