Two Amphibious Assault Ships 'Parked Off of Egypt'

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by HK_User, Jul 16, 2013.

  1. HK_User

    HK_User A Productive Monkey is a Happy Monkey

    Jul 12, 2013

    Stars and Stripes| by Megan McCloskey

    WASHINGTON -- As political unrest continues in post-coup Egypt, two amphibious assault ships have moved to the coast there, the commandant of the Marine Corps said Thursday.
    The USS Kearsarge and the USS San Antonio “moved up into the Red Sea and parked off of Egypt,” a couple of nights ago, “because we don’t know what’s going to happen,” Gen. James Amos said.
    Amos was speaking with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert at a forum on the future of maritime forces, which was held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    Having noted earlier that he thinks “there’s zero peace dividend” coming out Afghanistan, he used the situation in Egypt as part of his pitch that despite uncertain budget times the U.S. military should maintain a robust presence throughout the world.
    “Crisis happens. Egypt is a crisis right now,” Amos said. “When that happens...what we owe the senior leadership of our nation is versatile options.”
    The two ships are “there on purpose,” he said. “That’s the flexibility that in a response to a crisis we have to have.”
    He and Greenert also discussed the pivot to Asia, a strategy that they are working on how to implement within the current budget constraints.
    The build up in Australia is continuing with the number of Marines in Darwin set to grow from 250 to 1,000 in 2014, and the Marines have gone from one to three battalions on the Japanese island of Okinawa with a fourth headed there this fall.
  2. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    The Kearsarge was the last ship that I served aboard; on its maiden deployment. We were both newer craft back then.

    I imagine they're sitting there to pull out the embassy personnel, if required. The Egyptian Army will eventually prevail, if it comes to armed conflict, I believe, but it could get messy for a while. The Egyptian Army OWNS Egypt (figuratively and literally), and has for many years; not that it's necessarily a bad thing. They have an interest in guaranteeing the stability of the nation.
    Yard Dart and chelloveck like this.
  3. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    Man, I'm old! Had to pull up an image of the Kearsarge. I couldn't believe she was the same cvs from my day. Seems this
    one is a tad newer.
    tulianr likes this.
  4. HK_User

    HK_User A Productive Monkey is a Happy Monkey

    No problem here. I was once a part of such an operation in another part of that area, well sorta. We were never there and we left as quietly as we came!
    tulianr likes this.
  5. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Seems to me that stationing a couple ships in the area makes a lot of sense from a State Department point of view rather than a military POV. Trouble comes when the reasoning is misinterpreted from a rescue mission thought process to an act of aggression. Funny, isn't it, how two sides of a coin look so different?
    kellory and tulianr like this.
  6. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Ha ha! I'd be just a tad older if I had been on the maiden deployment of Kearsarge CV-33. Kearsarge LHD-3 was commissioned in 1993, and we (the Marine contingent - 24th MEU) went aboard in March of 1995 for a deployment out to the Mediterranean and the Adriatic off of Bosnia. We weren't pleased to learn that it would be the ship's maiden deployment. She had not one scratch on her bulkheads, no paint had ever been chipped from her decks, and there were no stains on her non-skid. Those XO inspections every week were rough. They had a pretty, new ship; and they intended to keep her that way. Woe be unto he that dropped something on the deck or banged something into the bulkheads with the CO or XO nearby. She was a sweet ship though and, with her full complement aboard, a very capable ship.
    chelloveck likes this.
  7. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    Thinking we have no business in their internal affairs--just like we did not in Iraq. Civil matters outside the US, outside of our constitutional mandates, and none of our business. We bombed, straffed, killed, injured civilian targets in Libya (supposed "no fly zone") and wasted billions of dollars in the process--again, none of our business. Their country--no ours. We have alienated this country from most of the world by sticking our big noses into their back yards and trying to run THEIR country. We have hundreds of bases across the world---why?
    tulianr, gunbunny and BTPost like this.
  8. Byte

    Byte Monkey+++

    Empire pays well...
    chelloveck likes this.
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Considering all the "aid" (read as rent for the bases) we give them, seems that they just might welcome our presence, eh?
  10. Byte

    Byte Monkey+++

    Well sure it might just be that simple on their end of it...but I was addressing 'our' motivation for it. I'm absolutely 100% positive the US gvmts motivation to give them all that 'aid' isn't altruism...

    As -06 surreptitiously pointed out and ghrit inadvertently hinted at, the primary motivation isn't profit in the money sense. Though money does help to buy what they really gain.

    I'll spell it out for you:

    C O N T R O L
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary