And which is the overly bloated entity that...
Oh wait, it's you talking, nevermind, I'm not gonna bother.
Typical liberal. When something pops your cocoon, plug your ears and chant "I'm not listening!" over and over.
Obama wants to move plastic aircraft carriers around on the strategic map in his White House, but in the real world aircraft carriers go nowhere without destroyer screens and support ships like Aegis cruisers. If an aircraft carrier is unprotected, a single $1000 missile can destroy it.
Obama's correct. Many of the obligations the Navy is task with now exist only on paper, such as guarding convoys to Europe from attacks by the Soviet Russian bomber and submarine fleet. The Navy is still required to keep ships in readiness for that purpose, even though having to supply a European army is unlikely in the extreme and Russia doesn't have that much to shoot at one anyway. The ships being built are for the purpose of replacing ships as they are decommissioned, rather than augmenting the fleet.
Weakness attracts predators. Russia
did invade Georgia a few years ago. Don't tell me you think they're more cuddly now just because they aren't Soviet. Do you really think Russia is peaceful?
We have aircraft carriers. Doesn't that basically make all other crafts except anti-sub ships and submarines obsolete?
Obama is a goof. Don't rely on him for military strategy. Any aircraft carrier that travels without a large taskforce of supporting ships is a sitting duck. The navy needs other smaller ships precisely because it does have large and
extremely high-value assets floating around. Carriers are glass cannons.