Europe commits to Defense Spending But...

 I read the article, and they are casting shades on President Trump while increasing their defense spending.  He warned them that they needed to increase their spending and they blew him off like he was some kind of rube and he also warned Europe, especially Germany about being dependent on Russian energy while touting all the "Green Energy" bullshit that the "SPD" and "Die Grune" were espousing....Now they are going to have a rough winter, but by Gaia they have wind turbines and solar farms and shut down their last 2 nuclear power plants to the cheers of the "Grune" and other lefties because they hate nuclear power....and burn that old nasty coal they have to get from the "Saarland" yes I know quite a bit about Germany, besides having been stationed there for 5 years,  I have kinfolks, and they hail from the Saarland region of Germany.  Now the chickens have come home to roost and it is going to be very expensive, and I don't know if the Europeans especially the Germans will be able to maintain or spend the money necessary for their defense budget, there used to be a term that was bandied about during the "Cold War", the term is called "Guns Vs Butter" they have been used for several generations of spending less than the 2% minimum necessary for NATO membership, we also cut back after the end of the "Cold War", many especially the Democrats were clamoring for "Peace Dividend", I was a victim of it, I got "RIF"ed as did many others, especially those from my regiment. But the Europeans especially Germans have gotten very used to their large social nets, and they also have a large number of "migrants" that are on the government dole that have to be taken care of. If they can maintain the discipline to restock and rebuild over several years remains to be seen, but Europe has relied on the United States to carry most of the defense duties while they cut their forces down to a shadow of what they were during the cold war.

 

The consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine—including cities pounded into rubble by indiscriminate bombing and artillery, war crimes perpetrated by Moscow’s soldiers and a naval blockade of Black Sea ports threatening global food stocks—have galvanized NATO and returned defense to the top of the European priority list.

• More nations are committing to NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target
• EU figures suggest collaborative defense spending has fallen
• Investment in air and missile defense could be prioritized

NATO and EU leaders have spoken warmly of the unity demonstrated by member states, and across the continent, European allies have set in motion spending hikes that could reverse decades of swingeing cuts imposed since the end of the Cold War.

Traditionally nonmilitarily-aligned Finland and Sweden have submitted requests to join NATO, and a Danish referendum has chosen to end the country’s long-standing opt-out to Europe’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).

Many European countries, along with Australia, Canada and the U.S., have supplied ever-increasing amounts of weapons and equipment to Ukraine while backfilling equipment into those Eastern European countries that are transferring Soviet-era gear eastward.

Yet as the war approaches its 150th day, fractures are appearing. Nations appear divided over how the conflict should end, either through negotiated settlement between Kyiv and Moscow or the complete removal of Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. There is also disagreement over how to manage the social, political and economic impact that the conflict and sanctions imposed on Russia are having on everyday life in Europe, as energy prices skyrocket and propel inflation to historic highs.

Questions remain about the levels of military equipment to supply to Ukraine, too, as well as where Europe’s renewed defense spending should be directed, where equipment will be sourced and whether—after years of cuts—armed forces will have the resources to absorb the vast amounts of equipment they are gearing up to buy.

“European unity has been much stronger than [Russian President Vladimir] Putin probably would have expected,” says Bastian Giegerich, the director of defense and military analysis at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “But my worry is that we are past peak coherence on this matter . . . and beginning to see some splits emerge.” He cites recent struggles among EU members to agree on new sanctions packages. “This doesn’t mean it will all fall apart, but I think it’ll be more difficult now to keep the pressure on,” he adds.

European countries have been frustrated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s decision to bargain over Finland and Sweden’s entry into NATO—finally approved at the Madrid NATO summit in late June—and Hungary’s unwillingness to support arms transfers to Ukraine. Central European countries such as Germany are being criticized for an apparent unwillingness to deliver heavy weaponry to Kyiv. An image of a snail with a bullet taped to its shell became a social media meme illustrating Berlin’s perceived failings.

In actuality, Germany has delivered anti-tank missiles in the thousands, along with heavy artillery and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. Analysts suggest Germany’s problem is more one of communications and politics.

“Germany is a coalition government; it is not the presidential system in France, or the parliamentary system in the UK, where decisions can be made relatively easily,” explains Daniel Fiott, the security and defense editor at the EU Institute for Security Studies. “This is absolutely new for them,” he adds. “Germany is always trying to balance between responsibilities in the East and Europe more generally, and that’s not easy for them to do either.”

 

Special Fund

Despite the criticisms, Germany has become the poster child for Europe’s new defense reality. Berlin has created a €100 billion ($105 billion) special fund to heal capacity shortfalls in its armed forces (AW&ST June 13-26, p. 48). Most crucially, it has promised to meet NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP immediately, a move that will make it one of the largest global spenders on defense after the U.S. and China. By comparison, the Merkel government had pledged to raise spending to just 1.5% of GDP by 2024.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has described plans to rearm as a major national effort. “We must invest significantly more in the security of our country in order to protect our freedom and our democracy in this way,” Scholz said on Feb. 27.

Out of the fund, approved by the German Bundestag on June 3 is cash for Lockheed Martin F-35s to replace Germany’s aging Panavia Tornados in the nuclear mission, new heavy-lift transport helicopters, more maritime patrol aircraft and a new fleet of light utility helicopters, as well as armored vehicles, warships, submarines and funding to rebuild depleted ammunition and equipment stockpiles.

“The German special fund will buy systems and capabilities that are supposed to fill critical gaps that have emerged over the last 20-30 years because of mismanagement and budget cuts,” says Rafael Loss, an expert on German and European foreign and security policy at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “These are projects that the Bundeswehr have had in their drawers for a long time. . . . And now that finally the money’s there, they can finally afford them.”

But he notes that Germany’s commitments to maintaining the 2% GDP spending level are “soft,” with concerns that spending at such levels could lead to waste and inefficiency.

Other countries are following in Germany’s footsteps. The Netherlands has announced plans to purchase additional F-35s, General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper uncrewed aircraft systems and a new fleet of medium-lift helicopters as part of €14.8 billion in additional 2022-25 spending announced in early June.

The country’s annual defense budget also will grow structurally by €5 billion from 2026, boosting defense spending as a proportion of GDP to just over 2%. The increases are the largest in the Netherlands’ defense capability since the Cold War.

Poland wants to raise its defense budget as a proportion of GDP to 3% in response to the Russian invasion and has announced plans for significant spending on new helicopters, main battle tanks and rocket artillery systems. Poland’s defense spending in 2022 is already 2.4% of GDP.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, German ministers and politicians would have been reluctant to be photographed in front of combat aircraft. Chancellor Olaf Scholz (center) inspected several military aircraft at the ILA Berlin Air Show in June, reflecting the country’s dramatic change in defense policy. Credit: Messe Berlin GmbH

 

The UK government has committed to raising defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade, from the current amount of approximately 2.1%.

Other nations raising their defense spending include Denmark, Romania and Sweden. Even Ireland is considering an increase in its defense capabilities, having recognized that its armed forces would be unable to properly defend the country against acts of aggression from conventional military forces (AW&ST Feb. 21-March 6, p. 41).

During the run-up to the Madrid summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said member states were considering the 2% “as a floor, not a ceiling.”

Overall, however, there is an “uneven picture” across Europe, suggests Giegerich. Elsewhere, spending increases will be more gradual and more sustainable. Germany, he says, will be the exception rather than the rule because the defense budget there had faced such structural underfunding. “Something dramatic had to happen,” he says.

However, Europe’s spending plans will be challenged by dramatic increases in inflation. EU statistics published at the end of May showed that average inflation in the eurozone had reached 8.1%, with some member states hit even harder because of their reliance on energy imports.

“Inflation is now at a speed where even modest increases in defense spending will just be eaten up right away,” Giegerich says. “So, in real terms, the spending picture is beginning to look quite different.”

Some European countries will “hedge their bets” on increased defense spending, Fiott says. “They see that the next few months and years, economically speaking, are not going to be very healthy for them,” he says.

 

Closer Collaboration

One way around this could be to encourage increased multi-national cooperation among member states. The EU contends that without such collaboration, individual nations will get less bang for their buck as they purchase new equipment.

Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren says the Netherlands would “better coordinate investments in national armed forces, with special attention to strategic shortcomings in Europe.” She cited improved cooperation on programs such as the F-35, on helicopters with Germany and with Belgium on mine warfare. Germany also cited its selection of the F-35 and Boeing’s Chinook transport helicopter as aligning better with regional allies.

The EU fears that the rush for new kit often results in governments opting for domestically built equipment because of industrial and security-of-supply considerations and often selecting non-EU sourced systems such as those from the U.S.

According to the EU, the lack of cooperation between member states on defense is estimated to cost tens of billions of euros each year. It notes that despite increased defense expenditures in 2020, just 11% of investments were spent collaboratively.

While welcoming defense spending increases generally, the EU felt obliged to deliver proposals around improving multinational coordination among the member states, which could result in reduced prices but also help Europe’s defense industrial base.

Supporting these proposals would be a Defense Joint Procurement Task Force that would work with member states to support the coordination and deconflict their short-term procurement needs. The EU also wants to incentivize nations with fiscal support and tax breaks to work collaboratively.

“The Russia-Ukraine war is likely to lead to more nations buying standoff weapons such as air-launched cruise missiles, after Russia’s extensive use of such weapons to attack targets across Ukraine.

This will be a real test for the EU about whether or not it can bring new financial resources into the discussion,” Fiott says. “It is one thing to call for more joint defense procurement, but if you are not able to resolve that properly, then you are not really making a coherent argument.”

The EU has already established the European Defense Fund primarily to support research and development, but some in the European Commission and member states would like to widen the scope to support joint procurement, Fiott says.

The bloc has also expressed concerns about the state of Europe’s defense industry, which has been largely shaped around the peacetime requirements of member states and has not been tested in the quasi-wartime operating environment that now exists.

EU proposals include a plan to map Europe’s defense industrial capabilities and provide a shared picture of production capacity “and the needs to ensure European security of supply to member states,” the European Commission said in a May communique.

The issue of security of supply came into focus after several countries found they were unable to supply arms to Ukraine because the arms’ country of origin refused to provide permission. Israel, for example, has refused to provide permission to send Ukraine Spike anti-tank missiles. Switzerland, producer of shells for the German Gepard anti-aircraft guns being supplied to Ukraine, has blocked attempts to reexport that ammunition.

The EU also wants to examine whether industry can recruit and retain key skills over the long term and aims to develop a critical raw materials initiative to ensure that the defense industry has continued access to those materials.

The proposals have already received the support of some in industry. Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury urged member states to get behind the proposals, noting, “in Europe, we are stronger together and not when we fall back behind national borders and interests” (see page 58).

Denmark’s historic referendum to end its opt-out of the CSDP policies—in place since 1992—will also be important for Europe, Fiott says. The Danish will bring with them expeditionary warfare experience that has been partly lost since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and it paves the way for a Danish say in the EU’s push for wider discussion about procurements and the development of capabilities.

 

Spending Priorities

Lessons learned from the Russia--Ukraine war are likely to prompt the accelerated removal of Russian--made, Soviet-era equipment from the inventories of Eastern European nations. But it may also lead to additional investments in artillery and air, missile and drone defense.

“The ability of the Russian Armed Forces to employ deep strike is something that is hurting Ukraine’s civil and military infrastructure,” Loss notes. This may prompt increased interest in standoff weapons such as cruise and ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, air and missile defense capability has the potential for Europe-wide collaboration, Giegerich says.

“Missile defense has all the characteristics of what you would need to do something meaningful together. It’s expensive; most countries cannot do it alone, and they would be doing something for the European defense industry while doing it,” he says.

A significant question for Europe’s bigger players, such as France, Germany and the UK, is whether the Russian threat requires a reconfiguration of their policies around strategic competition. All three countries had begun focusing their attention on a sustainable commitment to the Indo--Pacific region in response to a growing threat from China. “In the EU and NATO, there’s an awareness that we need to be careful we don’t exclusively focus on one [Ukraine] to the detriment of the other [China],” Fiott says.

Finally, Europe’s governments are also concerned about who could win the U.S. presidential election in 2024. The divisive Trump administration strained relations between the U.S. and NATO, with former President Donald Trump linking the worthiness of allies with how much they were able to spend on defense. A return of Trump or a Trumpian figure could lead to more division in the EU and NATO, Loss says. A Trump-like figure, he warns could be “detrimental for the future of the European Union and European cooperation more broadly.

 

The Great White Fleet

I had blogged a couple of days ago about the Virginius affair and the effect that it had on the U.S. Navy and American diplomacy,  I remembered reading about the "Great white Fleet in Elementary school and there was a picture of the ships sailing and gleaming all in white and gold trim.

On the warm, cloudy morning of Dec. 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt stood on the weather-deck of the presidential yacht Mayflower, anchored in the waters off Hampton Roads, Va. He flashed his famous broad, toothy smile and thought how "bully" it was to see a mighty armada of US battleships passing in review before him. The President, and indeed the throngs of onlookers gathered on shore, felt a great sense of pride and exhilaration as 16 battleships of the US Atlantic Fleet, all painted white, save for gilded bows, steamed in a long majestic column out of Hampton Roads to the open sea, flanked by their attending auxiliary ships.

USS Connecticut (BB-18), leading the Atlantic Fleet to Sea, circa December 1907, probably at the start of the cruise around the world

To the familiar strains of "The Girl I left Behind Me," the procession of battlewagons passed before the President at 400-yard intervals with their crews smartly manning the rails. This newly designated battle fleet was made up of ships commissioned since the end of the Spanish-American War. They were USS Kearsarge (BB-5), USS Kentucky (BB-6), USS Illinois (BB-7), USS Alabama (BB-8), USS Maine (BB-10), USS Missouri (BB-11), USS Ohio (BB-12), USS Virginia (BB-13), USS Georgia (BB-15), USS New Jersey (BB-16), USS Rhode Island (BB-17), USS Connecticut (BB-18), USS Louisiana (BB-19), USS Vermont (BB-20), USS Kansas (BB-21) and USS Minnesota (BB-22).
The four squadrons of warships, dubbed the "Great White Fleet," were manned by 14,000 sailors and marines under the command of Rear Adm. Robley "Fighting Bob" Evans. All were embarking upon a naval deployment the scale of which had never been attempted by any nation before - the first 'round-the-world cruise by a fleet of steam-powered, steel battleships. The 43,000 mile, 14-month circumnavigation would include 20 port calls on six continents; it is widely considered one of the greatest peacetime achievements of the US Navy.
The idea of sending the new battle fleet around the world was the brainchild of the energetic "Teddy" Roosevelt, former colonel of the Rough Riders and one-time assistant secretary of the Navy. Assuming the presidency after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Roosevelt brought to the White House a deep conviction that only through a strong navy could a nation project its power and prestige abroad.

Admirals Brownson, Davis and Evans, President Theodore Roosevelt and Secretary Bonaparte. 

      In 1898, at the end of the Spanish-American War, the United States was thrust into the mainstream of international affairs and gained status as a world power, acquiring as possessions the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific, then Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. In 1904, the United States also established a naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to ensure the safety of the Panama Canal, then under construction.
Roosevelt stressed the upgrading and expansion of the US fleet in order to protect American interests abroad. From 1904 to 1907, American shipyards turned out 11 new battleships to give the Navy awesome battle capabilities. This was timely, for, in 1906, hostilities with Japan seemed possible; the Japanese navy dominated the Pacific and posed a potential threat to the Philippines.
America's problems with Japan arose shortly after Roosevelt mediated the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1906, ending the Russo-Japanese War. In that conflict the Russian fleet had been annihilated by the Japanese. But despite their triumphs over the Russians on the high seas, the Japanese failed to get all they felt they deserved at the peace table and blamed Roosevelt for it.
In the same year, anti-Japanese feelings were sweeping California. The San Francisco Board of Education ordered the segregation of all immigrant and descendent Japanese school children.
When the news of this reached Japan, violent anti-American protests broke out. Roosevelt managed to persuade the Board of Education to discontinue its segregation policy in exchange for an agreement with Japan to slow down its stream of immigrants into the United States.
Roosevelt didn't want a break with Japan, as the United States was ill-prepared for war. Most of our battle fleet was concentrated in the Atlantic, and there were only a handful of armored cruisers on duty in the Pacific. In the event of war with Japan, this small contingent that made up the Asiatic Battle Fleet would have to abandon the Philippines for West Coast ports until the United States had strength enough to go on the offensive.
Thus, to impress upon Japan that the US Navy could shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Roosevelt ordered the Great White Fleet to sail around the world.

U.S. Atlantic Fleet Battleships, steaming out of Hampton Roads, VA. , in December 1907, to begin their cruise around the World. Leading two ships are: Kansas (BB-21) and Vermont (BB-22).

     The President also wanted to find out what condition the fleet would be in after such a transit. As he stated before the fleet's departure, "I want all failures, blunders and shortcomings to be made apparent in time of peace and not in time of war."
But, more importantly, Roosevelt felt that a successful cruise of this magnitude would provide the American people with an example of US naval preparedness, strength and range. Such an impression, he hoped, would help him get the desired appropriations for four more battleships.
With the exception of the few highest ranking naval officials, nobody was aware of Roosevelt's intention to send the fleet around the world. Even the President's own cabinet didn't know about it. All anyone knew was that the fleet would be steaming from the east to West Coast in a training exercise.
Once the plans for the cruise became public, not everyone was impressed. Some critics felt that this show of force would encourage a Japanese attack on the fleet. Others were worried that the Atlantic naval defenses would be weakened by taking away so many ships. Also, it was reasoned, since the Panama Canal was unfinished, the ships would have to pass through the Straits of Magellan, an area that posed considerable danger because of tricky currents and great storms.
Senator Eugene Hale from Maine, chairman of the Naval Appropriations Committee, threatened to withhold money for the cruise. But this didn't bother Roosevelt, who replied in his typically brusque and forthright fashion that he already had the money and dared Congress to "try and get it back."
Nobody took Roosevelt up on his challenge and the Great White Fleet got underway that December morning, with the coal-burning ships' stacks spewing billowing clouds of black smoke into the gray sky. Aboard the flagship Connecticut, Rear Adm. Evans looked out with pride upon the majestic fleet under his command. He had stated earlier that his ships "were ready at the drop of a hat for a feast, a frolic or a fight".
Late on the first day of steaming, Evans passed the word to the officers and men of the fleet that after a short stay on the West Coast, the fleet would return home by way of the Pacific, through the Suez Canal, into the Mediterranean and then to the Atlantic. In short, they would be transiting the globe. When this announcement became general knowledge the next day, countries throughout the world tendered their invitations for the fleet to visit their ports.
The first leg of the cruise took the fleet into the South Atlantic. On Dec. 23, the fleet made its first port visit, at Port of Spain in Trinidad, a small island off the coast of Venezuela.
Trinidad, as most of the sailors discovered, rated a pretty low score when it came to liberty. According to one sailor, it was one of the most boring places he'd been to and he remarked, "When we pulled in, there were no people around and almost everything was closed up. Just one building was open that had any beer in it. By the time we made it to shore, the stuff was hot as hell. It was just like drinking boiler water."
Another sailor noted that, aside from "looking at the flowers and visiting a leper colony," there wasn't much to do. When the fleet left Port of Spain Dec. 29, enroute to Brazil, there were few if any, who longed to stay. All hoped for better liberty in the future. It couldn't get any worse.
On Jan.6, the fleet steamed across the equator and "Crossing the Line" ceremonies made up the plan of the day. Some 12,000 sailors were introduced to Davy Jones. Following proper initiation rights that included suffering through various indignities to make them worthy, all were welcomed into the exhaulted realm of King Neptune.

USS Wisconsin, (BB-9). The Royal Party of the ship's "Crossing the Line" ceremonies, during the cruise around the world, 1908.

     The fleet anchored in Rio de Janeiro on Jan.13. Unfortunately, there was an incident the first night that came close to shattering goodwill between the US Navy and Brazil.
It all began in one of Rio's rowdier drinking establishments when two local longshoremen got into an argument. In expressing his particular point of view, one of the longshoremen threw a beer bottle at the other. The bottle missed its intended target and continued its flight across the smoke-filled room. At the bar, a group of White Fleet sailors were enjoying a brew and good conversation when the wayward bottle found a target - a sailor from Louisiana. The rest is right out of a Hollywood movie. Sailors rallied around the victim, the longshoremen called up their reserves and the battle was joined.
When the shore patrol arrived, the donnybrook had flowed out into the street, as longshoremen and sailors threw rocks and bricks at each other. Shore patrol and local police brought about order, separated the combatants, and escorted the sailors back to their ships.
The next day, during an inquiry, Louisiana's master-at-arms testified that the "civilians seemed to be the aggressors." After all the evidence was in, Brazilian officials agreed with this assessment and, to improve relations, publicly invited the American sailors to continue to enjoy Rio.
There were no further incidents while the fleet was in Rio and the sailors all had a good time. Many of them even joined in local political parades, marching gleefully with the locals and shouting slogans they probably didn't remotely understand. Brazilian President Penna gave high praise to what he termed "the glorious American Navy," and Penna's foreign minister showered the Navy with praise and described the visiting fleet as "the pride of the continent."
During the Rio visit, Evans suffered an attack of gout, an affliction that plagued him from the start of the voyage and would be responsible for his being relieved of command when the fleet arrived in San Francisco.
It was also in Rio that the first of many wild rumors about threats to the fleet began circulating. The Rio chief of police had been advised, through unknown sources, that anarchists were plotting to blow up the fleet. Nothing came of it, although Washington did cable for details. These rumors would follow the feet throughout its voyage and eventually gave the folks back home the impression that the Great White Fleet was in constant peril.
On Jan. 21, the fleet weighed anchor and got underway, leaving Rio and setting a course for the Straits of Magellan near the southern tip of So. America.
There, rumor had it, massive whirlpools could twist a ship completely around. Winds, known as wiliwaws, were said to be so wild that ships would be dashed to pieces on the rocky shores of such nightmarish labeled places as Delusion Bay, Desolation Island, Point Famine and Dislocation Point, all inhabited by cannibals, of course. One newspaper in California, the Sacramento Union, prophesied shipwreck and cannibalism should the White Fleet attempt the Straits. "We don't want our Jackies eaten by terrible Tierra del Fuegans," wrote the editor.
A Chilean cruiser met the fleet and guided it through the Straits. Although there was considerable fog and wind, the fleet completed its passage without mishap and encountered none of the calamities conjured up by the over-active imaginations of newspaper editors. Now in the South Pacific, the fleet set its track for Peru, following visits to Punta Arenas and Valparaiso, Chile.
Although normal day-to-day routine and training evolutions kept the sailors busy while underway, there were diversions after hours for those not on watch. Aboard the ships were pianos and phonographs, various games, plenty of playing cards, and handball and billiard equipments. There were also player pianos and silent movies.

"A Navy Barber", gives a shave to a battleship crewman, during the early 1900s.

     In referring to the movies, a White Fleet veteran assigned to Connecticut remarked, "They had one they showed us about 50 times … The Perils of Pauline. It was a film series. They might show number nine one day and then show number 47 the next. But we enjoyed it anyway; she was always in some kind of fix, getting thrown off cliffs and things like that."
The good times were earned by these sailors. There was the seemingly endless round of cleaning chores, watches and drills. But even for the hard-working deck force, life at sea wasn't quite so bad, not when compared to the jobs of the so-called "black gang" in the fire room below decks. At least topside, the deck force had the benefit of sunlight and breezes; below decks, the engineers' world was dominated by searing heat and coal dust.
Coal, commonly referred as "black diamonds," was the ship's sole source of power. Ships would normally go into port and take on coal every two weeks. "Coaling ship" was an all hands evolution and a dirty job. It would take several days to coal a ship. Afterward, the crew would spend several more days cleaning the ship, inside and out, fore and aft, since coal dust settled everywhere.

Members of the "Black Gang", stoke the coal burning power plants of the Battleships of the Great White Fleet. C. 1907-1908. 

      A member of the "black gang" on the battleship Connecticut described coaling day. "Our ship held about 2,000 tons of the stuff. All the deckhands would go down into the collier (coal supply ship) and fill these big bags with about 500 pounds. Then they'd hoist 'em over to us down in the coal bunkers and we'd spread out the coal with shovels until all the bunkers - about 20 - were full to the top."

U.S.S. Connecticut (BB-18), Flagship of Admiral Robley D. Evans, USN on the cruise around the world of the Great White Fleet, shown here at Callao, Peru, 1907. 

     On Feb. 20, the fleet pulled in to Callao, Peru, just north of Lima. Their arrival sparked a nine-day celebration that included commemoration of George Washington's birthday, a holiday the Peruvians felt they should share with their American friends to the north. Peruvian composer, Ce'sar Penizo, paid homage to the fleet by composing a special dance piece entitled "The White Squadron." Wishing the American sailors to feel at home, a small tugboat roved about the anchored ships, its passengers regaling the White Fleet crews with lively renditions of Cornell football cheers.

Merchants aboard the U.S.S. Connecticut (BB-18) at Colombo during the cruise around the world of the Atlantic Fleet in 1908. 

     Having absorbed an abundance of Peruvian hospitality, the White Fleet reluctantly got up steam to continue its journey northward to California, with an intermediate one-month stopover at Magdalena Bay in Baja California for gunnery practice.
The fleet arrived March 12 for its gunnery exercises at Magdalena Bay while California's coastal cities were trying everything in their power to get the fleet into their ports. Ulysses S. Grant Jr., a noted citizen of San Diego, went so far as to write Roosevelt to request that the fleet steam directly into San Diego harbor instead of anchoring at Coronado.
The President took this request under consideration and contacted the Navy Department about the possibility. Word came back that, should the fleet attempt anchoring in San Diego harbor, there was a good chance that the ships would remain permanently mired in the mud. Thus, Grant and his fellow San Diegans had to be content with greeting the fleet at Coronado.
When the fleet pulled in on April 14, the sailors were greeted by thousands of enthusiastic residents as the great ships anchored off the Hotel del Coronado. Small boats of all descriptions surrounded the warships, and sailors were pelted with blossoms by "Flower Committees" and filled to capacity with free lemonade by "Fruit Committees." For the next four days, San Diego celebrated, and the White Fleet sailors were given the royal treatment that ended only with the fleet's departure for Los Angeles on April 18.
In Los Angeles, the officers and men were feted to such entertainments as a giant Spanish barbecue, thrilled to a breathtaking balloon ascension by a group of daring aeronauts, and cheered a number of prize fights between well-known local pugilists.
Meantime, as the fleet was being pampered and honored by the good citizens of L.A., Santa Cruz, to the north, was gearing up for its welcome to the fleet and attempting to crowd out rival Monterey just across the bay. But when the Santa Cruz town fathers got the word that only part of the fleet would be visiting their community, they were so upset that they threatened to call off the entire reception if they weren't visited by all the ships. The Navy relented and Santa Cruz got its wish, after the fleet visited Santa Barbara and Monterey.
When the fleet arrived in San Francisco on May 6, the hills surrounding the city by the Bay were packed with thousands of greeters, many brought in by special trains from outlying communities. San Francisco greeted the fleet in its typical warm-hearted and ostentatious fashion by staging a 48-hour ball at the Fairmont Hotel where dinners normally went for $10 per plate. The officers and men of the Great White Fleet were treated to a welcome they would long remember.
During the sailor's stay in 'Frisco, the citizens went so far as to pitch tents in Jefferson Square and Portsmouth Square for White Fleet sailors who ran out of hotel money.
While in San Francisco, the battleships Maine and Alabama were replaced by USS Nebraska (BB-14) and USS Wisconsin (BB-9). The reason behind this change was due to Maine's and Alabama's voracious appetite for coal. They seemed to eat up more "'black diamonds" than any other ships in the fleet.
San Francisco was also the last port-of-call for fleet commander Evans, still suffering from gout. He was relieved by Rear Adm. C. M. Thomas. Thomas then commanded some of the ships during visits to ports in Washington State, including Seattle, Bellingham and Tacoma.
Thomas nearly missed movement when that part of the fleet was ready to get underway for the Northwest visits. He was to have been picked up at his hotel lobby by auto and driven to his flagship. As a precaution, two autos were sent to be sure he made it, but a traffic cop noticed that the kerosene tail-lamp on the first car had been blown out, violating a city traffic ordinance.
Putting the first car out of action, the observant police officer noticed that the back-up car also had a blown tail-lamp. Luckily, the driver was able to re-light that lamp, and after some smooth talking, convinced the cop to let the admiral's car proceed. Thomas made it to his ship, and San Francisco was inspired to change its auto lamp law.
The fleet visit up and down the West Coast was one week shy of three months. That part of the cruise was like a constant party, with everyone, sailor and civilian alike, celebrating this great adventure. On July 7, the fleet, now reassembled under Rear Adm. Charles Sperry, bid farewell to San Francisco and weighed anchor to continue its journey across the Pacific.
On July 16, the fleet arrived in Hawaii. After a six-day layover at Pearl Harbor, where it was feted with luaus and sailing regattas, the great armada got underway for New Zealand, anchoring in Auckland on Aug. 9. The New Zealanders gave the fleet a very warm reception and invited Sperry and his staff to observe tribal ceremonies at a Maori village. At the conclusion of one of the dances, a tribesman bounded from the circle of dancers. Halting before the admiral and his staff, the Maori dancer broke into a broad, toothy smile and explained, "bully!" Even among these rustics in the outback of New Zealand, Roosevelt had made his mark, to the great surprise and amusement of Sperry and his staff.
On Aug. 15, the fleet sailed for Sydney, Australia, where it arrived five days later. The fleet was greeted by more than 250,000 people, who had stayed up all night so as not to miss the ships' arrival. For the next eight days, there was a non-stop celebration in honor of the Navy visitors.
With all this celebrating, some of the crewmen were beginning to feel the wear and tear. One sailor was found asleep on a bench in one of Sydney's parks. Not wishing to be disturbed, he posted a sign above his head which read:
"Yes, I am delighted with the Australian people.
"Yes, I think your park is the finest in the world.
"I am very tired and would like to go to sleep."
Being truly hospitable, Sydney let him sleep.
Melbourne also rolled out the red carpet for the fleet. Nothing was too good for the Yankee sailors, and they were given the key to the city. Melbourne's hospitality made such an impression that many sailors were reluctant to leave when the ships got underway for Manila on Sept. 18 and arrived Oct. 2.

USS. Connecticut (BB-18). View taken c.August 1908, showing Lt. John E. Lewis, USN, with the kangaroo mascot presented to the ship by the citizens of Sydney, Australia, at the occasion of the U.S. Fleet's visit to that port during the round-the-world cruise, 1907-1908.

     There was no liberty in Manila, due to a cholera epidemic, but the mail caught up with the fleet and, just like in today's Navy, mail call was the highlight of day. One White Fleet veteran remembered one man aboard the Connecticut who couldn't read. He said whenever this fellow got mail, "He'd have someone read his letters to him. And he'd make whoever was doing it stick cotton in his ears so he wouldn't be able to hear what he was reading. He thought he could keep his privacy that way."
From Manila the squadron turned north for Japan on Oct. 10. While enroute in the South China Sea, the fleet ran into one of the worst typhoons in 40 years. According to one sailor, "The typhoon happened right off Formosa. All you could see, when a ship was in trough, was the trunk of its mast above the wave tops. That was all you could see of an entire battleship. Then our turn would come to go into a trough, and we couldn't see anything for a while."
In riding out the storm, there was a moment of high drama, when as the sailor recalled, "Something happened that you're just not going to believe. One of the sailors on a ship in our squadron was picked up and washed overboard by a big wave. Then that same wave carried him over to another ship in another squadron and it threw him up on the deck."

USS Kansas (BB-21). Japanese children & other visitors aboard the ship, during one of the "Great White Fleet's" stops in Japan, 1908.

      The fleet came through the typhoon unscathed, and as it approached Tokyo Bay and Yokohama, Sperry circulated a directive concerning liberty in Japan. In it he stated that, to insure against diplomatically damaging incidents, "only first-class men, whose records showed no evidence of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor," would be allowed ashore. And, in reference to a planned reception for the crew, the directive went on to state that "the men will be made to understand that this, though an entertainment, is a matter of military duty" and all sailors should conduct themselves accordingly.
On Oct. 17, the day before the fleet's arrival, the Yokohama newspaper, Boyaki Shimpo came out with what it called a "Fleet Banzai Number," and showered printed praise upon the fleet. When the US ships arrived the next day, they were escorted into the bay by three Japanese destroyers, while on shore, school children sang "Hail Columbia" and the "Star-Spangled Banner."
Japanese hospitality was indeed overflowing. All flag officers of the fleet were accommodated at the Emperor's Palace, while the ships' captains occupied suites at Tokyo's elegant Imperial Hotel. Junior officers were presented with railroad passes, and selected enlisted men were given free trolley car privileges. For the entire week the fleet was in Japan, there was a constant round of celebrations, balls and parties. Adm. Togo of the Imperial Japanese Navy gave a garden party; Premier Katsura hosted a formal ball; and 50,000 Tokyo citizens honored the fleet with a torchlight parade.
During a champagne party aboard the Japanese battleship Nikasa, Sperry suffered an indignity, albeit unintended by his Japanese navy hosts. It occurred when a group of exuberant Imperial Navy cadets suddenly picked up Sperry and hurled him into the air three times, shouting "Banzai!" with each liftoff. In Japanese naval circles, the Banzai cheer and tossing were considered tributes. This was explained to a ruffled Sperry after he was placed back on the deck, gasping and trying to straighten out his twisted sash, dislocated sword and wrinkled uniform. Sperry accepted the tribute as graciously as possible under the circumstances.
One of the first diplomatic gestures came about, not as part of an elaborately planned ceremony, but occurred spontaneously during a crisis. On the night of Oct. 22, a flimsy arch, honoring the fleet, caught fire and the flames began creeping up one side of the arch toward a Japanese flag anchored on a pole at the top. Three US sailors and a Marine raced toward the scene. The Marine, reaching the blazing arch first, climbed the clear side of the arch and retrieved the Japanese flag before the flames engulfed it. In the crowd that had gathered, the Japanese went wild and the gusty Marine was hoisted onto shoulders and paraded about the streets. Another small but important diplomatic coup had been scored by the Great White Fleet.
The fleet's Japan visit had the desired result: it generated good will between both countries and eased tensions that might otherwise have led to open conflict. Much of the credit goes to Sperry, whose skill as a diplomat and professionalism as an officer were crucial.

Officers of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet who were entertained by the Japanese Minister of War in Tokyo, Japan, while the Great White Fleet was on a cruise around the world, 1907-1908.

     After Japan, half the fleet steamed back to Manila for a month's gunnery practice and the other eight ships set course for the Formosa Straits and the Chinese island of Amoy. The Peking government was prepared to welcome 16 battleships, but when only eight arrived, the local officials were a little disappointed and embarrassed. Though this slight was due to operational requirements and unintentional on the fleet's part, it did contribute to the peculiar funk known to the Chinese as "losing face." But Peking rallied, and in order to "save face," told the people that the rest of the fleet was lost in a typhoon.
Because of a dangerous epidemic on Amoy, a specially-built entertainment center awaited the officers and men of the fleet. All food and drink was brought in from Shanghai, along with rickshaws, mandarin chairs, horses and wagons. It was on Amoy that many of the sailors were introduced to the oriental delicacy of shark fin soup.

Officers of the Great White Fleet in Amoy, China, 1 November 1908. Adm William H. Emory, USN. Radm Seaton Schroeder, USN, Imperial Manchu Prince Yo Lang H.E, Sung Shou Viceroy are among the guests. 

      Concluding its call on Amoy, the eight ships steamed back to Manila to join the rest of the fleet on maneuvers. From there, the entire fleet sailed into the Indian Ocean, making a port call at Colombo, Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), which lies off the southeastern coast of India. While in Ceylon, the officers and crew were swamped with complimentary tea from none other than Sir Thomas Lipton, a man whose familiar face, even today, adorns boxes of tea bags found in supermarkets throughout the United States.
Christmas of 1908 was celebrated by the fleet as it crossed the Indian Ocean enroute to the Arabian Sea. During the holiday underway, the ships were decorated with palms, colored streamers, coconuts and other fruit. Holiday routine was set throughout the ships and sailors enjoyed a number of competitions, including potato races, three-legged races, sack races and bobbing for oranges.
Steaming through the Suez Canal, the fleet took on coal in Port Said, Egypt. While in Port Said, Sperry received word of a terrible earthquake that had struck Messina, Sicily. After coaling up, Connecticut and Illinois set a course for Messina at top speed. When they arrived, sailors did everything they could to assist the beleaguered city. One of their tasks was to search for the American consul's daughter, who disappeared during the quake. But the search was in vain. They never found her.

Refugees waiting for transportation at Messina, where the U.S.S. Culgoa (AF-3) and U.S.S. Yankton fed many of these hungry Sicilians, 1908.

       The other White Fleet ships split into several parties after leaving Port Said and visited Algiers, Tripoli, Naples, Marseille, Athens and Malta. Regrouping once again on Feb. 6, the fleet made a final stop at Gibraltar and then steamed out into the Atlantic, the ships' bands playing "Home Sweet Home" on this last leg of the voyage.
Having crossed the Atlantic, the fleet arrived at Hampton Roads, Va., on a rainy Feb. 22, 1909, ending its 14-month odyssey. Steaming into the Roads, the ships, looking not quite as white as when they started out, but majestic nonetheless, had their bands belt out the rollicking tune "Strike Up The Band," followed by the slower, more poignant strains of "There's No Place Like Home."
The enthusiasm of the cheering multitudes waiting on shore to greet the fleet was not dampened by the inclement weather, and once again aboard the presidential yacht Mayflower, Roosevelt responded to the rendering of the fleet's 21-gun salute with enthusiastic waves. With only two weeks left in the White House before turning over the reins of government to his successor, William Howard Taft, the return of the fleet and the success of its mission prompted Roosevelt to declare later that this cruise was "the most important service that I rendered for peace."
A White Fleet sailor remembered the homecoming . "We hit Hampton Roads on Washington's Birthday and it was raining. But by golly, we celebrated with hardtack and sow belly dinner that day. Later, all the deckhands had to go to Washington and parade in the snow for (president-elect) Howard Taft."
The cruise of the Great White Fleet had many substantial results both diplomatically for the nation and technically for the Navy. On the diplomatic side, the cruise satisfied our country's desire to be recognized as a world power. It was aptly proven that the United States was capable of projecting its influence anywhere in the world on a heretofore unprecedented scale.
Our relations with the countries visited were improved or initially established in a positive way. The most important improvement of relations was with Japan, the main diplomatic target from the beginning. The visit by the fleet provided the main thrust behind the Root-Takahira Agreement that went into effect shortly after the fleet's return. According to this treaty, the United States and Japan agreed to maintain the status quo in the Pacific and to respect each other's possessions there. Also, both nations consented to respect the "Open Door" policy in China and the independence and territorial integrity of that country.

Operationally, the cruise was a resounding success. Initially, the detractors of the enterprise didn't think the ships would be capable of making the 'round-the-world' transit without continually breaking down. Yet there were no serious repair of maintenance problems; there were no breakdowns or serious accidents.
The voyage brought to light various technical defects in ship design. It was found that, due to the heavy weather encountered, there was a need for greater size and displacement of ships; shipboard habitability wasn't adequate and ventilation had to be improved; hull casement shutters couldn't keep the water out in rough seas; rapid-fire guns placed close to the waterline could not be used effectively since spray and water shipping into the gun ports were distracting to the crews; and the lofty upperworks of the ships were found to be comfortable for peacetime conditions but would be "shell exploders" during wartime.
In addition, the old-style military masts and "fighting tops" were replaced by new cage masts with fire-control tops; top-heavy bridges and charthouses were removed and replaced by open bridges; light-weight torpedo-defense guns gave way to more powerful pieces; and new fire-control gear as fitted out on the ships.

President Theodore Roosevelt addressing officers and men on-board U.S.S Connecticut (BB-18) at Hampton Roads, Virginia, after cruise around the world by the Great White Fleet, 1909.

Sperry also recommended that the ships of the Navy should have their coloration changed from white to gray, something naval officers had been recommending for years. It was felt that Navy ships should not be in "holiday colors" going into battle.
The cruise provided the officers and men of the fleet with thorough at-sea training and brought about improvements in formation steaming, coal economy, gunnery and morale. It also stressed the need for overseas bases that could provide better coaling and supply services along with more auxiliary ships. Foreign coaling ships or ports were used 90 percent of the time for coaling and resupply.
For the sailors who participated in this historic once-in-a-lifetime adventure, the cruise reinforced their pride in service and country. They had been the ambassadors of good will and the vehicles through which others perceived and judged America and the Navy. The results were gratifying. But even more concretely, the sailors saw their individual roles and the role of the Great White Fleet as providing the muscle behind US foreign policy.
As one sailor succinctly put it, "We just wanted to let the world know we were prepared for anything they wanted to kick up. We wanted to show the world what we could do."

The seizures of the American Sailors by Iran...

This is a quick rant....well kinda a quick rant by me.  I will add a post by Matt Bracken to bolster what I am saying.  Once I heard of this I immediately knew this was an attempt for Iran to humiliate the United States, especially before the State of the Union address.  Once I heard that we had "lost contact" with BOTH boats...this stank of 6 day old fish...They got jumped and communications jammed in the middle of the ocean.  No way both boats would have a "mechanical" breakdown the odds of this happening at the same time is the same as me winning the powerball.

  I believe that the Iranians orchestrated this and President Obama and John Kerry  so wanting a legacy involving the Iranians totally surrendered to the Iranians....Makes great propaganda for the locals.  Iran wants us out of the Persian Gulf.  Remember the undeclared war we fought in the late 80's with them, The Iranians would mine the shipping lanes and shoot silkworm missiles at Oil Tankers.  We in retaliation shot up several of their oil platforms and captured an Iranian dhow full of mines.  We have traversed that area for many years and I am sure that the Iranians knew our shipping schedules.  I am just an Army guy, but this seizures of American sailors is designed to make us look weak and ineffective and with the current denizen on the white house, they are succeeding.

I am cutting and pasting this article from Matt Bracken.

Matt Bracken in the 80's

I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat's icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats "strayed into Iranian waters" is complete bull$#it.

For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.

This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a "hands up!" situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America's face.

Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.

The "strayed into Iranian waters" story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other.

Another take on the Iraqi mess.....

I have been real busy and until I get a tablet to put my various brain squeezing into a tangible form and post it like a squared away blogger does rather than wait until I get home then try to remember a salient point I had though of 4 hours prior.   Perhaps one day....  But anyway I ripped this off from GOC "Grouchy Old Cripple."  

The France Of The Middle East

June 17, 2014

Iraq has officially become the France of the Middle East. Why do I say that? Two reasons.
Reason Number one. We spent blood and money to liberate Iraq from a bloody dictator. You would think they would show some gratitude by signing oil contracts with American companies. Instead, they turned to China, thus displaying the gratitude the French had for us after we kicked Hitler out of their country.
Reason number two. The Iraqi Army. Didja see them displaying French military strategy? They dropped their weapons, tore off their uniforms, and fled like French pussies. It’s telling that they wore civilian clothes under their uniforms so they would be able to run away and blend in with the crowds. Their cowardice was premeditated, just like French cowardice.
Al-Maliki, who wanted us to leave Iraq, is now begging us to return. Sorry dude. That ship has sailed. You wouldn’t clamp down on Monkey Boy and you wouldn’t sign a status of forces agreement with us. You’re getting just what you deserve. This is what your ingratitude has earned you. Go to China for help since you got so friendly with them and you’re selling them your oil.
So oil prices are going up. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that Keystone Pipeline that Obungler has refused to build? Wouldn’t it be nice if the Dimocrats had allowed us to drill in ANWR? Wouldn’t it be nice if the oil companies could drill on federal land, sumpin’ Obumbler has been against for the last six years? Howza ’bout drilling in the Gulf, another thing Oblunder has been against? Isn’t it great that we have had the fracking boom, sumpin’ the enviro-tards and Dimocrats have been against?
So, as you gas up your cars the next few months and see gas prices rise look in the mirror. If you voted for Oblamebush, you are part of the problem.
Isn’t it amazing how just about every foreign policy decision Oboner has made has been wrong, Libya was doing just fine until the French (the French?) wanted to overthrow Qadaffy. Qadaffy was nowhere near the brutal dictator Saddam was and the French were against that war. Qadaffy had given up his WMD programs after he saw Saddam pulled out of that little hole in the ground. He was neutered. But Obeavis “led from behind” and allowed the French to turn Libya into the anarchy it is today. An American ambassador even lost his life due to the incompetence of Obutthead and Thunder Rodent Thighs. I don’t really care about the ambassador since he was an Obeauzeau supporter and got what he deserved for trusting him and TRT. It’s the three other Americans I’m pissed about.
Remember Obambi and Plugs telling us over and over that al Qaeda was “on the run”? It sure is. It’s running at full speed toward Baghdad. Yet another foreign policy “success” for this incompetent dickhead. Thanks Obongo voters for inflicting this incompetent asshole on us.
We’re doomed!

"PEACE IN OUR TIME....."

In a few short years Obama has either through design or pure incompetence has managed to alienate 2 major allies of the United States...One is Britain who until recently was our number 1 ally, we have had a special relationship that started from Winston Churchill through President Bush.  But Obama has manage to upset that, by his insults and actions have angered and dismayed the British.  The end results was that Britain would not back our play to bomb the Syrians.  Britain who until now would have done whatever we have asked because we had that kind of relationship.  I am hopeful that the next President will try to rebuild the friendship,  and it will take time for the scars to heal.   Now he has done the same thing with the Israeli's whom already had doubts about the will of the United States with Obama at the helm.   John "Flipper" Kerry at the behest of President Obama opened a dialogue with the Iranians to make a deal with them.  President Obama is hoping for a major foreign policy splash like when Richard Nixon went to China in the early 70's and split the Sino-Soviet alliance.   The same Iranians that is a religious theocracy with the mad mullah's in charge.  They believe in the 12th Iman which would signify the power of Islam to unify the world under the banner of Mohammed.  Iran has been at war with us since 1979 when they seized our embassy precipitated the Hostage Crisis and for 444 days they held our people until Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President in 1981.  Since that time Iran has been involved on the opposite sides of the United States, We supported Saddam Hussein in his war against the Iranians by providing him with equipment and intelligence to be used against the Iranians.  The phrase the enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind.  It is Ironic that a few years later, we would attack the Iraqi's to force them to leave Kuwait.   We also had a brief war with the Iranians during Operation "Earnest Will" when we reflagged Kuwaiti tankers after Iran was throwing mines and silkworm missiles at the tankers in an attempt to close the Persian Gulf to the West. 
     During our recent trip to the sandbox, a lot of the fighters and insurgents against the United States were Iranians, their Revolutionary Guards would train, equip, supply the IED's used and even quite a few suicide bombers came from their ranks.  Iran wants to be come the main player in the middle east.  They along with the Russians are the biggest supporters of the Syrian government.  This is a big concern to Israel, is the influence of the Iranians on Syria.  There is a belief that once Israel bombs the Iranian reactors, the Iranians will use their relationship with the Syrians to have them attack Israel across the Golan Heights and spreading the internal conflict of Syria into Israel.  Israel already have little faith in the United States to help them if they are attacked.  After President Obama and his cabal of amateurs took the reins of foreign policy it has been one lurch after another with various train-wrecks along the way.  Israel believes that they will be alone, the only western based republic in the middle east is in danger of being wiped out.  Many believe that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it against Israel, knowing that the United States would be paralyzed by indecision to retaliate or defend the Israeli's  against the attacks by Iran.
    

    President Obama sends John * flipper* Kerry to work an agreement with the Iranians, you know the same John Kerry that threw his country under the bus during the winter soldier hearings in 1971 where he stated that all American Soldiers were killers and rapists of the Vietnamese.   We call him *Flipper* because he supported the war in Iraq...then he changed his mind because it was politically expedient to be against it.

Any deal with the Iranians would be bad for us and Israel.  I have no faith in those political hacks to do the right thing.  It is politically expedient and that is all that it matters to the Obama White-house.  I can't understand why most people of Jewish faith still blindly support President Obama and his policies, even though they are a detriment to Israel who is the only Western based country in the middle east and is our staunchest friend in the region.  There is another country that is very unhappy with the arrangement and that is Saudi Arabia, they are mostly Sunni with a Shia minority.    
In a way, this marks a deeper shift in relations with Saudi Arabia than with Israel. Saudi Arabia has been under British and later American protection since its creation after World War I. Under the leadership of the Sauds, it became a critical player in the global system for a single reason: It was a massive producer of oil. It was also the protector of Mecca and Medina, two Muslim holy cities, giving the Saudis an added influence in the Islamic world on top of their extraordinary wealth.
It was in British and American interests to protect Saudi Arabia from its enemies, most of which were part of the Muslim world. The United States protected the Saudis from radical Arab socialists who threatened to overthrow the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. It later protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. But it also protected Saudi Arabia from Iran.
Absent the United States in the Persian Gulf, Iran would have been the most powerful regional military power. In addition, the Saudis have a substantial Shiite minority concentrated in the country's oil-rich east. The Iranians, also Shia, had a potential affinity with them, and thereby the power to cause unrest in Saudi Arabia. Until this agreement with Iran, the United States had an unhedged commitment to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iranians. Given the recent deal, and potential follow-on deals, this commitment becomes increasingly hedged. The problem from the Saudi point of view is that while there was a wide ideological gulf between the United States and Iran, there was little in the way of substantial issues separating Washington from Tehran.With the exception of the nuclear program.